"they have to prove the obvious again and again to influence perceptions and policy. "
They aren't doing science looking to further scientific knowledge, they're doing science in order to influence policy. Immediately, their entire body of work becomes suspect.
That wouldn't be true for one app running a few very taxing queries, but in our case it's getting hammered by dozens of apps running hundreds of smaller queries per second, which parallelizes rather well.
I was just pricing 2U database servers that had 32 cores each. A 128 core cluster is now just four small off-the-shelf servers in a rack for less than a hundred grand.
"It seems to me that since copyright and patent protections are created by society in order to benefit society (and don't exist as any "natural right")"
A lot of people, especially conservatives, talk about the US giving up our sovereignty, violating our constitution, in order to conform to the likes of the UN. They worry that treaties will undermine rights such as the right to keep and bear arms (especially under UN gun restrictions goals). What they completely ignore is that we have already completely done this in the area of copyright.
Your view of copyright and patent perfectly matches the original intent, purpose and language of the US Constitution's Copyright Clause. It is supposed to be limited, and only a temporary grant of monopoly for the benefit of society. These other countries have a "natural right" view of copyright and thus are fundamentally incompatible with constitutional copyright in the US.
But all the treaties and laws are following their natural right view. That might be OK in thier countries, but it is blatantly unconstitutional in the United States.
How did we go from 14 years of limited rights plus a 14 year extention, to effectively unlimited terms with a vast collection of rights? Simple, by following international law instead of our own Constitution.
I'd be very surprised to find a boat of ten year-olds wearing Wal-Mart pirate costumes.
Otherwise, a boatful of armed men should be watched, any action means sinking. If they do take over a ship, they should know there will never be a ransom payment, only death. If we let them get back to base, it should be only so we can blow the whole place up.
Your "staggeringly long" list includes everything the military did, including humanitarian missions and evacuations. A lot more of those were peacekeeping missions under the UN.
First, kill all pirates on sight, period. No worrying about Somali territorial waters at all. They're pirates, they die. History shows this is how you successfully deal with pirates in the beginning. Make it an unattractive career choice even with their limited options, bankrupt those who are building and buying them boats by destroying the boats as fast as they can be put in the water.
Second, encourage a unified Somali national government by political means or by force. Once they can police their own waters, take care of their own pirates with their own legal system, then they have a territorial waters boundary that is worth respecting.
Historically, only the threat of force, and going to war to show it's serious, has stopped piracy for good.
The rest goes to other pet projects. The federal gas tax revenue is a classic source for pork funding. I doubt the states are much more concerned with spending the money where it's supposed to be spent, on roads.
And that doesn't count the other built-in taxes that go straight to fund the spending sprees of the politicians.
Speculation does not exist in a magic vacuum. For every point speculated for higher prices, there's essentially someone else who speculated a point for lower prices. You can't make a bet with no one, you need someone to take that bet.
Don't believe the excuse of the day meant to distract from the government's failures.
If you want to lower price, think taxes. Direct taxes on gas average 50 cents per gallon. On top of that, the oil companies are heavily taxed, Exxon alone paid over $26 billion last year in taxes, half its profits. Who pays corporate income tax in the end? You do, by paying more for that corporation's products.
Social Security was absolutely done improperly. The money wasn't saved in any fashion whatsoever for the future. The "trust fund" consists of money loaned to the US government, which already borrowed and spent it all.
It is an unsupportable ponzi scheme and will collapse if left in its present form.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I am not religious, I don't care some two thousand year old book condemns homosexuality. I think the people who preach against homosexuality are idiots.
I go on the evidence, what I see, what is rational. And that doesn't fit with what the gay propaganda ministers are producing in the fight against the aforementioned religious zealots.
"It's your anti-gay agenda that blinds you to this, apparently."
That's a lie, I have no anti-gay agenda. I stated that up front. It's just like the fundamentalist Christians. When they find out I'm atheist they think I have an anti-Christian agenda too. Both of you alienate those who aren't against you by unfairly attacking at a personal level over differences of belief.
But if you think it's just a natural occurrence, probably genetic, then it absolutely can be "cured." Gene therapy will eventually get good enough that we will be able to "fix" what makes people homosexual. I don't believe that of course.
"But you don't suddenly "turn" homosexual, or "turn" heterosexual. The fact is, there are no ex-gays. There just aren't."
That doesn't explain the people who are, but weren't before, or who aren't but were before. You are being just like the Christians. You say they are "confused" about their sexuality. You can't accept what they say about their own sexuality, that they were gay and now aren't same as the Christians can't accept that someone can just be gay. For both of you, you think you know better than the people themselves.
"based almost entirely in ignorance and homophobia."
Another hint to quit alienating people. Using bullshit, loaded and 99% incorrect terms like "homophobia" in every case only makes you look stupid and vindictive. Very few people, even among the Christians (and Muslims BTW), have an irrational, intense and persistent fear of homosexuality. They may be against it, but they don't have a phobia.
Slashdot Mirror
"they have to prove the obvious again and again to influence perceptions and policy. "
They aren't doing science looking to further scientific knowledge, they're doing science in order to influence policy. Immediately, their entire body of work becomes suspect.
And we don't need the real Obama at all.
99% of the R&D will go to "security" a.k.a., DRM. Otherwise it'll just be a repackaged PS3.
That wouldn't be true for one app running a few very taxing queries, but in our case it's getting hammered by dozens of apps running hundreds of smaller queries per second, which parallelizes rather well.
They're going into one of the dozens of racks we have. We have more of an issue of power right now than heat.
I was just pricing 2U database servers that had 32 cores each. A 128 core cluster is now just four small off-the-shelf servers in a rack for less than a hundred grand.
"It seems to me that since copyright and patent protections are created by society in order to benefit society (and don't exist as any "natural right")"
A lot of people, especially conservatives, talk about the US giving up our sovereignty, violating our constitution, in order to conform to the likes of the UN. They worry that treaties will undermine rights such as the right to keep and bear arms (especially under UN gun restrictions goals). What they completely ignore is that we have already completely done this in the area of copyright.
Your view of copyright and patent perfectly matches the original intent, purpose and language of the US Constitution's Copyright Clause. It is supposed to be limited, and only a temporary grant of monopoly for the benefit of society. These other countries have a "natural right" view of copyright and thus are fundamentally incompatible with constitutional copyright in the US.
But all the treaties and laws are following their natural right view. That might be OK in thier countries, but it is blatantly unconstitutional in the United States.
How did we go from 14 years of limited rights plus a 14 year extention, to effectively unlimited terms with a vast collection of rights? Simple, by following international law instead of our own Constitution.
Barring that, kill the original infected person.
Perjury: Lied under oath in both a sexual harrassment trial and to a federal grand jury.
Obstruction of justice: Bribing witnesses by securing jobs for them, and otherwise trying to convince witnesses to lie
obstruction of justice. He was never prosecuted for the sex.
As is usual in politics, it's the cover-up that gets you.
I'd be very surprised to find a boat of ten year-olds wearing Wal-Mart pirate costumes.
Otherwise, a boatful of armed men should be watched, any action means sinking. If they do take over a ship, they should know there will never be a ransom payment, only death. If we let them get back to base, it should be only so we can blow the whole place up.
Your "staggeringly long" list includes everything the military did, including humanitarian missions and evacuations. A lot more of those were peacekeeping missions under the UN.
First, kill all pirates on sight, period. No worrying about Somali territorial waters at all. They're pirates, they die. History shows this is how you successfully deal with pirates in the beginning. Make it an unattractive career choice even with their limited options, bankrupt those who are building and buying them boats by destroying the boats as fast as they can be put in the water.
Second, encourage a unified Somali national government by political means or by force. Once they can police their own waters, take care of their own pirates with their own legal system, then they have a territorial waters boundary that is worth respecting.
Historically, only the threat of force, and going to war to show it's serious, has stopped piracy for good.
The rest goes to other pet projects. The federal gas tax revenue is a classic source for pork funding. I doubt the states are much more concerned with spending the money where it's supposed to be spent, on roads.
And that doesn't count the other built-in taxes that go straight to fund the spending sprees of the politicians.
Speculation does not exist in a magic vacuum. For every point speculated for higher prices, there's essentially someone else who speculated a point for lower prices. You can't make a bet with no one, you need someone to take that bet.
Don't believe the excuse of the day meant to distract from the government's failures.
If you want to lower price, think taxes. Direct taxes on gas average 50 cents per gallon. On top of that, the oil companies are heavily taxed, Exxon alone paid over $26 billion last year in taxes, half its profits. Who pays corporate income tax in the end? You do, by paying more for that corporation's products.
It was done/managed/executed improperly. Its conception was improperly done if it allowed for the mismanagement, which it did.
Our government will always spend whatever money it takes.
I hear there's one in Abbottabad that recently became available.
Social Security was absolutely done improperly. The money wasn't saved in any fashion whatsoever for the future. The "trust fund" consists of money loaned to the US government, which already borrowed and spent it all.
It is an unsupportable ponzi scheme and will collapse if left in its present form.
And Customs is in the business of copyright enforcement, originally to keep infringing copies out of the country as they go through Customs.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I am not religious, I don't care some two thousand year old book condemns homosexuality. I think the people who preach against homosexuality are idiots.
I go on the evidence, what I see, what is rational. And that doesn't fit with what the gay propaganda ministers are producing in the fight against the aforementioned religious zealots.
Ask Gilbert Godfried
And most likely decided in advance of the study.
Clearly agenda-driven "science."
Interesting, I was just told it's FACT.
Absolute fact, no ability to believe any differently.
Yet here you tell me that some gays don't believe that.
I guess they're homophobes.
Total bullshit.
"It's your anti-gay agenda that blinds you to this, apparently."
That's a lie, I have no anti-gay agenda. I stated that up front. It's just like the fundamentalist Christians. When they find out I'm atheist they think I have an anti-Christian agenda too. Both of you alienate those who aren't against you by unfairly attacking at a personal level over differences of belief.
But if you think it's just a natural occurrence, probably genetic, then it absolutely can be "cured." Gene therapy will eventually get good enough that we will be able to "fix" what makes people homosexual. I don't believe that of course.
"But you don't suddenly "turn" homosexual, or "turn" heterosexual. The fact is, there are no ex-gays. There just aren't."
That doesn't explain the people who are, but weren't before, or who aren't but were before. You are being just like the Christians. You say they are "confused" about their sexuality. You can't accept what they say about their own sexuality, that they were gay and now aren't same as the Christians can't accept that someone can just be gay. For both of you, you think you know better than the people themselves.
"based almost entirely in ignorance and homophobia."
Another hint to quit alienating people. Using bullshit, loaded and 99% incorrect terms like "homophobia" in every case only makes you look stupid and vindictive. Very few people, even among the Christians (and Muslims BTW), have an irrational, intense and persistent fear of homosexuality. They may be against it, but they don't have a phobia.