I have friends of friends who are actually bee keepers for a living. I am told the problem with bees is not quite as bad as it was 5 years ago, when mites where the issue. Still, knowing if cell phones are a problem or not is worth finding out, as the reason he keeps bees isn't the honey (honey income is just extra income). He makes pretty big bucks moving his bees around the country, pollinating crops. In particular, almonds in California, but many crops require bees to pollinate. These huge farms with hundreds or thousands of acres per tract have no place for bees to naturally live and without bringing in bees, they would not produce fruit/nuts at all.
Orin Hatch is a Republican Senator from Utah. How exactly did he get a different state to try different state laws on welfare? And obviously, how did this get mod'ed Interesting?
One study involving two hives doesn't even prove correlation, as it could be just random chance, as one hive will always do better than another hive. It is interesting and maybe worth doing some real studies.
But are we going to all give up our cell phones if it turns out that they cause problems with bees?
Your perspective and mine are likely not all that different. That is why I can't call myself a Libertarian, although my beliefs are "libertarian" in general. And to me "conservative 30 years ago" is the same as "conservative", as the beliefs haven't changed, only the label assigned to them. It is the republicans that need to change their label, not real conservatives.
As to national defense, I'm for putting most of our resources into defense only, although I agree in assisting the UN in common goals. I'm for *individual* rights, and think they are inherent, and that the government can't give you rights, they can only act to take them away, AND they shouldn't do that except in extreme circumstances (ie: you are convicted of a felony, etc.)
In my view, the government should act aggressively to insure that the playing field is level for commerce, not guaranteeing equal outcome, but equal access to markets. (no tax breaks for Dell or Walmart to open a new biz).
I'm not for tolls on sidewalks, (which would be something the State builds, not the Feds) as that is a shared convenience. Unlike libertarians, I have no problem with the government owning the roads, sidewalks, waterways and "shared" areas, as WE are the government.
In short, the Feds should do only that which the State can't do (National defense, treaties, interstate, etc.) and the State should do only what the county can't do (state highways, intrastate commerce, sales tax) and the country should only do what the individual can't do (schools, police, fire dept.) Obviously, there will be some overlap, such as State oversight of schools and police, etc.
On social issues, many would incorrectly think I was liberal, but it is about personal choice and individual freedom. I have no problem with gay marriage, for example, as it doesn't hurt anyone and gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their own happiness in a shared relationship that has the same protections under the law.
This is an oversimplification, of course. And while I've been to a Tea Party Rally, it did seem like they were more Republican than Libertarian.
I don't see any "conservatives for gay marriage" or "get the government out of marriage" signs at party meetings by the party that claims to be the conservative party. If they are out there, they are hiding pretty well.
Libertarians. I am not officially Libertarian, although many of my views line up well with them (excepting foreign policy...) Smaller government, a federal government that only does what the constitution says it can, more power to the states (ie: schools), fiscal responsibility, separation of church and state, decriminalization of many drugs (it is completely silly to have marijuana illegal), and the government staying out of things like gay marriage. Actually, the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks to married people or for people who have children or for people who buy homes. If you want a progressive scale, I guess that is ok as long as it applies to everyone equally. Everyone should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness, with the government never interfering with them unless the persons actions affect others.
That is a conservative stance. What the republicans are, well, I can't say, but it isn't conservative, it is more like bible thumping with lower taxes. We have gotten so far away from our real roots, that many people think that republican populism is the same as conservatism, but it isn't. Even Bush and his "conservative" congress spend our tax dollars like drunk sailors on shore leave, proving the point.
From my experience (mainly Linux) it is much easier to setup Linux boxen if you are using them for dedicated tasks, as it is pretty easy to only install the software you need for that task, thus reducing the amount of maintenance in the long run, and narrow down the possible causes of problems. Overall, I would tend to agree that the learning curve is likely equal on both platforms, although finding answers to common Linux issues online is pretty damn easy and fast.
I'm not against Windows on the server per se, but if you need a web server or a file sharing server, it certainly is easy to do on Linux in a matter of a hour or two. Not having to deal with licensing issues, being able to move over data and configurations rapidly via sftp, and the ability to easily clone systems to make a testing platform are just bonuses.
Wikipedia shows the highest performing Loongson system before April scored 1 teraflop peak, and "and about 350 GFLOPS measured by linpack in Hefei". Sounds like they are focusing on performance/watt more than being the fastest, from a read of the rest of the article. Still pretty fast stuff, considering their newest system has 80 quads and is claimed to have a peak around 1 teraflop.
All our admins and all of our users only know Microsoft systems. Training isn't free.
So your users can't use Linux on the server? Or is it that all the users use super computers on the desktop? Our biz has all MS on the desktop and all Linux on the server. Obviously it is completely seamless. As for the admins, any admin worth their salt is always learning new things to just keep up with technology as it changes. Learning Linux by installing it on one system to start is trivial, and in certain situations, much easier to setup than Windows, such as DNS servers, web servers, etc.
If your admins can only work on a server if it uses a mouse, you need new admins.
You don't have to wind up in court with lawyers arguing about what kind of behavior is unsafe.
It is called precedent. You don't need to make a law against murder with a gun, murder with a knife, murder with a brick. What if you murder someone with a baseball bat? Perhaps since there isn't a law against that particular type, then you get away with it? That is my point. What is negligence and what is not is already established by precedent, and those at BP that violated those standards can't be tried by new laws (ex post facto) so it makes no difference in this case. The key is prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the existing laws before making any decisions about any new law being needed.
Because "marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.
Atheists get married too. Marriage is a legally binding social contract. It is a contract pledging to share everything, good and bad, and often to create offspring with each other only. While religion adds a dimension to marriage for those who participate, it is not the source of, nor the reason for two people to get married.
You still need support with your own server, whether it is on a dedicated server at a host, like Server Beach, or at home on a permanent IP/biz class cable. (this assumes a small project). From my experience, the 'rent a rack' is the better way, as their service tends to be pretty good, and they will even fix your own mistaktes when possible.....for a fee. Owning your own physical box at home is nice, but the number of ISP's that will host is limited, making you vulnerable again.
Of course, if you aren't a moderately experienced Linux admin, you just opened up a whole new can of worms.
Just for the record, some of us Westerners find Christians, Jews and Muslims all pretty annoying. Not all of us are Christians. 20% openly say they are not, many who say they are have never gone to church, thus they are on paper only.
I'm certainly not a scholar when it comes to the Koran, but I have read it more than once.
""Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)"
"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers" "Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day.... Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura 9:5,29,41).
We can argue semantics, but that seems to support my claims pretty clearly.
So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying.
That is the 10% I spoke of, who are mainly annoying. Meanwhile, gay marriage (and military service) is slowly moving forward, fewer people in the US are christian than ever, sodomy laws were held to be unconstitutional, etc. I didn't say it was paradise, but at least we are moving in the right direction with a little momentum and the majority of Jews and Christians are not trying to convert us all.
We. Are. Fucked. The best thing you can do is just get yours -- live your life under the radar, grab a bag of popcorn, and chuckle bitterly at the evening news.
Interesting, but that only holds true in a zero sum situation. While our basic instinct is to do exactly as you say, our intellect tells us that cooperation pays dividends as well. One acre of land doesn't produce a fixed amount of grain, we have improved that many times over in the last couple of centuries, due to the cooperation of people who don't farm. Farmers don't build their own tools either, they trade in an open system, part of their efforts in exchange for something that will allow them to produce more in less time.
We *DO* laugh at Dick Van Dyke for tripping over the ottoman and Wylie Coyote when the anvil drops on his head, and more importantly, we lean forward and watch carefully with glee when we see a multi-car pile up in a NASCAR race. As long as no one dies. That is the key, we really don't want someone else to die, we just want to watch the train wreck, the sparks, the mangled steel, the unusual, as long as Dick gets back up, the Wylie is in the next scene putting bird seed in the middle of a painted bullseye on the road, and (most importantly) we cheer when we see the driver get out of the mangled car, on his own power, and wave to the crowd.
here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.
If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.
It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.
The problem with rushing to create new laws is that is saying "This isn't covered under current law", which is another way to let those responsible go scot free, and undermines a real investigation and prosecution. We can make new laws that cover very specific situations like this, but common law regarding criminal negligence should suffice.
The more detailed and specific you make a law, the more difficult it is to actually enforce.
The courts would imprison us, take the car and seize worldly assets to pay the damages.
That depends on each state's laws, and in several states (Texas and Florida, for example) they can't even take your house, per homesteading laws. Ask OJ Simpson about that. In most circumstances, an individuals total assets are not liquidated, if any. FUTURE earnings might be garnished to a large degree, but not so much of current assets. At least here in the USA.
The issue is that BP is a multinational, and unless you have global laws that enforced, it is difficult to hold them fully liable. What is even tougher is selling the American people on global laws, as the vast majority would be against losing that kind of sovereignty, and I would agree on that point.
Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.
Here in America, our constitution was designed specifically to NOT allow the government to do those things. While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not. Certain crimes such as murder, rape, burglary and such are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they victimize other individuals. Even the existing laws in the USA that have no victims should NOT be allowed under our constitution (suicide, for example).
We do understand that other countries do have governments that decide what is moral or not, and many citizens in those countries are ok with that. We just think it is insane to allow a bureaucrat to decide what your poor little mind can handle.
That is called populism, and while it might make people feel good, it doesn't have a basis in law or the constitution. Holding them financially responsible is an obvious point, but you can't seize assets of the employees (4th Amendment) nor hold them personally responsible unless you can show criminal negligence or that they broke some other law. That is entirely possible for some.
What we can't do is knee jerk react and create new laws because of this. The problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, the problem is that the current system of laws and regulations wasn't followed. Politicians love to pass new laws when the shit hits the fan, because it makes it look like are doing something, when in fact it is a useless gesture.
Or god is malevolent, and just doesn't like certain people. The whole idea that "God answers prayers" means that god would be picking winners and losers: ie, kiss his ass, grovel a little bit pray hard to him and he *might* save your daughter from leukemia. If you don't, then he tell you to piss off, and she dies. The Abrahamic religions seem to support the idea that he *is* that kind of an asshole. Vengeful and jealous (per the actual wording in the bible and to a degree, the koran). Sorry, that doesn't sounds like an omnipotent or omniscient being, that sounds like a bully with an inferiority complex.
Desalinization is not efficient, no matter how you do it. It is generally done with reverse osmosis, which uses massive amounts of energy. Desalinized water generally costs about 5x what fresh surface water costs, and in a country like China, where they can't hardly build power generation fast enough (and that generation itself uses lots of water), it isn't a very viable option.
Slashdot Mirror
I have friends of friends who are actually bee keepers for a living. I am told the problem with bees is not quite as bad as it was 5 years ago, when mites where the issue. Still, knowing if cell phones are a problem or not is worth finding out, as the reason he keeps bees isn't the honey (honey income is just extra income). He makes pretty big bucks moving his bees around the country, pollinating crops. In particular, almonds in California, but many crops require bees to pollinate. These huge farms with hundreds or thousands of acres per tract have no place for bees to naturally live and without bringing in bees, they would not produce fruit/nuts at all.
Some of his views might be libertarian, but not those that support welfare.
Orin Hatch tried that in Michigan
Orin Hatch is a Republican Senator from Utah. How exactly did he get a different state to try different state laws on welfare? And obviously, how did this get mod'ed Interesting?
One study involving two hives doesn't even prove correlation, as it could be just random chance, as one hive will always do better than another hive. It is interesting and maybe worth doing some real studies.
But are we going to all give up our cell phones if it turns out that they cause problems with bees?
Your perspective and mine are likely not all that different. That is why I can't call myself a Libertarian, although my beliefs are "libertarian" in general. And to me "conservative 30 years ago" is the same as "conservative", as the beliefs haven't changed, only the label assigned to them. It is the republicans that need to change their label, not real conservatives.
As to national defense, I'm for putting most of our resources into defense only, although I agree in assisting the UN in common goals. I'm for *individual* rights, and think they are inherent, and that the government can't give you rights, they can only act to take them away, AND they shouldn't do that except in extreme circumstances (ie: you are convicted of a felony, etc.)
In my view, the government should act aggressively to insure that the playing field is level for commerce, not guaranteeing equal outcome, but equal access to markets. (no tax breaks for Dell or Walmart to open a new biz).
I'm not for tolls on sidewalks, (which would be something the State builds, not the Feds) as that is a shared convenience. Unlike libertarians, I have no problem with the government owning the roads, sidewalks, waterways and "shared" areas, as WE are the government.
In short, the Feds should do only that which the State can't do (National defense, treaties, interstate, etc.) and the State should do only what the county can't do (state highways, intrastate commerce, sales tax) and the country should only do what the individual can't do (schools, police, fire dept.) Obviously, there will be some overlap, such as State oversight of schools and police, etc.
On social issues, many would incorrectly think I was liberal, but it is about personal choice and individual freedom. I have no problem with gay marriage, for example, as it doesn't hurt anyone and gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their own happiness in a shared relationship that has the same protections under the law.
This is an oversimplification, of course. And while I've been to a Tea Party Rally, it did seem like they were more Republican than Libertarian.
I don't see any "conservatives for gay marriage" or "get the government out of marriage" signs at party meetings by the party that claims to be the conservative party. If they are out there, they are hiding pretty well.
Libertarians. I am not officially Libertarian, although many of my views line up well with them (excepting foreign policy...) Smaller government, a federal government that only does what the constitution says it can, more power to the states (ie: schools), fiscal responsibility, separation of church and state, decriminalization of many drugs (it is completely silly to have marijuana illegal), and the government staying out of things like gay marriage. Actually, the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks to married people or for people who have children or for people who buy homes. If you want a progressive scale, I guess that is ok as long as it applies to everyone equally. Everyone should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness, with the government never interfering with them unless the persons actions affect others.
That is a conservative stance. What the republicans are, well, I can't say, but it isn't conservative, it is more like bible thumping with lower taxes. We have gotten so far away from our real roots, that many people think that republican populism is the same as conservatism, but it isn't. Even Bush and his "conservative" congress spend our tax dollars like drunk sailors on shore leave, proving the point.
From my experience (mainly Linux) it is much easier to setup Linux boxen if you are using them for dedicated tasks, as it is pretty easy to only install the software you need for that task, thus reducing the amount of maintenance in the long run, and narrow down the possible causes of problems. Overall, I would tend to agree that the learning curve is likely equal on both platforms, although finding answers to common Linux issues online is pretty damn easy and fast.
I'm not against Windows on the server per se, but if you need a web server or a file sharing server, it certainly is easy to do on Linux in a matter of a hour or two. Not having to deal with licensing issues, being able to move over data and configurations rapidly via sftp, and the ability to easily clone systems to make a testing platform are just bonuses.
They didn't do a very good job of it.
(yes, you likely need to be logged into facebook)
Wikipedia shows the highest performing Loongson system before April scored 1 teraflop peak, and "and about 350 GFLOPS measured by linpack in Hefei". Sounds like they are focusing on performance/watt more than being the fastest, from a read of the rest of the article. Still pretty fast stuff, considering their newest system has 80 quads and is claimed to have a peak around 1 teraflop.
All our admins and all of our users only know Microsoft systems. Training isn't free.
So your users can't use Linux on the server? Or is it that all the users use super computers on the desktop? Our biz has all MS on the desktop and all Linux on the server. Obviously it is completely seamless. As for the admins, any admin worth their salt is always learning new things to just keep up with technology as it changes. Learning Linux by installing it on one system to start is trivial, and in certain situations, much easier to setup than Windows, such as DNS servers, web servers, etc.
If your admins can only work on a server if it uses a mouse, you need new admins.
You don't have to wind up in court with lawyers arguing about what kind of behavior is unsafe.
It is called precedent. You don't need to make a law against murder with a gun, murder with a knife, murder with a brick. What if you murder someone with a baseball bat? Perhaps since there isn't a law against that particular type, then you get away with it? That is my point. What is negligence and what is not is already established by precedent, and those at BP that violated those standards can't be tried by new laws (ex post facto) so it makes no difference in this case. The key is prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the existing laws before making any decisions about any new law being needed.
Because "marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.
Atheists get married too. Marriage is a legally binding social contract. It is a contract pledging to share everything, good and bad, and often to create offspring with each other only. While religion adds a dimension to marriage for those who participate, it is not the source of, nor the reason for two people to get married.
You still need support with your own server, whether it is on a dedicated server at a host, like Server Beach, or at home on a permanent IP/biz class cable. (this assumes a small project). From my experience, the 'rent a rack' is the better way, as their service tends to be pretty good, and they will even fix your own mistaktes when possible.....for a fee. Owning your own physical box at home is nice, but the number of ISP's that will host is limited, making you vulnerable again.
Of course, if you aren't a moderately experienced Linux admin, you just opened up a whole new can of worms.
Just for the record, some of us Westerners find Christians, Jews and Muslims all pretty annoying. Not all of us are Christians. 20% openly say they are not, many who say they are have never gone to church, thus they are on paper only.
I'm certainly not a scholar when it comes to the Koran, but I have read it more than once.
""Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)"
"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers" "Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day.... Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura 9:5,29,41).
We can argue semantics, but that seems to support my claims pretty clearly.
So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying.
That is the 10% I spoke of, who are mainly annoying. Meanwhile, gay marriage (and military service) is slowly moving forward, fewer people in the US are christian than ever, sodomy laws were held to be unconstitutional, etc. I didn't say it was paradise, but at least we are moving in the right direction with a little momentum and the majority of Jews and Christians are not trying to convert us all.
We. Are. Fucked. The best thing you can do is just get yours -- live your life under the radar, grab a bag of popcorn, and chuckle bitterly at the evening news.
Interesting, but that only holds true in a zero sum situation. While our basic instinct is to do exactly as you say, our intellect tells us that cooperation pays dividends as well. One acre of land doesn't produce a fixed amount of grain, we have improved that many times over in the last couple of centuries, due to the cooperation of people who don't farm. Farmers don't build their own tools either, they trade in an open system, part of their efforts in exchange for something that will allow them to produce more in less time.
We *DO* laugh at Dick Van Dyke for tripping over the ottoman and Wylie Coyote when the anvil drops on his head, and more importantly, we lean forward and watch carefully with glee when we see a multi-car pile up in a NASCAR race. As long as no one dies. That is the key, we really don't want someone else to die, we just want to watch the train wreck, the sparks, the mangled steel, the unusual, as long as Dick gets back up, the Wylie is in the next scene putting bird seed in the middle of a painted bullseye on the road, and (most importantly) we cheer when we see the driver get out of the mangled car, on his own power, and wave to the crowd.
here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.
If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.
It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.
The problem with rushing to create new laws is that is saying "This isn't covered under current law", which is another way to let those responsible go scot free, and undermines a real investigation and prosecution. We can make new laws that cover very specific situations like this, but common law regarding criminal negligence should suffice.
The more detailed and specific you make a law, the more difficult it is to actually enforce.
The courts would imprison us, take the car and seize worldly assets to pay the damages.
That depends on each state's laws, and in several states (Texas and Florida, for example) they can't even take your house, per homesteading laws. Ask OJ Simpson about that. In most circumstances, an individuals total assets are not liquidated, if any. FUTURE earnings might be garnished to a large degree, but not so much of current assets. At least here in the USA.
The issue is that BP is a multinational, and unless you have global laws that enforced, it is difficult to hold them fully liable. What is even tougher is selling the American people on global laws, as the vast majority would be against losing that kind of sovereignty, and I would agree on that point.
Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.
Here in America, our constitution was designed specifically to NOT allow the government to do those things. While they have whittled at those things for years, some of us believe that it is NOT the governments (any government) job to decide what is moral and what is not. Certain crimes such as murder, rape, burglary and such are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they victimize other individuals. Even the existing laws in the USA that have no victims should NOT be allowed under our constitution (suicide, for example).
We do understand that other countries do have governments that decide what is moral or not, and many citizens in those countries are ok with that. We just think it is insane to allow a bureaucrat to decide what your poor little mind can handle.
That is called populism, and while it might make people feel good, it doesn't have a basis in law or the constitution. Holding them financially responsible is an obvious point, but you can't seize assets of the employees (4th Amendment) nor hold them personally responsible unless you can show criminal negligence or that they broke some other law. That is entirely possible for some.
What we can't do is knee jerk react and create new laws because of this. The problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, the problem is that the current system of laws and regulations wasn't followed. Politicians love to pass new laws when the shit hits the fan, because it makes it look like are doing something, when in fact it is a useless gesture.
Woosh.
RTFA for more info on this mesoamerican (Mayan) beer.
Or god is malevolent, and just doesn't like certain people. The whole idea that "God answers prayers" means that god would be picking winners and losers: ie, kiss his ass, grovel a little bit pray hard to him and he *might* save your daughter from leukemia. If you don't, then he tell you to piss off, and she dies. The Abrahamic religions seem to support the idea that he *is* that kind of an asshole. Vengeful and jealous (per the actual wording in the bible and to a degree, the koran). Sorry, that doesn't sounds like an omnipotent or omniscient being, that sounds like a bully with an inferiority complex.
Desalinization is not efficient, no matter how you do it. It is generally done with reverse osmosis, which uses massive amounts of energy. Desalinized water generally costs about 5x what fresh surface water costs, and in a country like China, where they can't hardly build power generation fast enough (and that generation itself uses lots of water), it isn't a very viable option.