According to your snark, we've been in election season continuously since 1998.
No wonder the Republican government never does any of the governing the people send them to do. They're too busy campaigning around the clock, collecting bribes and spending on their cronies.
Conservatives are pretty "remote" from reality, so I guess any "Conservative" bullshit you post will be "remotely Conservative".
I note that as usual, the truth is exactly the opposite your lies: your AC troll has been modded "Insightful" by the TrollMod horde that backs you. An anonymous zombie army laying waste to every mind you touch.
What exactly is it that you "Conservatives" are conserving, anyway?
Many sensible observers are saying that the MCA violates at least the absolute requirement by the Constitution for habeas corpus, and will likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court within a year or two, and possibly prevented from application by injunction much sooner than that. It's not clear whether they can retroactively allow those violations, especially if they're unconstitutional, without legal consequences. Like finally finding criminal violations of the Constitution when found to be breaking its law, as in the unwarranted wiretapping decision this Summer.
OTOH, these Republican fascists have packed the Court with "unitary executive" traitors, and might get the chance at another one before any trial goes through. The fascists already got to the Wikipedia page enough to make it's neutrality "disputed", just like a Soviet Encyclopedia in the making.
Why would I take any advice from you? You're a liar, and are so deluded that you think people should only get called liar when they're "doing harm".
You're a liar. That's not "venom", that' the truth. The unvarnished truth, despite your incapacity to recognize something so unfamiliar.
Your summary of lies, your deep breaths - all bullshit. You've got nothing. Don't bother wondering in my presence - it's a wonder you even know how to breathe.
You're an idiot. "Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth, Blowing down the backroads headin' south. Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth, You're an idiot, babe. It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe."
It's always blown my mind that we can put a man on the moon (finally the cliche is appropriate:), but we can't get his phonecall clear to our TVs. I know it's hard, from across so far using so little power and with so much interference, but it's not rocket science (got that one, too, just barely!).
So in other words, you're just lying again, just like the last time you spouted off at me. Maybe you should eat your powerbook. It's quicker than just absorbing the pollution indirectly from your environment, so if you act now I won't have to listen to your lies any more.
Of course, you'll have to spit your foot out first.
Anonymous random Coward jumps in to claim some undefined "it" was a "joke", and that I should "calm down", when I am calm?
The only reason to reply to that ridiculous troll is to point out that people who say "asshat" usually think that they can run away from saying unfunny things that blow up in their face by calling it a "joke". Just because people are lauging at you, Anonymous Coward, doesn't mean you're joking. It means you're a joke.
Where is the Greenpeace assertion that Apple's laptops are "the dirtiest ever"? All there is asserted in the report is that Apple, by its own admission in its published documents, is "dirty" according to Greenpeace's published criteria. Lenovo, Motorola and Acer are all scored dirtier. Where are these Greenpeace laboratory test results, which have not been mentioned in this thread or the article?
Where is Greenpeace lionizing large companies with good PR departments (assumedly with dirty products)?
And how does "5% cheaper notebooks" benefit outweigh "poisons people" risk?
Which rampant speculation and grandstanding would that be, exactly?
You're still failing to distinguish between the probability that something bad can happen, and how bad it will be if it does happen. That's the distinction made in that Greenpeace policy. Which says that when knowing how bad it will be is impossible, that we should still stop using chemicals that are proven to pose substantial risk.
Aren't you just engaging in rampant conflation and grandstanding by ignoring that distinction and its prudence?
Do you have a citation of Greenpeace opposing a specific project with no evidence of risk, just the absence of evidence of safety, as you described? Because their policy that we're discussing explicity says that action should be taken on available evidence.
So there's yet another layer being conflated into bashing Greenpeace. There's evidence, risk, and harm. Their policy says evidence of risk, even without evidence of harm, means we shouldn't use the risky chemicals. Which sounds like a completely sensible policy, that we all use in our own lives. But if Greenpeace acts outside that policy, against chemicals (or, by extension, other products) without even evidence of risk, then there's a different argument, about whether Greenpeace even follows its own policy.
FWIW, "head in the sand" describes people who ignore risk as well as people who fear it despite evidence its harm is negligible. And our litigious/risk-averse society is commensurately full of irresponsible harm and ignored risks. Mostly to the benefit of chemical corps which risk and harm us with impunity. The unnecessary lawsuits are mostly exploiting oversimplification of even basic complexities like evidence/risk/harm evaluation. And the risk aversion is much more characteristic of corporations than of humans, as you can tell from the balance of lawsuits.
What the fuck does outlawing gambling have to do with theocracy? THEOCRATS PROHIBIT GAMBLING. Unless it's their own, like bingo, or state lotteries/horceracing.
Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?
You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.
Even if actual humans save your insane ass from the Republicans you keep in power, you're still going straight to hell.
In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too.
Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it). Here's how your Representative voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it). Here's how your Senators killed any control over US torture (again mostly excepting Democrats). The Senate is waiting to approve Theocracy Protection until after the November election.
Go to the polls and fire these people who are speaking in your name for torture and theocracy, an America run on the model of the Spanish Inquisition. Keep our country ruled by the people, instead of a class of professional torture priests.
"It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done"
emphasis mine.
They simply say that when evidence says some chemicals are risky, we should eliminate its use, even if proof of the harmful extent is impossible before it does the damage at risk.
You know, the way you avoid getting killed, even though no one can prove that you're going to hell.
The entire prudence of this Precautionary Principle rests on how to evaluate the evidence of risk. Once that's established, of course you stop before you might break something. Every 5 year old learns that. It's time we stopped letting our corporations work like bulls in our china shop.
Does anyone have any estimates of how much Unisys collected in blackmail^Wlicensing fees on GIF? And any analyst estimates on the costs of producing, defending and prosecuting that "submarine patent"?
Is the flagship submarine patent really worth the money Unisys sank into it? Worth the money the US government spent protecting it? Worth it to "the progress of science and useful arts"?
Well, that's pretty close to what I'm saying. The "life cycle" of the product is defined regardless of the costs:benefits tracked in that cycle, but they must be measured against one another. And yes, they must be measured against both perfect maximum efficiency, and the alternatives - including doing nothing.
In the case of solar, 15% efficiency of energy production across a 20 year lifecycle does look like a losing proposition compared to the energy costs of manufacture, deployment, maintenance and recycling. But it's close enough that maybe 25% efficiency would net win.
In the case of nuclear, especially considering the security risks and longterm maintenance costs, it's a net loss in energy.
Ethanol as used in the US is a losing proposition, but improvements in scaled economies and the more efficient local (only) consumption, combined with infrastructure upgrades like ethanol fuelcells powering DC equipment centers, show the potential for a more efficient alternative.
One of the interesting demos I saw at the Wired NextFest in NYC this week was a company that recycles mixed discarded appliances back into useful plastic stocks at 10% the cost of manufacturing new plastic from raw petrochemicals. Because their own waste fraction can be fed to processes like the CWT steam reformation into diesel oil. The plastic extraction seems to be 10x more efficient than current standard production, while the subsequent energy extraction produces probably somewhere around 4-5x the energy investment. Now, if someone could extract energy from the oil to produce plastic rather than CO2, we might be looking at a vastly more efficient process. Especially when factoring in the cost of currently emitting that CO2 (and other gases/wastes).
We must investigate this further, if only to find out whether the dodders are really the brains behind The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! And then hatch a scheme to stop their murderous rampages once and for all. Maybe a moratorium on ketchup will soothe their jihad...
These materials are recyclable, which is certainly a better setup than before. But my point is the energy costs of recycling. How much energy is consumed in remanufacturing PV into a second duty cycle? Per energy produced in its prior cycle? Plus original manufacture and other maintenance? This is not a rhetorical question - I've spent dozens of hours, maybe hundreds, over the past 5-10 years trying to get those numbers for my own construction plans.
A more rhetorical question is the energy budget of the PV powered satellites. Because the rockets launching them are so energy inefficient, especially when including their R&D, manufacturing, maintenance and pollution costs. Like with these notebook batteries, their PV is essential because it's the only way to run in their deployment environment, despite the huge inefficiency of their overall energy system.
Ultimately, practically all those energy inputs burn petrofuels (or a little nuclear, and a tiny bit of hydroelectic, and negligible other sources). So these "alternatives" look good in the narrow view of their operating hours, but their total lifecycle probably burns even more petrofuels than straight combustion power.
Energy consumption lies at the center of our economics, national security, and military, all interconnected at many levels. The only way to cut this gordian knot is to scale back the total energy consumption of all of these industries. Knowing the full true costs is an essential first step to reducing them.
Since the demented kid's family left the unstable kid alone playing that violent game for so long, especially while everyone is talking about how it might help broken people over the edge into acting out violence in real people, the whole crazy affair really looks like a complicated method of mass family suicide.
There oughtta be a law. Oh, there is? Who can we sue?
When looking at energy efficiency of power products, it's important to include the costs of manufacturing, maintenance and disposal. These true costs are what kills many power techs, like nuclear, most PV solar, and, say, slave boat rowers.
I wonder how much energy will be spent per battery, including roundtrip airfreight fuel and your reading this message that I write, before the battery's current lifecycle is over.
Of course those hidden costs aren't part of our decisions when we buy these devices to stay running away from tethered power for a plane flight. But they do count, and really add up when a massive recall is executed. Even the overall efficiency of a recalled car model must be impacted by the recall process.
Slashdot Mirror
We should make sure to tell our alien viewers that we can be harmed only by feeding us a few ounces of the finest chocolate or by frequent blowjobs.
According to your snark, we've been in election season continuously since 1998.
No wonder the Republican government never does any of the governing the people send them to do. They're too busy campaigning around the clock, collecting bribes and spending on their cronies.
Anonymous "Conservative" Coward trolls again!
Conservatives are pretty "remote" from reality, so I guess any "Conservative" bullshit you post will be "remotely Conservative".
I note that as usual, the truth is exactly the opposite your lies: your AC troll has been modded "Insightful" by the TrollMod horde that backs you. An anonymous zombie army laying waste to every mind you touch.
What exactly is it that you "Conservatives" are conserving, anyway?
Many sensible observers are saying that the MCA violates at least the absolute requirement by the Constitution for habeas corpus, and will likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court within a year or two, and possibly prevented from application by injunction much sooner than that. It's not clear whether they can retroactively allow those violations, especially if they're unconstitutional, without legal consequences. Like finally finding criminal violations of the Constitution when found to be breaking its law, as in the unwarranted wiretapping decision this Summer.
OTOH, these Republican fascists have packed the Court with "unitary executive" traitors, and might get the chance at another one before any trial goes through. The fascists already got to the Wikipedia page enough to make it's neutrality "disputed", just like a Soviet Encyclopedia in the making.
Why would I take any advice from you? You're a liar, and are so deluded that you think people should only get called liar when they're "doing harm".
You're a liar. That's not "venom", that' the truth. The unvarnished truth, despite your incapacity to recognize something so unfamiliar.
Your summary of lies, your deep breaths - all bullshit. You've got nothing. Don't bother wondering in my presence - it's a wonder you even know how to breathe.
You're an idiot.
"Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe."
It's always blown my mind that we can put a man on the moon (finally the cliche is appropriate :), but we can't get his phonecall clear to our TVs. I know it's hard, from across so far using so little power and with so much interference, but it's not rocket science (got that one, too, just barely!).
OK, so bigger tragedies mean the merely big ones don't count. And because you're a foreigner you can't be a fascist, too.
The world you live in is so far outside North America that I can barely hear your bleating from here.
So in other words, you're just lying again, just like the last time you spouted off at me. Maybe you should eat your powerbook. It's quicker than just absorbing the pollution indirectly from your environment, so if you act now I won't have to listen to your lies any more.
Of course, you'll have to spit your foot out first.
Anonymous random Coward jumps in to claim some undefined "it" was a "joke", and that I should "calm down", when I am calm?
The only reason to reply to that ridiculous troll is to point out that people who say "asshat" usually think that they can run away from saying unfunny things that blow up in their face by calling it a "joke". Just because people are lauging at you, Anonymous Coward, doesn't mean you're joking. It means you're a joke.
Where is the Greenpeace assertion that Apple's laptops are "the dirtiest ever"? All there is asserted in the report is that Apple, by its own admission in its published documents, is "dirty" according to Greenpeace's published criteria. Lenovo, Motorola and Acer are all scored dirtier. Where are these Greenpeace laboratory test results, which have not been mentioned in this thread or the article?
Where is Greenpeace lionizing large companies with good PR departments (assumedly with dirty products)?
And how does "5% cheaper notebooks" benefit outweigh "poisons people" risk?
Which rampant speculation and grandstanding would that be, exactly?
You're still failing to distinguish between the probability that something bad can happen, and how bad it will be if it does happen. That's the distinction made in that Greenpeace policy. Which says that when knowing how bad it will be is impossible, that we should still stop using chemicals that are proven to pose substantial risk.
Aren't you just engaging in rampant conflation and grandstanding by ignoring that distinction and its prudence?
It might be, if I did that.
Now you're just lying to cover up your failed trick.
Do you have a citation of Greenpeace opposing a specific project with no evidence of risk, just the absence of evidence of safety, as you described? Because their policy that we're discussing explicity says that action should be taken on available evidence.
So there's yet another layer being conflated into bashing Greenpeace. There's evidence, risk, and harm. Their policy says evidence of risk, even without evidence of harm, means we shouldn't use the risky chemicals. Which sounds like a completely sensible policy, that we all use in our own lives. But if Greenpeace acts outside that policy, against chemicals (or, by extension, other products) without even evidence of risk, then there's a different argument, about whether Greenpeace even follows its own policy.
FWIW, "head in the sand" describes people who ignore risk as well as people who fear it despite evidence its harm is negligible. And our litigious/risk-averse society is commensurately full of irresponsible harm and ignored risks. Mostly to the benefit of chemical corps which risk and harm us with impunity. The unnecessary lawsuits are mostly exploiting oversimplification of even basic complexities like evidence/risk/harm evaluation. And the risk aversion is much more characteristic of corporations than of humans, as you can tell from the balance of lawsuits.
Actually, water has been proven lethal in some situations, in case you didn't notice.
Meanwhile, your obfuscation underscores the entire point I made about the actual evidence of risk and its evaluation.
You're trying to argue that we should ignore proven risks until the full extent of their damage is proven, even when that is impossible,
Your inability to consider independently risks and their damage is typical of people who are afraid to swim.
What the fuck does outlawing gambling have to do with theocracy? THEOCRATS PROHIBIT GAMBLING. Unless it's their own, like bingo, or state lotteries/horceracing.
Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?
You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.
Even if actual humans save your insane ass from the Republicans you keep in power, you're still going straight to hell.
In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too.
Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators killed any control over US torture (again mostly excepting Democrats).
The Senate is waiting to approve Theocracy Protection until after the November election.
Go to the polls and fire these people who are speaking in your name for torture and theocracy, an America run on the model of the Spanish Inquisition. Keep our country ruled by the people, instead of a class of professional torture priests.
"It recognises that such proof of harm may never be possible, at least until it is too late to avoid or reverse the damage done"
emphasis mine.
They simply say that when evidence says some chemicals are risky, we should eliminate its use, even if proof of the harmful extent is impossible before it does the damage at risk.
You know, the way you avoid getting killed, even though no one can prove that you're going to hell.
The entire prudence of this Precautionary Principle rests on how to evaluate the evidence of risk. Once that's established, of course you stop before you might break something. Every 5 year old learns that. It's time we stopped letting our corporations work like bulls in our china shop.
That's nothing. This same House just passed the Theocracy Protection Act, and the Torture Lover Act.
Grand Inquisitor Abu Gonzales will now have the option of torturing you when god tells him you're bluffing.
I can't wait to trade my frequent launcher parsecs for trips on Virgin Historic's time machines.
I can show you pix of the trips now if you're improbable enough to stand it.
Does anyone have any estimates of how much Unisys collected in blackmail^Wlicensing fees on GIF? And any analyst estimates on the costs of producing, defending and prosecuting that "submarine patent"?
Is the flagship submarine patent really worth the money Unisys sank into it? Worth the money the US government spent protecting it? Worth it to "the progress of science and useful arts"?
Well, that's pretty close to what I'm saying. The "life cycle" of the product is defined regardless of the costs:benefits tracked in that cycle, but they must be measured against one another. And yes, they must be measured against both perfect maximum efficiency, and the alternatives - including doing nothing.
In the case of solar, 15% efficiency of energy production across a 20 year lifecycle does look like a losing proposition compared to the energy costs of manufacture, deployment, maintenance and recycling. But it's close enough that maybe 25% efficiency would net win.
In the case of nuclear, especially considering the security risks and longterm maintenance costs, it's a net loss in energy.
Ethanol as used in the US is a losing proposition, but improvements in scaled economies and the more efficient local (only) consumption, combined with infrastructure upgrades like ethanol fuelcells powering DC equipment centers, show the potential for a more efficient alternative.
One of the interesting demos I saw at the Wired NextFest in NYC this week was a company that recycles mixed discarded appliances back into useful plastic stocks at 10% the cost of manufacturing new plastic from raw petrochemicals. Because their own waste fraction can be fed to processes like the CWT steam reformation into diesel oil. The plastic extraction seems to be 10x more efficient than current standard production, while the subsequent energy extraction produces probably somewhere around 4-5x the energy investment. Now, if someone could extract energy from the oil to produce plastic rather than CO2, we might be looking at a vastly more efficient process. Especially when factoring in the cost of currently emitting that CO2 (and other gases/wastes).
We must investigate this further, if only to find out whether the dodders are really the brains behind The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! And then hatch a scheme to stop their murderous rampages once and for all. Maybe a moratorium on ketchup will soothe their jihad...
These materials are recyclable, which is certainly a better setup than before. But my point is the energy costs of recycling. How much energy is consumed in remanufacturing PV into a second duty cycle? Per energy produced in its prior cycle? Plus original manufacture and other maintenance? This is not a rhetorical question - I've spent dozens of hours, maybe hundreds, over the past 5-10 years trying to get those numbers for my own construction plans.
A more rhetorical question is the energy budget of the PV powered satellites. Because the rockets launching them are so energy inefficient, especially when including their R&D, manufacturing, maintenance and pollution costs. Like with these notebook batteries, their PV is essential because it's the only way to run in their deployment environment, despite the huge inefficiency of their overall energy system.
Ultimately, practically all those energy inputs burn petrofuels (or a little nuclear, and a tiny bit of hydroelectic, and negligible other sources). So these "alternatives" look good in the narrow view of their operating hours, but their total lifecycle probably burns even more petrofuels than straight combustion power.
Energy consumption lies at the center of our economics, national security, and military, all interconnected at many levels. The only way to cut this gordian knot is to scale back the total energy consumption of all of these industries. Knowing the full true costs is an essential first step to reducing them.
Since the demented kid's family left the unstable kid alone playing that violent game for so long, especially while everyone is talking about how it might help broken people over the edge into acting out violence in real people, the whole crazy affair really looks like a complicated method of mass family suicide.
There oughtta be a law. Oh, there is? Who can we sue?
When looking at energy efficiency of power products, it's important to include the costs of manufacturing, maintenance and disposal. These true costs are what kills many power techs, like nuclear, most PV solar, and, say, slave boat rowers.
I wonder how much energy will be spent per battery, including roundtrip airfreight fuel and your reading this message that I write, before the battery's current lifecycle is over.
Of course those hidden costs aren't part of our decisions when we buy these devices to stay running away from tethered power for a plane flight. But they do count, and really add up when a massive recall is executed. Even the overall efficiency of a recalled car model must be impacted by the recall process.