Photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 11% from sunlight into energy stored in biomass (eg. the plant). But in the wild, it's only 3-6% efficient.
Familiar PV cells already get 15-25% efficiency; experimental concentration cells get over 45%. And the PV outputs electric current, not just biomass to burn inefficiently.
Those cells cost a lot more energy to make than plants do, but they last over 30 years, while most plants don't.
I'm not so sure that mimicking photosynthesis is such a great way to go.
the new drives are speculated to be offering lower capacity as a tradeoff for faster seek and write times
How about if they make drives with very thin platters, but stack them up into individually addressable bit slices of the bytes they store? Then the time to read a single bit from the rotating media could read an entire byte, reassembled in the logic.
Or if the platters can't be that thin, how about sacrificing some storage capacity for say 2x2 platters, which could give 4x parallelism.
That parallel access might stave off competition from solid state drives for a couple extra years.
How do I get an account with a mobile carrier in the US, so this device can actually connect to a wireless phone network and actually make calls?
Is every carrier going to charge me some ripoff fee for an account because I didn't buy my phone from them? Or maybe this unlocked phone will finally let me buy an account with multiple carriers, so I don't get ripped off when "roaming" that does the exact same thing.
When will the US let me choose my mobile phone carrier the way I choose my PC's ISP?
But the driver is in beta. X itself needs the drivers to be improved, so video can play back in desktop windows, etc.
But with just a little more tweaking, the PS3 would be a fantastic MythTV frontend. $400 or less for 1080p, Blu-Ray, 5.1 optical audio out, Bluetooth/WiFi...
It's FOSS. If you help the project, you might just put PS3/Linux over the edge into a simple media terminal that destroys Windows and Mac attempts to dominate home media centers.
I guess it's not just just San Francisco and New York that you Republicans hate - it's any city. Or maybe that's just code for "Black people", like a standard issue racist Republican.
Funny how South Chicago's "worldview" doesn't stop at asking tough guys nicely, but is known for utterly destroying its enemies. Just as Obama will utterly destroy Old Man WcCain.
Despite your typically Republican contradictory nonsense, Anonymous Republican Coward, I would indeed take the "South Chicago worldview" over WcCain's, which simply depends on which Republican lobbyist most recently handed him his marching orders. A worldview that hasn't been part of ruining this country, unlike WcCain who's never had a job that didn't have "Uncle Sam" signed at the bottom.
In six months, Obama will be president, and this program will get changed yet again by yet another chief.
Since every Bush "Cybersecurity Czar" has resigned in disgust since Bush created the office, that entire program will also have to be ripped out, too.
America's Internet defense system also has to protect us from nonmilitary lawbreakers like phishers, crackers and leakers. Plus those somewhere between, like the Russian mob crackers who joined Russia's government to attack Georgia this week, but spend most of their time just breaking banks and extorting corporations and individuals.
I'm really glad that we're going to get a new president who's actually smart for a change. We're really dodging a bullet with the Internet-illiterate WcCain offering a third term of Bush's catastrophic failures to protect anything except his own ass. Heckuva job, brownnose!
1957 was not the 1960s. By the 1960s, the Dixiecrats had given up being actual Democrats, and joined the Republican Party.
1964 was in the 1960s that you would proudly have called yourself a Republican in. That was the year that the actual law that we actually call the Civil Rights Act actually passed. Solidly opposed by only Southern Republicans and a few strays elsewhere. Southern Republicans which included those ex-Democrats. Who were proud enough to call themselves Republicans in the 1960s that they adopted the name professionally. Strom Thurmond, the ultimate Dixiecrat, turned Republican for the vast majority of his long racist career, starting in 1964 against the Civil Rights Act.
So I can see why you'd have been proud to call yourself a 1960s Republican. Because you'd rather cook up some other Civil Rights Act that isn't the one we're talking about. Because you'd rather use the 1950s as an example than the 1960s we're talking about. Because you evidently have no problem whatsoever doing everything you could to elect Nixon. All of which is consistent with being a Republican today.
I listen to Tom Morgan's "Jazz Roots" program 9AM/Central every Wednesday, streaming live from WWOZ.org, the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage radio station (connected to the massive Jazzfest, but independent - and commercial free). Morgan's got one of the biggest and deepest collections in the world of 78 RPM records, and plays them in very interesting playlists, narrated briefly and enthusiastically to illustrate what they were when they were released in the first part of the 20th Century.
If you're interested in the era recorded on 78s, tune to Morgan's WWOZ.org stream for probably the best presentation of them available.
1. How does that make Texas still a "very Red state"?
2. You would have been proud to consider yourself a Republican back when they were doing everything they could to stop the Civil Rights Act and to elect Nixon?
Texas right now is polling for McCain by only 7 points, which isn't "very Red" (Bush beat Gore and Kerry by 61:38% and 59:38% respectively, about 20 points).
Senator John Cornyn is beating his underfunded Democratic challenger by only 10 points, while Cornyn's approval rating is under 50% (usually a signal that an incumbent is going to be defeated on Election Day).
The Texas state legislature is only 4 switched seats (2.7%) from a Democratic majority.
All those districts have been carved out (gerrymandered) specifically for Republicans to gain the most seats - more so than in any other state. Those delegations come at the end of a period of Republican domination of the government (despite similarly thin margins nationwide) that prioritized overrepresenting Republicans everywhere, especially in big Southern places like Texas (the Bush HQ).
With all those advantages, the best the Republicans could do in Texas was a little better than the 50%+1 required for majority rule. Which majorities in every chamber have decreased steadily from initial large Republican gains. Trending back down towards the longtime Democratic majorities that controlled Texas until Bush Sr was the first Republican elected in the state, in the 1960s. Now that the Bush Dynasty is quickly waning, and Bush Sr himself near the end of his life at the center of a vastly powerful political network, Texas isn't looking nearly as Red as it once was.
By 2010, if not 2008, Texas will probably be as Blue as the rest of the USA.
I find your idiotic post, that doesn't even bother to explain how quantum states cannot indicate the particle's history, completely unscientific. And not even funny. More like "empty bullshit".
Are computers any more accurate at identifying a person by the sound of their voice than it is at identifying the words the person is speaking?
The main problem with voice recognition (for conversion to text) is variability in people's voices from a synthetic "standard" voice. Even a single person has variation depending on health, mood, age, and other factors. But can those variances be used to identify the person, even if the contents cannot be recognized into text? This is an application of deciding that the sampled sound is not a match to the reference voice, rather than trying to determine what text words match the sound that was sampled, which seems an easier task - as long as those variances can be accommodated in the match.
The "voiceprint" recognition would probably be more accurate if tested against a single spoken sample. And if that sample were a special sequence, practiced on its own, that might be a lot easier to repeat consistently than common words put together into a passphrase. And since humans have special skills for singing, which even uses different parts of the brain than speaking, and singing has special structures (pitches, melody, rhythm, rhyme, etc) for singing a phrase exactly the same every time (and hearing that one did not do so), singing a "signature song" might be the best way for a machine to recognize the singer.
Has anyone tried this, to compare its effectiveness?
What's your argument that Bush and his 2001-2006 Congressional majority were not Republicans? Of course they were Republicans. Not only are they all in the Republican Party, they voted in lockstep with each other. The most monolithic Republican Party in the modern age, probably ever. For whom 60M+ Americans, mostly registered Republicans, voted, for 3 straight elections, plus the even larger number voting for the Republican congressmembers 1994-1998.
With their majority, Republicans have ruled with an iron fist. Their project was called the "Permanent Republican Majority". They excluded minority congressmembers, the Democrats, to an unprecedented degree. Not only was Bush/Cheney by far the most secretive Executive in history, even "reclassifying" vast ranges of once public info, secret even from Congress (Democrats, anyway), but the Republicans routinely would release to Democrats for reading a bill to be voted on the night before the vote; bills of hundreds or thousands of pages, often complex lists of incoherent patches to existing large bodies of laws. Republicans even went so far as to threaten with "the Nuclear Option" minority right to filibuster: the Senate's "last resort" for extending and delaying debate before a vote at the personal cost of a senator actually standing up and talking for dozens of hours. The Nuclear Option would have totally unbalanced the power of the minority that the Senate had operated on for over two centuries, since its founding. Of course, Republicans have now filibustered in their minority since 2006 more times than any other Senate ever has, a matter of course, on practically every bill opposed by their party line, rather than merely voting their minority bloc and losing to the will of the majority. Even though the Democratic majority has brought to votes bills that are vastly more moderate than the draconian ones the Republicans routinely passed.
All that Republican partisan totalitarianism was exercised first with one of the slimmest possible majorities, over one of the largest possible minorities, with the two parties right up against the 50%+1 mark. Though Democrats now have a larger margin in their majorities in each chamber, Republicans filibuster and vote as a bloc so much that they are even more powerful stopping Congressional work than they were in doing it when they excluded Democrats.
There has never before been a party in the US as partisan, and voting completely consistent with its party policies, as has been Bush's Republican Party.
Bush was an "Evangelical" candidate, but Evangelicals are largely Republicans. Bush's policies have not been very "Evangelical", except as a way to destroy science and education where those institutions interfere with the Republican corporatist agenda. War in Iraq isn't very "Evangelical", as Saddam Hussein's regime was secular, and the (Republican) Christian Crusaders throughout Bush's government (especially in the Air Force) have used religious war as nothing but an excuse for an endless war that mainly fills their budgets with blank checks and unaccountable power. The "Evangelical" aspect is nothing but a mask for suckers. The vast substance of Bush's policies beneath that mask have been completely irrelevant to Evangelical interests. Even Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives Office" got shortchanged, with its #1 deputy dropping out to write one of the most scathing condemnations of Bush's congame, _Tempting Faith_.
You've got that "Blue Dog Democrat" argument wrong, too. The entire argument by Blue Dogs is that they have to act like Republicans to get elected in a Republican state like Nebraska. And Nebraska indeed does send Ben Nelson (D-NE) to the Senate on exactly that argument, though you say they wouldn't. Nelson then proceeded to vote with Democrats only slightly more than he did with Republicans. Nelson's Republican counterparts from Democratic states, like Gordon
I am bigger than you in every way, Anonymous Republican Coward. You don't shut the fuck up because you Republicans are so deep in denial of the irreparable damage you've done to my country that you still think you can open your mouths in public without demonstrating just how anti-American you are with every word.
So I will be perfectly happy to keep slapping you silly every time you poke yourselves out of the slimy cover of the nightmares you drape us all in. So easy, but indeed time consuming. Why don't you make it easier for us all, and return to your tribe of puny lunkheads, who are impressed with your crude typing?
Yes, of course. If you ran a business, you'd be a "libertarian" too, now, because now everyone knows "Republicans" run the country like a business: into bankruptcy, fire sale and embezzler's prison. So you have to start calling yourself "libertarian" so you can keep voting for the President of Sim City, instead of someone whose profession is governing.
If Canon just put a fuelcell camera on the market, that action would actually advance fuelcell technology across our industrial society. Just patenting it does nothing but stop everyone else from taking that step.
If it's impolite to look, then Japanese people shouldn't look at Google StreetView.
They're kidding themselves if they think people never look. I've been to Japan, I've known plenty of Japanese people here in NYC and in California. They're human like the rest of us, and some look, whether their neighbors want to live in denial of that or not.
If you leave your windows open to the public street, the public is sometimes going to look in your window. Google's camera trucks are no different, except that they're not pretending that they're not looking.
This whole thing reminds me of how people who don't want to see pictures of naked people try to stop anyone from looking at such pictures. If they don't like it, they don't have to look, and they can keep their clothes on and their windows curtained. That's what the rest of us actually do when we're serious about our privacy, not just about controlling other people instead of exercising self control over ourselves.
Wholesale messing with atmospherics without the barest understanding of the consequences is asking for trouble. Kicking a chaotic system hard enough to change its state has the power to shift it into a new groove. A new groove of weather that doesn't help humans survive as we have in the old one.
The Atlantis myth encodes a deep human taboo against messing with the weather as the highest, and most dangerous, exercise in vanity. China is doing an abysmal job protecting the atmosphere from all its other unbridled industrial activity. This latest stunt could really be daring nature to show us a real storm, or just take a hint and stop raining at all for some time. Or some other unpredicted change we can't handle.
Sure, you're not a Republican. Tell me that you're "really a Libertarian" or something. Or a "real Conservative". Who did you vote for in 2004?
I asked for a link to an unsupported, but highly bashing statement. When people make those kinds of claims, it's their job to back them up, especially when asked politely. No one has time to go searching for the evidence to back up each outrageous claim made on the Internet, especially not the ones routinely manufactured for Slashdot posts.
But someone who had the link posted it. And it's clear that the Democratic one is not "just the same as the Republican one" as you now claim. On what evidence do you base that claim? On the powerful fact that you "imagine the Democratic survey is about the same".
Who did you vote for in 2004?
You're a Republican. You're just a cowardly cop-out who votes Republican and denies it. For my part, despite being registered to no political party, I usually vote for the Democrat in most elections, because they're the best choice. I have never seen a Republican worth voting for, unless I were on a jury voting for hanging.
The fact is that here in reality, the Republicans have actually destroyed a country. Democrats at worst have squandered opportunities to lead the country into greatness, but their mismanagement has at worst still been sustainable. Not "as Republicans imagine it", but in reality. So when a horde of Republicans modded me out of sight when all I did was ask for a link so I could decide that pronouncement's truth for myself, I just called them out. And then even more of you creeps came out of the woodwork. Though along with that one person's post that proved you're all lying about the Democratic survey's quality compared to the Republican one.
You can go on and on about what you imagine. Here in reality, the Democratic survey is not "just as bad as the Republican one". The Democrats are not "just as bad as Republicans". And you Republicans, no matter what name you fancy yourself going by, are destroying the country. You people are full of nothing but nightmares that you use to destroy us, with truth as your first victim.
"The Democratic one [voter survey] is just as bad".
So I asked for a link to that Democratic voter survey.
I never got one.
But a bunch of Republican TrollMods modded me down for asking.
And now you, a Republican liar, talk some nonsense about a "strawman" argument. And say that the mods are some how "Democrats", when they're just simply capable of basic logical thought.
You Republicans have given up even claims to basic bran activity. You're the Terry Schiavo Party. After this cretinous election campaign you'll run on nothing but terror and lies, you'll barely be human. Looks like WcCain is just doing the best he can with what he's got: he's going to war with the supporters he has, not the supporters he wishes he has.
Yes, this is going to end badly. For Republicans like you. Why not? You've ended America badly for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 11% from sunlight into energy stored in biomass (eg. the plant). But in the wild, it's only 3-6% efficient.
Familiar PV cells already get 15-25% efficiency; experimental concentration cells get over 45%. And the PV outputs electric current, not just biomass to burn inefficiently.
Those cells cost a lot more energy to make than plants do, but they last over 30 years, while most plants don't.
I'm not so sure that mimicking photosynthesis is such a great way to go.
How about if they make drives with very thin platters, but stack them up into individually addressable bit slices of the bytes they store? Then the time to read a single bit from the rotating media could read an entire byte, reassembled in the logic.
Or if the platters can't be that thin, how about sacrificing some storage capacity for say 2x2 platters, which could give 4x parallelism.
That parallel access might stave off competition from solid state drives for a couple extra years.
How do I get an account with a mobile carrier in the US, so this device can actually connect to a wireless phone network and actually make calls?
Is every carrier going to charge me some ripoff fee for an account because I didn't buy my phone from them? Or maybe this unlocked phone will finally let me buy an account with multiple carriers, so I don't get ripped off when "roaming" that does the exact same thing.
When will the US let me choose my mobile phone carrier the way I choose my PC's ISP?
Moderation -1
100% Troll
Ask how bad stats are really good stats, and how someone could be proud to work against the Civil Rights Act and for Nixon, and TrollMods try to cover it all up.
There's no better demonstration of what Republicans have to be proud of than that Republican denial. Thanks for helping out!
Ubuntu runs on PS3, and there's now an accelerated video driver running on its SPU DSPs. I play HD (1080p) videos on my 50" HDMI DLP TV all the time, and they look fantastic.
But the driver is in beta. X itself needs the drivers to be improved, so video can play back in desktop windows, etc.
But with just a little more tweaking, the PS3 would be a fantastic MythTV frontend. $400 or less for 1080p, Blu-Ray, 5.1 optical audio out, Bluetooth/WiFi...
It's FOSS. If you help the project, you might just put PS3/Linux over the edge into a simple media terminal that destroys Windows and Mac attempts to dominate home media centers.
"World view from South Chicago"?
I guess it's not just just San Francisco and New York that you Republicans hate - it's any city. Or maybe that's just code for "Black people", like a standard issue racist Republican.
Funny how South Chicago's "worldview" doesn't stop at asking tough guys nicely, but is known for utterly destroying its enemies. Just as Obama will utterly destroy Old Man WcCain.
Despite your typically Republican contradictory nonsense, Anonymous Republican Coward, I would indeed take the "South Chicago worldview" over WcCain's, which simply depends on which Republican lobbyist most recently handed him his marching orders. A worldview that hasn't been part of ruining this country, unlike WcCain who's never had a job that didn't have "Uncle Sam" signed at the bottom.
In six months, Obama will be president, and this program will get changed yet again by yet another chief.
Since every Bush "Cybersecurity Czar" has resigned in disgust since Bush created the office, that entire program will also have to be ripped out, too.
America's Internet defense system also has to protect us from nonmilitary lawbreakers like phishers, crackers and leakers. Plus those somewhere between, like the Russian mob crackers who joined Russia's government to attack Georgia this week, but spend most of their time just breaking banks and extorting corporations and individuals.
I'm really glad that we're going to get a new president who's actually smart for a change. We're really dodging a bullet with the Internet-illiterate WcCain offering a third term of Bush's catastrophic failures to protect anything except his own ass. Heckuva job, brownnose!
1957 was not the 1960s. By the 1960s, the Dixiecrats had given up being actual Democrats, and joined the Republican Party.
1964 was in the 1960s that you would proudly have called yourself a Republican in. That was the year that the actual law that we actually call the Civil Rights Act actually passed. Solidly opposed by only Southern Republicans and a few strays elsewhere. Southern Republicans which included those ex-Democrats. Who were proud enough to call themselves Republicans in the 1960s that they adopted the name professionally. Strom Thurmond, the ultimate Dixiecrat, turned Republican for the vast majority of his long racist career, starting in 1964 against the Civil Rights Act.
So I can see why you'd have been proud to call yourself a 1960s Republican. Because you'd rather cook up some other Civil Rights Act that isn't the one we're talking about. Because you'd rather use the 1950s as an example than the 1960s we're talking about. Because you evidently have no problem whatsoever doing everything you could to elect Nixon. All of which is consistent with being a Republican today.
Congratulations! You're a proud Republican.
I listen to Tom Morgan's "Jazz Roots" program 9AM/Central every Wednesday, streaming live from WWOZ.org, the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage radio station (connected to the massive Jazzfest, but independent - and commercial free). Morgan's got one of the biggest and deepest collections in the world of 78 RPM records, and plays them in very interesting playlists, narrated briefly and enthusiastically to illustrate what they were when they were released in the first part of the 20th Century.
If you're interested in the era recorded on 78s, tune to Morgan's WWOZ.org stream for probably the best presentation of them available.
1. How does that make Texas still a "very Red state"?
2. You would have been proud to consider yourself a Republican back when they were doing everything they could to stop the Civil Rights Act and to elect Nixon?
Texas right now is polling for McCain by only 7 points, which isn't "very Red" (Bush beat Gore and Kerry by 61:38% and 59:38% respectively, about 20 points).
Senator John Cornyn is beating his underfunded Democratic challenger by only 10 points, while Cornyn's approval rating is under 50% (usually a signal that an incumbent is going to be defeated on Election Day).
The Texas delegation to the House of Representatives is only 19/32 (59%) Republican.
The Texas state legislature is only 4 switched seats (2.7%) from a Democratic majority.
All those districts have been carved out (gerrymandered) specifically for Republicans to gain the most seats - more so than in any other state. Those delegations come at the end of a period of Republican domination of the government (despite similarly thin margins nationwide) that prioritized overrepresenting Republicans everywhere, especially in big Southern places like Texas (the Bush HQ).
With all those advantages, the best the Republicans could do in Texas was a little better than the 50%+1 required for majority rule. Which majorities in every chamber have decreased steadily from initial large Republican gains. Trending back down towards the longtime Democratic majorities that controlled Texas until Bush Sr was the first Republican elected in the state, in the 1960s. Now that the Bush Dynasty is quickly waning, and Bush Sr himself near the end of his life at the center of a vastly powerful political network, Texas isn't looking nearly as Red as it once was.
By 2010, if not 2008, Texas will probably be as Blue as the rest of the USA.
I find your idiotic post, that doesn't even bother to explain how quantum states cannot indicate the particle's history, completely unscientific. And not even funny. More like "empty bullshit".
Are computers any more accurate at identifying a person by the sound of their voice than it is at identifying the words the person is speaking?
The main problem with voice recognition (for conversion to text) is variability in people's voices from a synthetic "standard" voice. Even a single person has variation depending on health, mood, age, and other factors. But can those variances be used to identify the person, even if the contents cannot be recognized into text? This is an application of deciding that the sampled sound is not a match to the reference voice, rather than trying to determine what text words match the sound that was sampled, which seems an easier task - as long as those variances can be accommodated in the match.
The "voiceprint" recognition would probably be more accurate if tested against a single spoken sample. And if that sample were a special sequence, practiced on its own, that might be a lot easier to repeat consistently than common words put together into a passphrase. And since humans have special skills for singing, which even uses different parts of the brain than speaking, and singing has special structures (pitches, melody, rhythm, rhyme, etc) for singing a phrase exactly the same every time (and hearing that one did not do so), singing a "signature song" might be the best way for a machine to recognize the singer.
Has anyone tried this, to compare its effectiveness?
"Not a Republican"?
What's your argument that Bush and his 2001-2006 Congressional majority were not Republicans? Of course they were Republicans. Not only are they all in the Republican Party, they voted in lockstep with each other. The most monolithic Republican Party in the modern age, probably ever. For whom 60M+ Americans, mostly registered Republicans, voted, for 3 straight elections, plus the even larger number voting for the Republican congressmembers 1994-1998.
With their majority, Republicans have ruled with an iron fist. Their project was called the "Permanent Republican Majority". They excluded minority congressmembers, the Democrats, to an unprecedented degree. Not only was Bush/Cheney by far the most secretive Executive in history, even "reclassifying" vast ranges of once public info, secret even from Congress (Democrats, anyway), but the Republicans routinely would release to Democrats for reading a bill to be voted on the night before the vote; bills of hundreds or thousands of pages, often complex lists of incoherent patches to existing large bodies of laws. Republicans even went so far as to threaten with "the Nuclear Option" minority right to filibuster: the Senate's "last resort" for extending and delaying debate before a vote at the personal cost of a senator actually standing up and talking for dozens of hours. The Nuclear Option would have totally unbalanced the power of the minority that the Senate had operated on for over two centuries, since its founding. Of course, Republicans have now filibustered in their minority since 2006 more times than any other Senate ever has, a matter of course, on practically every bill opposed by their party line, rather than merely voting their minority bloc and losing to the will of the majority. Even though the Democratic majority has brought to votes bills that are vastly more moderate than the draconian ones the Republicans routinely passed.
All that Republican partisan totalitarianism was exercised first with one of the slimmest possible majorities, over one of the largest possible minorities, with the two parties right up against the 50%+1 mark. Though Democrats now have a larger margin in their majorities in each chamber, Republicans filibuster and vote as a bloc so much that they are even more powerful stopping Congressional work than they were in doing it when they excluded Democrats.
There has never before been a party in the US as partisan, and voting completely consistent with its party policies, as has been Bush's Republican Party.
Bush was an "Evangelical" candidate, but Evangelicals are largely Republicans. Bush's policies have not been very "Evangelical", except as a way to destroy science and education where those institutions interfere with the Republican corporatist agenda. War in Iraq isn't very "Evangelical", as Saddam Hussein's regime was secular, and the (Republican) Christian Crusaders throughout Bush's government (especially in the Air Force) have used religious war as nothing but an excuse for an endless war that mainly fills their budgets with blank checks and unaccountable power. The "Evangelical" aspect is nothing but a mask for suckers. The vast substance of Bush's policies beneath that mask have been completely irrelevant to Evangelical interests. Even Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives Office" got shortchanged, with its #1 deputy dropping out to write one of the most scathing condemnations of Bush's congame, _Tempting Faith_.
You've got that "Blue Dog Democrat" argument wrong, too. The entire argument by Blue Dogs is that they have to act like Republicans to get elected in a Republican state like Nebraska. And Nebraska indeed does send Ben Nelson (D-NE) to the Senate on exactly that argument, though you say they wouldn't. Nelson then proceeded to vote with Democrats only slightly more than he did with Republicans. Nelson's Republican counterparts from Democratic states, like Gordon
I am bigger than you in every way, Anonymous Republican Coward. You don't shut the fuck up because you Republicans are so deep in denial of the irreparable damage you've done to my country that you still think you can open your mouths in public without demonstrating just how anti-American you are with every word.
So I will be perfectly happy to keep slapping you silly every time you poke yourselves out of the slimy cover of the nightmares you drape us all in. So easy, but indeed time consuming. Why don't you make it easier for us all, and return to your tribe of puny lunkheads, who are impressed with your crude typing?
Yes, of course. If you ran a business, you'd be a "libertarian" too, now, because now everyone knows "Republicans" run the country like a business: into bankruptcy, fire sale and embezzler's prison. So you have to start calling yourself "libertarian" so you can keep voting for the President of Sim City, instead of someone whose profession is governing.
If Canon just put a fuelcell camera on the market, that action would actually advance fuelcell technology across our industrial society. Just patenting it does nothing but stop everyone else from taking that step.
If it's impolite to look, then Japanese people shouldn't look at Google StreetView.
They're kidding themselves if they think people never look. I've been to Japan, I've known plenty of Japanese people here in NYC and in California. They're human like the rest of us, and some look, whether their neighbors want to live in denial of that or not.
If you leave your windows open to the public street, the public is sometimes going to look in your window. Google's camera trucks are no different, except that they're not pretending that they're not looking.
This whole thing reminds me of how people who don't want to see pictures of naked people try to stop anyone from looking at such pictures. If they don't like it, they don't have to look, and they can keep their clothes on and their windows curtained. That's what the rest of us actually do when we're serious about our privacy, not just about controlling other people instead of exercising self control over ourselves.
Wholesale messing with atmospherics without the barest understanding of the consequences is asking for trouble. Kicking a chaotic system hard enough to change its state has the power to shift it into a new groove. A new groove of weather that doesn't help humans survive as we have in the old one.
The Atlantis myth encodes a deep human taboo against messing with the weather as the highest, and most dangerous, exercise in vanity. China is doing an abysmal job protecting the atmosphere from all its other unbridled industrial activity. This latest stunt could really be daring nature to show us a real storm, or just take a hint and stop raining at all for some time. Or some other unpredicted change we can't handle.
Sure, you're not a Republican. Tell me that you're "really a Libertarian" or something. Or a "real Conservative". Who did you vote for in 2004?
I asked for a link to an unsupported, but highly bashing statement. When people make those kinds of claims, it's their job to back them up, especially when asked politely. No one has time to go searching for the evidence to back up each outrageous claim made on the Internet, especially not the ones routinely manufactured for Slashdot posts.
But someone who had the link posted it. And it's clear that the Democratic one is not "just the same as the Republican one" as you now claim. On what evidence do you base that claim? On the powerful fact that you "imagine the Democratic survey is about the same".
Who did you vote for in 2004?
You're a Republican. You're just a cowardly cop-out who votes Republican and denies it. For my part, despite being registered to no political party, I usually vote for the Democrat in most elections, because they're the best choice. I have never seen a Republican worth voting for, unless I were on a jury voting for hanging.
The fact is that here in reality, the Republicans have actually destroyed a country. Democrats at worst have squandered opportunities to lead the country into greatness, but their mismanagement has at worst still been sustainable. Not "as Republicans imagine it", but in reality. So when a horde of Republicans modded me out of sight when all I did was ask for a link so I could decide that pronouncement's truth for myself, I just called them out. And then even more of you creeps came out of the woodwork. Though along with that one person's post that proved you're all lying about the Democratic survey's quality compared to the Republican one.
You can go on and on about what you imagine. Here in reality, the Democratic survey is not "just as bad as the Republican one". The Democrats are not "just as bad as Republicans". And you Republicans, no matter what name you fancy yourself going by, are destroying the country. You people are full of nothing but nightmares that you use to destroy us, with truth as your first victim.
"The Democratic one [voter survey] is just as bad".
So I asked for a link to that Democratic voter survey.
I never got one.
But a bunch of Republican TrollMods modded me down for asking.
And now you, a Republican liar, talk some nonsense about a "strawman" argument. And say that the mods are some how "Democrats", when they're just simply capable of basic logical thought.
You Republicans have given up even claims to basic bran activity. You're the Terry Schiavo Party. After this cretinous election campaign you'll run on nothing but terror and lies, you'll barely be human. Looks like WcCain is just doing the best he can with what he's got: he's going to war with the supporters he has, not the supporters he wishes he has.
Yes, this is going to end badly. For Republicans like you. Why not? You've ended America badly for everyone else.
Maybe this entire goddamn decade has been nothing but a Y2K bug in some virtual reality demo at some rave, jammed on "bummer" the whole time.
Can I get a reboot?
Moderation -1
70% Troll
30% Underrated
Explain where WcCain gets his troll army from, and an army of TrollMods attacks!
Moderation +1
30% Insightful
40% Troll
30% Underrated
Yep, asking for a link so we can think for ourselves is a "Troll". If the mod is a Republican in fullon denial clampdown, as their sky finally starts falling for real.
Link to this Democratic voter survey, so we can think for ourselves?