In the 1950s, we were only 10 years away from having flying cars. The same was said about AI, voice recognition and a million other things in 1990. There have been gradual improvements, but nothing remotely "perfected", to use your words. The first 90% is always the easiest to obtain, the last 10% of perfection is often never achieved. That might be "good enough", but it is never even close to "perfected".
The whole story seems overly sensationalized. In 10 years, China may be poorer than they are now because of imports from yet another 3rd world country being cheaper than theirs. Or they may be the overlords. Or they may be in a nuclear war with the USA. Or Russia. In 2000, if you would have told me that the US government would have created the current semi-fascist state we are in, I wouldn't have believed it either. Your best for 10 years from now is not to bet at all.
Most people wouldn't mind the police roaming around YOUR house, or MY house, and they will gladly speak up about how "if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?". It is only when the police come and search THEIR house, with no warrant and no cause, that they object. Then they want to jump up and scream and pretend they have always been against it.
Unfortunately, that is the way many people are. When it comes to liberty and security, most people are just hypocrites.
Please keep your facts out their speculation and karma whoring;) Personally, I'm glad to see them build the data center, but then again, I live nearby and just happy to see the jobs. I wouldn't care if it was Google, Apple, IBM or Yahoo doing the building. We still have over 10% statewide unemployment here.
You aren't quoting, you are paraphrasing. That is my point. Go google that exact phrase in quotes and the name Rush Limbaugh. Zero hits. It isn't an exact quote. I'm agreeing he is full of shit often enough, but you proving my point: You are trying to call him out by paraphrasing him, not using his exact words, in context.
You are misunderstanding Rush. Believe me, he has one hell of a research staff, and often he isn't saying what you think he is saying. If he is masterful at anything, it is at parsing words. If he says something like "The Chevy volt is only gonna let you drive 40 miles on batteries" and other think that means it will only go 40 miles, well, thats ok for him. He even plays back his "quotes", and again, he parses his words carefully so that in a single quote, the meaning might be obvious but in the full context, it may be misleading. Lots of "what if....[statement]" or " maybe...[statement]...who knows" type of noncommittal comments.
In other words, he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He is entertaining, and I see the attraction. I used to listen. But remember, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. Even he admits that, then acts like a journalist.
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
That is also illegal, rightfully so, if you are blocking access to a business. That should be common knowledge. The SCOTUS already made that clear, that you can talk to people going in and out of the business, but you can't stop them from exercising their rights. An abortion clinic was the case the SCOTUS decided it on, but it applies to any business or organization.
We can now grow sugar beats in the corn belt, with a significantly higher energy density than corn, making it more profitable to grow the sugar beats. Oh, except that we subsidize corn, and we don't subsidize beets, completely screwing up the free market and sticking us with more expensive alcohol because Monsanto owns the US Congress.
And yea, I get your point. Maybe once we don't need oil, we can bring the troops home and just invade Canada. They can already grow beets, and an extra 5C would be perfect. We are flexible, we are Americans. We don't care which country provides our fuel as long as we have troops there.
Engines that are run regularly and designed properly run just fine with it. The problem isn't running, it is storage. Cars have sealed tanks, but all small engines have vented tanks, which is where they pickup the water. As the daily hot/cold cycle of day and night happen daily, the excess air in the tank pushes out, then brings in fresh air, along with fresh moisture, which the alcohol absorbs. I don't mind running E10 so much in my car, but it is killing my other engines. If we didn't subsidize corn, it wouldn't be cost effective to put alcohol in gas either, so technically, it still isn't since we are paying more than we really think at the pump, via tax dollars.
There is certainly a place for alcohol, it just isn't the cure all that people thought it would be.
Do Americans mandate ethanol content in premium petrols too?
Yes. All fuel has 10 percent ethanol. Since ethanol is very high octane, they can actually use lower grade gas, and by the time they water it down with ethanol, it boosts the octane back up to 87 or 91/93. For midgrade (89), they just blend the two at the pump. Regardless, the resulting fuel mix (regardless of grade) has less energy density than pure gasoline.
And our 93 is the same as your 98, we just use a different method of rating. Just as our 87 is the same as your 91. (or similar, as every country rates differently) Wikipedia has an article on it.
From an environmental point of view, ethanol isn't better in the US, as we can't produce enough to replace gas if we wanted to. And NO cars in the US are designed to run on 100% ethanol. Every single car, boat, lawn mower, piece of power equipment, emergency generator and other small engine would have to be replaced, costing billions of dollars. Ethanol has its place, but it isn't viable as the primary motor vehicle fuel in the USA. Electric might be in time, but not ethanol. Electricity is much cheaper than ethanol, can be cleaner, doesn't produce agricultural run off, etc.
While I'm happy it is working for Brasil, you are talking about two completely different types of economy and living standards. We use a lot more fuel per person, and nothing is going to change that. We have winters that you don't have. We have a lower population density in populated areas than you have. We aren't going to change those factors, no matter how much others think we should. Its a non-starter.
Then you don't understand it. All my generators have been four stroke, as is the boat. Living in a small town, gas without ethanol is not available locally, and in North Carolina, they were mandating ethanol years before the feds due to pollution. Running Stabil in fuel is nice and is done year round but doesn't change the chemical reality that ethanol is hygroscopic. Most engines have steel parts. Water rusts steel. Engines that aren't run regularly and have tanks that vent to the atmosphere build up water. Not quite sure why you don't get it. It would appear the majority here do.
How apropos! I have already had TWO generators get trashed ($650+ each) and have had several other mechanical issues with ethanol in non-car engines. Ethanol is the worst thing you can put in a lawn mower, boat, or other motor that isn't run every day. It sucks more water out of the air than the average dehumidifier, which will literally RUST out the engine components.
Putting alcohol in my small motor fuel has created hundreds of dollars of damage, and has created MORE carbon than regular gas, due to all the replacement parts that had to be manufactured again, and shipped. It sounds good on paper, but by the time you add the cost of subsidizing Monsanto and adding the damage, it costs more than it saves in both money and carbon.
But you are talking about analog kinds of "ancient". It's kind of like how a year to us is 7 to a dog, a digitial year is like 100 analog years, so that 20 year old tape backup is similar to a 2000 year old analog backup, ie: a 50/50 chance it will work.
Ok, its an interesting read, but not every realistic. As draconian and fascist as the US govt has become over the last 10 years, many of the ideas in the article simply wouldn't fly. Not everyone in the US is a sheeple. Again, interesting, but there is no way in hell that it could have happened remotely as they stated in the article.
Wikileaks has the one where you can see aliens shoot down the rocket.
You sure that wasn't the CIA inside the ship that they scored in Roswell? The same one that will likely "abduct" Julian in a completely random and unrelated event?
By this logic all business is subsidized by the State, since the State maintains law and order necessary to conduct any of it. Which means that the State has a right and duty to regulate them to the advantage of its residents, We the People, since we're paying part (or all - all costs get passed onto the customer, remember?) of the cost making it possible for them to function.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine)
The preamble to the Constitution authorizes the State to provide police protection and assist commerce in some ways, which is different than direct subsidies. At best, direct subsidies are in the gray area. Interstates and other infrastructure are obviously authorized, tax breaks or subsidies (like to Monsanto and farmers) are not so obvious. I think we would be better off if we spent more on infrastructure and less on farmer (actually Monsanto) welfare.
Part of the issue was that he also wanted to move water on the same throughfares, believing that water was going to be a bigger commodity than electricity. He needed both to make it uberprofitable, he ended up getting none.
While I question his motives in much of this, I do think that he is right in that we should be investing money in electrical infrastructure and wind power. Once more electric cars hit the market, we are going to hit a wall that will raise rates astronomically, and of course, make gasoline power more attractive, slowing down adoption. What is a crying shame is that our tax dollars went to "stimulus" that mainly did little to help us in the long run. If you are going to spend that kind of money (and you shouldn't have to start with), it should have been spent on something with lasting value: transmission lines, bridges, other infrastructure.
But he doesn't put his words on paper or the TV, and more importantly, he doesn't have advertising or make a profit or sell stock, so it isn't real journalism. Remember, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, in the eyes of the benevolent dictators that own our government.
Of course linking is the same as publishing. Just like when a journalist reports on a crime, he is an accessory after the fact and punished accordingly. They are the same thing, aren't they?
No they don't. They are a fucking corporation, NOT an individual. When fellow Americans fail to see this and buy into the whole "corporations are just people too" bullshit, I find it very frustrating. The individuals working for MC have the right, the corporation doesn't.
They shouldn't be closing accounts for the KKK. As much as I despise the KKK, they currently are acting within the 1st amendment of the constitution, and imho, businesses like Mastercard shouldn't discriminate against companies whose politics they disagree with, like the KKK or Wikileaks. It sets a bad precedent, and while legal, isn't cricket.
I would agree, and using cynicism to justify federal control of schools is insane. As if someone in D.C. is going to be tuned into the needs of someone in Colorado, or North Dakota, or California. The problem is that some people don't trust parents as much as they trust government, which is kinda loopy. You can't, and shouldn't, treat every parent as if they are an idiot. Federal meddling is beginning to actually infringe on parental rights.
Just keep in mind that it isn't completely the teacher's fault, at least in the US. In the states, forcing teachers to teach to a test, or risk losing funding for their school (and bonuses for themselves) is the problem. This is one reason I would prefer much more control at the local level, and only guidance at the federal level. Concerned parents can only get involved when the decision making is local, and are powerless when it comes to forced federal mandates. Unconcerned parents, well, it doesn't really matter, so lets worry about the parents who actually are trying to help their kids. The children of the unconcerned parents will get the same educational outcome regardless of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
In ten years time we will have....
In the 1950s, we were only 10 years away from having flying cars. The same was said about AI, voice recognition and a million other things in 1990. There have been gradual improvements, but nothing remotely "perfected", to use your words. The first 90% is always the easiest to obtain, the last 10% of perfection is often never achieved. That might be "good enough", but it is never even close to "perfected".
The whole story seems overly sensationalized. In 10 years, China may be poorer than they are now because of imports from yet another 3rd world country being cheaper than theirs. Or they may be the overlords. Or they may be in a nuclear war with the USA. Or Russia. In 2000, if you would have told me that the US government would have created the current semi-fascist state we are in, I wouldn't have believed it either. Your best for 10 years from now is not to bet at all.
Most people wouldn't mind the police roaming around YOUR house, or MY house, and they will gladly speak up about how "if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?". It is only when the police come and search THEIR house, with no warrant and no cause, that they object. Then they want to jump up and scream and pretend they have always been against it.
Unfortunately, that is the way many people are. When it comes to liberty and security, most people are just hypocrites.
Please keep your facts out their speculation and karma whoring ;) Personally, I'm glad to see them build the data center, but then again, I live nearby and just happy to see the jobs. I wouldn't care if it was Google, Apple, IBM or Yahoo doing the building. We still have over 10% statewide unemployment here.
You aren't quoting, you are paraphrasing. That is my point. Go google that exact phrase in quotes and the name Rush Limbaugh. Zero hits. It isn't an exact quote. I'm agreeing he is full of shit often enough, but you proving my point: You are trying to call him out by paraphrasing him, not using his exact words, in context.
You are misunderstanding Rush. Believe me, he has one hell of a research staff, and often he isn't saying what you think he is saying. If he is masterful at anything, it is at parsing words. If he says something like "The Chevy volt is only gonna let you drive 40 miles on batteries" and other think that means it will only go 40 miles, well, thats ok for him. He even plays back his "quotes", and again, he parses his words carefully so that in a single quote, the meaning might be obvious but in the full context, it may be misleading. Lots of "what if....[statement]" or " maybe...[statement]...who knows" type of noncommittal comments.
In other words, he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He is entertaining, and I see the attraction. I used to listen. But remember, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. Even he admits that, then acts like a journalist.
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
That is also illegal, rightfully so, if you are blocking access to a business. That should be common knowledge. The SCOTUS already made that clear, that you can talk to people going in and out of the business, but you can't stop them from exercising their rights. An abortion clinic was the case the SCOTUS decided it on, but it applies to any business or organization.
crop insurance is not quite the same as direct subsidies, although both are types of subsidies.
We can now grow sugar beats in the corn belt, with a significantly higher energy density than corn, making it more profitable to grow the sugar beats. Oh, except that we subsidize corn, and we don't subsidize beets, completely screwing up the free market and sticking us with more expensive alcohol because Monsanto owns the US Congress.
And yea, I get your point. Maybe once we don't need oil, we can bring the troops home and just invade Canada. They can already grow beets, and an extra 5C would be perfect. We are flexible, we are Americans. We don't care which country provides our fuel as long as we have troops there.
Engines that are run regularly and designed properly run just fine with it. The problem isn't running, it is storage. Cars have sealed tanks, but all small engines have vented tanks, which is where they pickup the water. As the daily hot/cold cycle of day and night happen daily, the excess air in the tank pushes out, then brings in fresh air, along with fresh moisture, which the alcohol absorbs. I don't mind running E10 so much in my car, but it is killing my other engines. If we didn't subsidize corn, it wouldn't be cost effective to put alcohol in gas either, so technically, it still isn't since we are paying more than we really think at the pump, via tax dollars.
There is certainly a place for alcohol, it just isn't the cure all that people thought it would be.
Do Americans mandate ethanol content in premium petrols too?
Yes. All fuel has 10 percent ethanol. Since ethanol is very high octane, they can actually use lower grade gas, and by the time they water it down with ethanol, it boosts the octane back up to 87 or 91/93. For midgrade (89), they just blend the two at the pump. Regardless, the resulting fuel mix (regardless of grade) has less energy density than pure gasoline.
And our 93 is the same as your 98, we just use a different method of rating. Just as our 87 is the same as your 91. (or similar, as every country rates differently) Wikipedia has an article on it.
From an environmental point of view, ethanol isn't better in the US, as we can't produce enough to replace gas if we wanted to. And NO cars in the US are designed to run on 100% ethanol. Every single car, boat, lawn mower, piece of power equipment, emergency generator and other small engine would have to be replaced, costing billions of dollars. Ethanol has its place, but it isn't viable as the primary motor vehicle fuel in the USA. Electric might be in time, but not ethanol. Electricity is much cheaper than ethanol, can be cleaner, doesn't produce agricultural run off, etc.
While I'm happy it is working for Brasil, you are talking about two completely different types of economy and living standards. We use a lot more fuel per person, and nothing is going to change that. We have winters that you don't have. We have a lower population density in populated areas than you have. We aren't going to change those factors, no matter how much others think we should. Its a non-starter.
Then you don't understand it. All my generators have been four stroke, as is the boat. Living in a small town, gas without ethanol is not available locally, and in North Carolina, they were mandating ethanol years before the feds due to pollution. Running Stabil in fuel is nice and is done year round but doesn't change the chemical reality that ethanol is hygroscopic. Most engines have steel parts. Water rusts steel. Engines that aren't run regularly and have tanks that vent to the atmosphere build up water. Not quite sure why you don't get it. It would appear the majority here do.
How apropos! I have already had TWO generators get trashed ($650+ each) and have had several other mechanical issues with ethanol in non-car engines. Ethanol is the worst thing you can put in a lawn mower, boat, or other motor that isn't run every day. It sucks more water out of the air than the average dehumidifier, which will literally RUST out the engine components.
Putting alcohol in my small motor fuel has created hundreds of dollars of damage, and has created MORE carbon than regular gas, due to all the replacement parts that had to be manufactured again, and shipped. It sounds good on paper, but by the time you add the cost of subsidizing Monsanto and adding the damage, it costs more than it saves in both money and carbon.
One is hardware, the other is software.
But you are talking about analog kinds of "ancient". It's kind of like how a year to us is 7 to a dog, a digitial year is like 100 analog years, so that 20 year old tape backup is similar to a 2000 year old analog backup, ie: a 50/50 chance it will work.
Ok, its an interesting read, but not every realistic. As draconian and fascist as the US govt has become over the last 10 years, many of the ideas in the article simply wouldn't fly. Not everyone in the US is a sheeple. Again, interesting, but there is no way in hell that it could have happened remotely as they stated in the article.
Wikileaks has the one where you can see aliens shoot down the rocket.
You sure that wasn't the CIA inside the ship that they scored in Roswell? The same one that will likely "abduct" Julian in a completely random and unrelated event?
By this logic all business is subsidized by the State, since the State maintains law and order necessary to conduct any of it. Which means that the State has a right and duty to regulate them to the advantage of its residents, We the People, since we're paying part (or all - all costs get passed onto the customer, remember?) of the cost making it possible for them to function.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine)
The preamble to the Constitution authorizes the State to provide police protection and assist commerce in some ways, which is different than direct subsidies. At best, direct subsidies are in the gray area. Interstates and other infrastructure are obviously authorized, tax breaks or subsidies (like to Monsanto and farmers) are not so obvious. I think we would be better off if we spent more on infrastructure and less on farmer (actually Monsanto) welfare.
Part of the issue was that he also wanted to move water on the same throughfares, believing that water was going to be a bigger commodity than electricity. He needed both to make it uberprofitable, he ended up getting none.
While I question his motives in much of this, I do think that he is right in that we should be investing money in electrical infrastructure and wind power. Once more electric cars hit the market, we are going to hit a wall that will raise rates astronomically, and of course, make gasoline power more attractive, slowing down adoption. What is a crying shame is that our tax dollars went to "stimulus" that mainly did little to help us in the long run. If you are going to spend that kind of money (and you shouldn't have to start with), it should have been spent on something with lasting value: transmission lines, bridges, other infrastructure.
But he doesn't put his words on paper or the TV, and more importantly, he doesn't have advertising or make a profit or sell stock, so it isn't real journalism. Remember, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, in the eyes of the benevolent dictators that own our government.
Of course linking is the same as publishing. Just like when a journalist reports on a crime, he is an accessory after the fact and punished accordingly. They are the same thing, aren't they?
Mastercard has 1st amendment rights, too.
No they don't. They are a fucking corporation, NOT an individual. When fellow Americans fail to see this and buy into the whole "corporations are just people too" bullshit, I find it very frustrating. The individuals working for MC have the right, the corporation doesn't.
They shouldn't be closing accounts for the KKK. As much as I despise the KKK, they currently are acting within the 1st amendment of the constitution, and imho, businesses like Mastercard shouldn't discriminate against companies whose politics they disagree with, like the KKK or Wikileaks. It sets a bad precedent, and while legal, isn't cricket.
I would agree, and using cynicism to justify federal control of schools is insane. As if someone in D.C. is going to be tuned into the needs of someone in Colorado, or North Dakota, or California. The problem is that some people don't trust parents as much as they trust government, which is kinda loopy. You can't, and shouldn't, treat every parent as if they are an idiot. Federal meddling is beginning to actually infringe on parental rights.
Just keep in mind that it isn't completely the teacher's fault, at least in the US. In the states, forcing teachers to teach to a test, or risk losing funding for their school (and bonuses for themselves) is the problem. This is one reason I would prefer much more control at the local level, and only guidance at the federal level. Concerned parents can only get involved when the decision making is local, and are powerless when it comes to forced federal mandates. Unconcerned parents, well, it doesn't really matter, so lets worry about the parents who actually are trying to help their kids. The children of the unconcerned parents will get the same educational outcome regardless of the system.