The debate is not paid for by the government and it's not a government production. Most federally-created items are open for free use but not all. American citizens don't have full and unrestricted access to every piece of correspondence used within the government, for example.
It gets hazy when some federal monies are used. Would a candidate who takes federal matching campaign funds have less control than one who does not take them? (Semi-rhetorical question...)
The campaigns pay for the travel, the network provides the production and probably some of the costs so they can control the setting. It's not a federally-created production.
Televised debates have always been fluff and a circus. The issue is picking a responsible leader, not a TV personality or press secretary. Snippy comments and short sound bites don't have anything to do with the real qualities a real leader needs.
You mixed a couple of things up. They're enforcing their copyright on their production of the debate. They don't say YOU are restricted from something YOU make with your resources. The rub has to do with recording the broadcast from their sources.
It's interesting they're trying to claim nobody can record from digital sources. In my case, I only have DirecTV with local stations. What about digital cable? How many people really use OTA analog?
There's actually a very, very simple solution to this: C-SPAN
They have some kind of reuse rules similar to creative commons and host lots of video on their site.
There's also a story that involves microwaves and a chocolate bar but I don't remember the particulars. The History Channel's Modern Marvels show mentioned it.
When I was in comm school they made a point that folks should always verify microwave transmitters are off before working on them because people working on the receiver dishes have been somewhat cooked inside. Imagine what that would be like, your organs are partly cooked!
I've already done a combat tour and a second tour at a three-letter agency.
I might come out of retirement to run for President. Then again, maybe I'll do some more acting. Besides, it's too early to announce anything. I wouldn't want to peak too soon.
The "interrogation" you mention was a Chattanooga Times Free Press-planted question asked by a soldier during a "town hall" meeting in Kuwait to which the press was freely admitted. That's "interrogation"? You're biased, ignorant and lazy.
This soldier...ahem!...hadn't been in one of the HMMVs in question and wasn't in the combat areas. This was manufactured dissent and led to the Times Free Press having to admit, "In hindsight, information on how the question was framed should have been included in Thursday's story in the Times Free Press. It was not."
Do some real research and you'll find the uparmoring had already started but, wonder of wonders, those vehicles in the combat areas were getting it first. You could have gone to Stratfor (but you probably don't subscribe), GlobalSecurity, ArmyTimes, DoD, Lexis-Nexis, etc. for accurate information. It should have been immediately obvious that Wikipedia is a woefully inaccurate source for military information. You could have Googled the words "Rumsfeld armor hmmv" and been led to plenty of good resources including this one: which has quick stats, debunking and some good links: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1299014/p osts
As I've already mentioned, there have been and are multiple phases of uparmoring from bolt-on kits to heavier construction at the factory. The HMMV was a replacement for the open sided, open-topped Jeep. It was not originally intended as an armored fighting vehicle. It was designed to give better environmental protection (wind, rain, sun) for the troops with a large wheel base and more cargo capacity.
Insightful would have done some real research and found the "scrounged" armor was a very short term issue and there have been 8+ major uparmoring mods and more than 70,000 fully armored vehicles in Iraq/Afghanistan now.
Insightful would have known the "underarmored" vehicles were HUMMVs which were replacements for Jeeps. You know, Jeeps, those open-sided and open-topped vehicles.
Insightful would know the true status of the M-16. Same story, bud. The first ones, 40 years ago, were rushed into use and there have been a huge number of modifications. The AK-47 isn't that great. It's not good at a distance, there's less control of the bullet's destination and the vast majority of them were made very, very sloppily which means they spray bullets almost randomly. Read your own link, it says some American troops are using captured AK-47s because the ammunition is so available. Why might that be? Do a little research on calibre and interoperability of ammunition. Just because ammunition is available doesn't mean it's more useful than an M-16 nor does it mean it's preferred over the M-16. Gad, your comment shows you don't really know much about the weapons or tactics.
Yes, but the paper companies only plant single species fast growing trees. Those can not replace the complex ecosystem in the rain forests.
--
Modding that post as 5, Informative doesn't make any sense unless it was to illustrate popular misconceptions and propaganda.
Lumber companies, like any other farmers, would prefer to plant in places where the crops will grow and can be harvested for a profit and new crops grown. Rain forests are particularly POOR places to grow trees. The primary reason the U.S. imports so much lumber is because of Clinton-era restrictions on tree harvesting.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy. Think about it, the infrastructure needed to process and move the crop would have to be continually rebuilt. How many farmers do that? They will rotate the harvest areas as a way to let the soil regenerate but they don't strip the surface and continually move on.
Recycling paper, FWIW, yields a far inferior product in many, many ways. The more paper fibers are handled, the shorter they become. Compare an American corrugated box to one from China or Southern Europe. You'll find the recycled paper does not have the same strength. New fiber must be added or you eventually end up with a useless substance.
The idea that only one species of tree is planted by lumber companies is pure propaganda and incredibly naive. Like any other plant, different types of trees have different types of fibers. Different types of fibers are used to make different types of papers. It would no more be feasible to plant only one type of tree than it would to plant only one type of any other crop because the soil would become depleted. Paper companies are lumber companies. Are all the boards at a lumber store the same type of wood? Of course not.
His comment that people should fight the auto and oil industries is more than a little whacked. Imagine what it would be like without plastics and the internal combustion engine. We'd be living the same as people did before the industrial revolution which would be a far shorter lifespan and much, much harder lives...burning coal and wood which genreate far more pollution/energy but that's a whole different topic...
What is the translated Chinese? "blue laser HD-DVD" is only ONE way to translate the Chinese press release. HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? It's not clear because EITHER could be a proper translation.
Not only that, now you'll have to enter a password that's similar in length to an encoded Morse code message. You'll have time to eat your bagel, drink a cup of Joe (a little WWII lingo there) and maybe even smoke a Lucky Strike!
If the goal truly is a "local" supply, the U.S. could extract more oil and even get into things like coal liquification. The Chinese are taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico which is pretty "local" to the U.S. The technical means to extract oil from existing locations has outpaced demand for the oil, resulting in an increased supply. The U.S. has huge amounts of coal, possibly the world's largest supply. Converting living matter into an efficient combustible fuel requires more energy and cost than converting a substance which is closer to the carbon basis. That's really all there is to it.
Converting a gasoline engine to burn ethanol doesn't mean ethanol burns the same way. It's not a matter of hoses and fittings, it's a matter of what happens during combustion and the entire design of the engine. Metallurgy, compression, etc., etc., etc. all play a factor. Gasoline engines are designed for gasoline. The further you move from gasoline as a source, the more quickly the system will fail. Potential energy of ethanol vs. gasoline is...what? Most people who promote ethanol as a fuel would be surprised. If you have to burn more of it for the same return, it costs more and the vehicles wear out...how is that helpful?
You've just admitted my point is correct when you drop to insults and claims of omniscience. "Debate" has nothing to do with science.
There is no source of combustion fuel which can economically replace gasoline. If it existed, it would already be used. We went through this during WWII and, again, 30 years ago. It's a function of hydrocarbon compositions and the oxidation process. Nothing comes close to oil for an energy/cost return.
Harvesting algae to create hydrocarbon fuel is a pipe dream. An inconvenient truth of reality is cost. Ethanol is not economical and never will be. It takes almost as much energy to convert organic tissue to a combustible form of carbon and that which would be returned by combustion.
This is not a matter of "debate" or "amount of thought", it's a matter of physics.
...and they also want to require compact fluorescent bulbs which...contain mercury, another cumulative poison which doesn't break down.
Yes, folks, the same government nannies will have your neighbors throwing mercury into the trash. Never mind that it will get into the ground and your water supplies, costs more, is inferior light and sends money to the Chinese communists.
Never mind that the same thinking banned DDT which meant millions of Africans have died from malaria or that liberated prisoners from the Nazi death camps were bathed in DDT to kill the bugs living on them or that "Silent Spring" has been shown to be a work of fiction.
Never mind that banning asbestos created more danger because removing asbestos is more dangerous than using it properly, automobile brakes are nowhere near as capable, costs increased and, oh, yeah, the WTC would have stood longer because it was designed to survive airplane hits provided the guts were protected by asbestos so it would have stood a few more hours.
Nope, those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
...of the opening sequence of Weird Science?
Give us a couple of your credit card numbers, you phone number and current address.
...
We can clear that credit report up for you.
Damn, this will come back to haunt me...
The debate is not paid for by the government and it's not a government production. Most federally-created items are open for free use but not all. American citizens don't have full and unrestricted access to every piece of correspondence used within the government, for example.
It gets hazy when some federal monies are used. Would a candidate who takes federal matching campaign funds have less control than one who does not take them? (Semi-rhetorical question...)
The campaigns pay for the travel, the network provides the production and probably some of the costs so they can control the setting. It's not a federally-created production.
Televised debates have always been fluff and a circus. The issue is picking a responsible leader, not a TV personality or press secretary. Snippy comments and short sound bites don't have anything to do with the real qualities a real leader needs.
You mixed a couple of things up. They're enforcing their copyright on their production of the debate. They don't say YOU are restricted from something YOU make with your resources. The rub has to do with recording the broadcast from their sources.
It's interesting they're trying to claim nobody can record from digital sources. In my case, I only have DirecTV with local stations. What about digital cable? How many people really use OTA analog?
There's actually a very, very simple solution to this: C-SPAN
They have some kind of reuse rules similar to creative commons and host lots of video on their site.
Who is this "dubya" you say is president of NBC?
Is he related to FUD-ya?
There's also a story that involves microwaves and a chocolate bar but I don't remember the particulars. The History Channel's Modern Marvels show mentioned it.
When I was in comm school they made a point that folks should always verify microwave transmitters are off before working on them because people working on the receiver dishes have been somewhat cooked inside. Imagine what that would be like, your organs are partly cooked!
I did project "standing up" into your post. My apologies, sir.
I've already done a combat tour and a second tour at a three-letter agency.
I might come out of retirement to run for President. Then again, maybe I'll do some more acting. Besides, it's too early to announce anything. I wouldn't want to peak too soon.
We'll see...
Bullshit to your bullshit.
p osts
The "interrogation" you mention was a Chattanooga Times Free Press-planted question asked by a soldier during a "town hall" meeting in Kuwait to which the press was freely admitted. That's "interrogation"? You're biased, ignorant and lazy.
This soldier...ahem!...hadn't been in one of the HMMVs in question and wasn't in the combat areas. This was manufactured dissent and led to the Times Free Press having to admit, "In hindsight, information on how the question was framed should have been included in Thursday's story in the Times Free Press. It was not."
Do some real research and you'll find the uparmoring had already started but, wonder of wonders, those vehicles in the combat areas were getting it first. You could have gone to Stratfor (but you probably don't subscribe), GlobalSecurity, ArmyTimes, DoD, Lexis-Nexis, etc. for accurate information. It should have been immediately obvious that Wikipedia is a woefully inaccurate source for military information. You could have Googled the words "Rumsfeld armor hmmv" and been led to plenty of good resources including this one: which has quick stats, debunking and some good links: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1299014/
As I've already mentioned, there have been and are multiple phases of uparmoring from bolt-on kits to heavier construction at the factory. The HMMV was a replacement for the open sided, open-topped Jeep. It was not originally intended as an armored fighting vehicle. It was designed to give better environmental protection (wind, rain, sun) for the troops with a large wheel base and more cargo capacity.
Where do you get the idea that snipers hold rifle's standing up?
Methinks you're confusing sniping activities by infantry (Saving Private Ryan movie, for example) with real snipers.
Real sniping is long distance and some of the rifles ARE quite heavy. Putting a bullet into an electrical generator or an engine is also sniping.
Modded 5, Insightful?!?!
Insightful would have done some real research and found the "scrounged" armor was a very short term issue and there have been 8+ major uparmoring mods and more than 70,000 fully armored vehicles in Iraq/Afghanistan now.
Insightful would have known the "underarmored" vehicles were HUMMVs which were replacements for Jeeps. You know, Jeeps, those open-sided and open-topped vehicles.
Insightful would know the true status of the M-16. Same story, bud. The first ones, 40 years ago, were rushed into use and there have been a huge number of modifications. The AK-47 isn't that great. It's not good at a distance, there's less control of the bullet's destination and the vast majority of them were made very, very sloppily which means they spray bullets almost randomly. Read your own link, it says some American troops are using captured AK-47s because the ammunition is so available. Why might that be? Do a little research on calibre and interoperability of ammunition. Just because ammunition is available doesn't mean it's more useful than an M-16 nor does it mean it's preferred over the M-16. Gad, your comment shows you don't really know much about the weapons or tactics.
How long after laser "rifles" are deployed before troops figure out how to use them to heat food?
"Comrade, I see fireflies in the woods and smell burnt popcorn."
"Prepare for battle, the running dog Americans are here!"
You can make paper from hemp. Curiously, people burning hemp paper don't care about the smoke. Go figure.
Yes, but the paper companies only plant single species fast growing trees. Those can not replace the complex ecosystem in the rain forests.
N %20-%20Trees%20are%20the%20Answer.pdf
--
Modding that post as 5, Informative doesn't make any sense unless it was to illustrate popular misconceptions and propaganda.
Lumber companies, like any other farmers, would prefer to plant in places where the crops will grow and can be harvested for a profit and new crops grown. Rain forests are particularly POOR places to grow trees. The primary reason the U.S. imports so much lumber is because of Clinton-era restrictions on tree harvesting.
The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy. Think about it, the infrastructure needed to process and move the crop would have to be continually rebuilt. How many farmers do that? They will rotate the harvest areas as a way to let the soil regenerate but they don't strip the surface and continually move on.
Recycling paper, FWIW, yields a far inferior product in many, many ways. The more paper fibers are handled, the shorter they become. Compare an American corrugated box to one from China or Southern Europe. You'll find the recycled paper does not have the same strength. New fiber must be added or you eventually end up with a useless substance.
The idea that only one species of tree is planted by lumber companies is pure propaganda and incredibly naive. Like any other plant, different types of trees have different types of fibers. Different types of fibers are used to make different types of papers. It would no more be feasible to plant only one type of tree than it would to plant only one type of any other crop because the soil would become depleted. Paper companies are lumber companies. Are all the boards at a lumber store the same type of wood? Of course not.
Lumber companies are farmers. Remember that and use it as a way to filter out the propaganda. You might be interested to learn the opinion of one of the founders of Greenpeace: http://www.corrugatedmachines.com/2007-04-09%20BC
His comment that people should fight the auto and oil industries is more than a little whacked. Imagine what it would be like without plastics and the internal combustion engine. We'd be living the same as people did before the industrial revolution which would be a far shorter lifespan and much, much harder lives...burning coal and wood which genreate far more pollution/energy but that's a whole different topic...
Uh...right...there is no history of improper acronyms with Asian video equipment.
3 6632
Educate yourself.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=8
What is the translated Chinese? "blue laser HD-DVD" is only ONE way to translate the Chinese press release. HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? It's not clear because EITHER could be a proper translation.
What benefit does this have to anyone other than Microsoft's avoiding yet more royalty payments?
None.
BFD
And in other insignificant RMS fanbody/cult news:
RMS eats a meal!
RMS breathes!
RMS blows his nose!
What's next? RMS and Lyndon LaRouche announce their ticket for the 2008 US Presidential elections?
Not only that, now you'll have to enter a password that's similar in length to an encoded Morse code message. You'll have time to eat your bagel, drink a cup of Joe (a little WWII lingo there) and maybe even smoke a Lucky Strike!
You can ensure it will be read if you sprinkle it with talcum powder and wipe a little grease on the edges.
If the goal truly is a "local" supply, the U.S. could extract more oil and even get into things like coal liquification. The Chinese are taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico which is pretty "local" to the U.S. The technical means to extract oil from existing locations has outpaced demand for the oil, resulting in an increased supply. The U.S. has huge amounts of coal, possibly the world's largest supply. Converting living matter into an efficient combustible fuel requires more energy and cost than converting a substance which is closer to the carbon basis. That's really all there is to it.
Converting a gasoline engine to burn ethanol doesn't mean ethanol burns the same way. It's not a matter of hoses and fittings, it's a matter of what happens during combustion and the entire design of the engine. Metallurgy, compression, etc., etc., etc. all play a factor. Gasoline engines are designed for gasoline. The further you move from gasoline as a source, the more quickly the system will fail. Potential energy of ethanol vs. gasoline is...what? Most people who promote ethanol as a fuel would be surprised. If you have to burn more of it for the same return, it costs more and the vehicles wear out...how is that helpful?
You've just admitted my point is correct when you drop to insults and claims of omniscience. "Debate" has nothing to do with science.
There is no source of combustion fuel which can economically replace gasoline. If it existed, it would already be used. We went through this during WWII and, again, 30 years ago. It's a function of hydrocarbon compositions and the oxidation process. Nothing comes close to oil for an energy/cost return.
Harvesting algae to create hydrocarbon fuel is a pipe dream. An inconvenient truth of reality is cost. Ethanol is not economical and never will be. It takes almost as much energy to convert organic tissue to a combustible form of carbon and that which would be returned by combustion.
This is not a matter of "debate" or "amount of thought", it's a matter of physics.
I did. I also voted 2 years ago.
Refer to me as "Cornelius" in the future.
...and they also want to require compact fluorescent bulbs which...contain mercury, another cumulative poison which doesn't break down.
Yes, folks, the same government nannies will have your neighbors throwing mercury into the trash. Never mind that it will get into the ground and your water supplies, costs more, is inferior light and sends money to the Chinese communists.
Never mind that the same thinking banned DDT which meant millions of Africans have died from malaria or that liberated prisoners from the Nazi death camps were bathed in DDT to kill the bugs living on them or that "Silent Spring" has been shown to be a work of fiction.
Never mind that banning asbestos created more danger because removing asbestos is more dangerous than using it properly, automobile brakes are nowhere near as capable, costs increased and, oh, yeah, the WTC would have stood longer because it was designed to survive airplane hits provided the guts were protected by asbestos so it would have stood a few more hours.
Nope, those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.