+1 on all that. I also have a problem with Disney implanting ideology into their content. Looney Tunes, Merry Melodies etc all are highly politically charged when you look past the childish representation of the characters. For example, it is reasonably clear that Disney was (and probably still is) a racist organization. I saw a cartoon, now banned, that depicted blacks on a cotton farm as thick brutes. Look also at their cartoons that depict characters intended to represent countries, such as Pepe Le Pew. Their behavior and mannerisms are carefully constructed to impart on a young, pliable mind a set of preconceptions that will guide the way that mind later in life perceives the nature of that culture.
Only the makers of large-sized spoons should be held accountable for epidemic of obesity. Indeed, we only want to ban high-capacity eating spoons. And those cheap, Sundae-nite-special ice cream spoons. And naturally there's no legitimate sport-eating purpose for a PLASTIC spoon, easily smuggled through metal detectors. Likewise, we need to prohibit military-style mess kit spoons, made of tough materials and with slots and rivets for attaching a knife and fork.
Yes, no objection to ownership of legitimate sport/pleasure eating spoons, after a two week "cooling of" period, background check, and appropriate tests for responsible eating skills.
And stop being such a context-twisting fuck about your self-evident, inalienable rights. "A well regulated militia..." does not mean "Hillbilly J Morris and his dem-o-traiter hatin' friends out the back moving down beer bottles with no check nor balance". Actually, yes it does. You can argue about whether it was a wise or foolish decision to structure it that way, but by definition in the US Code, going all the way back to the days of the Federalist Papers and even the first Continental Congress, the militia has been every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a military-grade firearm. Modern fantasies about "well regulated" meaning "tightly controlled by the government" are just that--- in the context of the 2nd, "well-regulated" is meant in the classic 18th century sense of "able to shoot straight and prepared to fight". I freely accept that you think it shouldn't be that way, and fully support your right to pursue changing it via constitutional amendment; but beyond that, your assertion is factually incorrect. Historical record is very clear on the subject. Arguig otherwise is willful ignorance.
What I'm honestly curious about is this: Is this numeric string code copyrighted? No, but they'll try to claim it is. Then they'll probably try to claim it's a "circumvention device". It's all crap though.
Or is it a trade secret? No, trade secrets are secrets.
Do trade secrets need to be filed or declared somehow? Is a trade secret intellectual property that must be removed when a theatening (maybe DMCA) notice is sent? No, the only protection "trade secrets" have is legal hammers for pounding those who reveal them (does not apply to reverse engineering though!). The classic example is an employee of Coca-Cola entrusted with access to the "secret formula" leaking it to the public. Coke has no legal power to stop the public from knowing or using their trade secret, but they can sure sue the crap out of them, and might even have the feds put them in federal pound me in the ass prison.
I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't ex post facto prevent this from being used to overturn patents already in place? Or does that only apply to congressional law? Ex post facto applies only to the passing of laws. For example, congress cannot pass a law criminalizing the sale of cigarettes, then have everyone who has ever sold a cigarette previous to the law passing arrested, they could only arrest those selling them after the law passed.
SCOTUS rulings are something completely different. SCOTUS doesn't pass law, it merely rules on the constitutionality of laws. A law that's ruled unconstitutional has essentially been ruled to have never been law. Anything previously done under that law is invalid.
wouldn't ex post facto prevent this from being used to overturn patents already in place?
It would probably keep litigants who lost a patent suit from challenging the patent again no... that doesn't make any sense. When SCOTUS overturns law, anything that was previously decided on the basis of that law is up in the air, if not outright tossed out. For example, when SCOTUS declared various states' death penalty laws were unconstitutional in 1972, the criminals convicted under those laws had their death sentences immediately overturned. Really, do you think they'd say "You were sentenced to death unconstitutionally, but it's too late now, we're going to kill you anyway. Sorry."?
Ontario's nuclear power record is atrocious. huge debt, huge subsidies. pretty much a boondoggle from day 1. feel free to google for "ontario nuclear power boondoggle". Ontario's taxpayers are on the hook for billions due the nuclear power clusterfuck in that province. Of course that has no inherent relationship to the nature of nuclear power, but rather the idiocy of a certain few. Take a look at the nuclear power system in France. 3 cent/Kw-h, and run on budget. It can be done right. Ontario just did it wrong.
It is heavily used all over the world. And for the last 50 years, it has worked wonderfully. The problem is that the world is about to lose upwards of a 1/5 of their good freshwater. Top on that the increase in evaporation lose (here in the American West, we are expected to lose about 1/10 to 1/5 of our water to evaporation), and suddenly, the costs of hydro batteries become prohibitive. Nonsense. It doesn't take very much water for energy storage, not compared to the amount of water required simply for a city's sanitary water supply. Most hydro battery systems are integrated with freshwater supply systems. The water has to be there anyway.
That said, I feel that renewable energy
kind of closes down options for nuclear power generation http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html.
Your analysis is flawed in many ways, not least of which because you don't seem to understand that in the case of hydro, they are not limited to a choice between a) let water flow and generate power, or b) turn off the tap and hold it all back. They can let water flow by without power generation, and that is, in fact, the way large power grids deal with variable demand. Hydro power is the easiest to adjust to real-time demand variation so it's used as a "buffer".
This is beside the point though. Your entire argument is based upon the presumption that, in the future, growth of "free" renewable power generation will result in a huge surplus in generation capacity, thus requiring one portion of the generating infrastructure to be shut down. Now which gets shut down first? You approach it from a (flawed) technical analysis. In real life, the selection will be made mostly on price. The nuclear plants, at 4-6 cent per Kw-H, aren't going to be it. Cheap solar (and wind) is going to be competing with cheaper solar (and wind), because solar panels and windmills aren't free, nor is the labor to install, maintain, and operate them. As TFA says, we're looking at 43 freakin' cents per Kw-H for solar right now. It has a long way to go before it can knock nukes offline.
The problem I have with nuclear power is that it is woefully inefficient. Using nuclear fission to generate steam that drives a turbine to produce electricity seems wasteful to me.
As our understanding of the physical world increases, it should be possible to extract electrons directly from the items undergoing fission. Then I'd consider it efficient use. Your grasp of physics is mind boggling. Nuclear is inefficient because it doesn't strip off electrons and feed them into the wire directly? You're completely daft. Electricity isn't a about supplying electrons, it's about moving them.
Projects like this one will create jobs, which is a net increase for the Province when it comes to overall tax collections. I'm rather ambivalent on the issue itself, but I would like to point out that the above line of reasoning is a variation of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Just curious. What's the lifetime storage and/or handling costs of the waste? If they'd simply allow the construction of breeder reactors to reprocess the waste into more fuel, the waste problem with nuclear virtually vanishes. You are then left with only the power plant itself. A decommissioned plant can be dismantled and clean in far less time than it takes to fix an open-pit mine.
What happened to us? Did they put something in the water supplies that make us more docile? Is it subliminal messaging on TVs? Perhaps it's the 60Hz AC that permeates the country? Maybe HAARP really does work and they've pointed it at us. I don't know what it is, but there's got to be some common link here, it can't be that we've all suddenly and independently lost interest in everything worthwhile. Nothing has happened to us. Nothing has changed. People have always largely been sheep who wanted nothing but to be left alone. The principles upon which our government was founded were designed to somewhat mitigate this popular disinterest, but it's always there.
Some people have bandied about GMO crops as a possible link because GMO penetration is much higher in the US People who say that are standing on no firmer ground than the cell phone blaming folks. "GMO" isn't a single thing that can be pointed at effect-wise. It's not a chemical pollutant like PCBs. It's even fairly difficult to show how "GMO" corn is really any more genetically modified than the "natural" corn they started with, which has been cross-bred and re-bred to such an extent that it hardly resembles its original form. No, in order to claim it's GMO's killing bees, you'd have to show some common aspect of said organisms that bees would be interacting with, and they simply isn't anything GMO's have in common.
The value of something is defined by it's demand, not by it's cost to reproduce. Bollocks. The demand for oxygenated air is incredibly high--- about 60 liters per minute per person, on average--- and yet the cost of air is zero. "Value" is determined by two things: 1) what the buyer is willing to pay, and 2) what the seller is willing to let it go for. If the two are compatible, a transaction happens. The record companies are trying to sell air. Historically, the value of phonorecords came primarily from the difficulty of fixing sound to a medium such that it could be replayed. Recordings were expensive to make, and a large industry grew up around the relative difficulty of producing quality phonorecords. Now that the cost of reproducing those records is essentially zero, we're back to where we were prior to the phonograph and the player piano. People paid for performance, and a bunch of rich empty suits who'd become accustomed to making money selling that which was (up till about 100 years ago) free as air, well, they go to the bread line where they belong.
Well, them, and the fairly large swath of the U.S. involved in corn production. It's not like they could very easily switch over to growing sugar cane... 30% of the world's sugar comes from the sugar beet, which they COULD grow. THe only reason they stay with corn is that they've ALWAYS grown corn, and the government has been subsidizing them since the early 20th century, when supply began to outsrip demnd and depress the price. Those corn growing fuckers need to be put out of business, the fucking leeches.
Why would Apple want to switch to them in the first place? Have you ever used an iMac? It has a fan that starts up for about two seconds when you power it on, and then never again. Can you build a computer like that with an AMD chip these days? You just described the AMD machine I built 3 months ago. The "fry an egg on an AMD processor" meme died with the Athlon XP introduction years ago, stupid fucker.
Your "troll" allegations are not very professional. I would hope for your sake that a future employer of yours does not see your transgressions, and passes you up in favor of a more respectable, honorable candidate. Oh yes, calling an anonymous person a "troll" on slashdot is as bad as posting a big pic on myspace of yourself smoking a giant bong with a needle hanging out of your arm and your dick in a St Bernard. Calling YOU a troll is hardly a transgression. It's simply an observation of fact.
In any case, what is it that you did there at AMD? Were you one of the interns they hire to run papers around for the engineers?
And just so you know, I was last an AMD employee about 8 years ago, after stints at MIPS Computer Systems and Digital, and some time at STM. So save your insults for somebody they actually apply to, bub. Oh, worked at AMD did you? You do know that nobody believes you, don't you? You're posting as AC. You're a condescending dickhead. You offer nothing but innuendo and unsupported assertions. "tomstdenis" is more credible than you simply by having posted regularly here for a few years. Take yourself out with the trash, loser. No one believes your stories. You might claim you don't care, but your continued monitoring of this sure indicates you do.
Re:Shouldn't this have been tagged with HAHA alrea
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This does show how unreliable the GPS system is. No it doesn't, you dunce. This hack really has fuck-all to do with GPS. It's a hack of the TMC protocol, which is a terrestrial FM radio signal.
Years ago (going on 30 years ago, now), I used to hitch-hike. It was safe then. Please. It's still just as safe as it always was (i.e. perfectly safe, unless you're unlucky or alone and female). You think the odd itinerant serial killer didn't used to pick up and murder hitchhikers in the 70's? I can cite you DOZENS of hitchhiker murders from the 70's. The only difference now is that you hear about it on the news, and advances forensic science have led to more conclusions of "definitely murdered hitchhiker", rather than the old separate results of "family in Oregon never hears from hitchhiker again" and "police unable to ID body found by Hwy 8 in Ohio".
Well, I'm not sure what the term free speech means in Canada, but down here in the U.S. it means that the government is not allowed to suppress Constitutionally-protected speech (which it does anyway, but that's a topic for another day.) It does not mean that we aren't allowed to suppress each other. The courts determine when and if we can do that You're an idiot. When Party A requests that the court limit the speech of Party B, he is, in fact, requesting that the government limit B's speech as allowed by law. The limits allowable by law are subject to the 1st Amendment.
Yeah, this is cool, no doubt. How many users actually *use* how much power they already have? I use a lot, but it's mostly dependent on the graphics card. Time and again, Intel and AMD come out with new, faster processors, and every time some bozo like you feels the need to say the same stupid thing: "who needs this much computing power on the desktop?" Time and again, someone like me has to post the same damn reply:
You are not the market for this. The desktop is not the market for this. Games are not the end-all be-all of high-intensity computation. In a more general sense, progress just fucking progresses. Are you saying AMD and Intel should just market their 2GHz parts forever, as that's plenty for everyone?
Seriously, this is equivalent to someone developing a 200mph freight train, and you coming along questioning its value, as the only freight you ever move is a trunk full of groceries 1 mile from the store to home, and your car is more than sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
he thinks banks are a scam too. anyone foolish enough to put money in a bank is asking for trouble.
+1 on all that. I also have a problem with Disney implanting ideology into their content. Looney Tunes, Merry Melodies etc all are highly politically charged when you look past the childish representation of the characters. For example, it is reasonably clear that Disney was (and probably still is) a racist organization. I saw a cartoon, now banned, that depicted blacks on a cotton farm as thick brutes. Look also at their cartoons that depict characters intended to represent countries, such as Pepe Le Pew. Their behavior and mannerisms are carefully constructed to impart on a young, pliable mind a set of preconceptions that will guide the way that mind later in life perceives the nature of that culture.
Looney Tunes, Merri Melodies, Pepe lePew == Warner Brothers (not Disney)Get back to us when you actually have a firm grasp on what you're talking about, rather than that incoherent confusion currently in your head.
Yes, no objection to ownership of legitimate sport/pleasure eating spoons, after a two week "cooling of" period, background check, and appropriate tests for responsible eating skills.
Or is it a trade secret? No, trade secrets are secrets.
Do trade secrets need to be filed or declared somehow? Is a trade secret intellectual property that must be removed when a theatening (maybe DMCA) notice is sent? No, the only protection "trade secrets" have is legal hammers for pounding those who reveal them (does not apply to reverse engineering though!). The classic example is an employee of Coca-Cola entrusted with access to the "secret formula" leaking it to the public. Coke has no legal power to stop the public from knowing or using their trade secret, but they can sure sue the crap out of them, and might even have the feds put them in federal pound me in the ass prison.
SCOTUS rulings are something completely different. SCOTUS doesn't pass law, it merely rules on the constitutionality of laws. A law that's ruled unconstitutional has essentially been ruled to have never been law. Anything previously done under that law is invalid.
It would probably keep litigants who lost a patent suit from challenging the patent again no... that doesn't make any sense. When SCOTUS overturns law, anything that was previously decided on the basis of that law is up in the air, if not outright tossed out. For example, when SCOTUS declared various states' death penalty laws were unconstitutional in 1972, the criminals convicted under those laws had their death sentences immediately overturned. Really, do you think they'd say "You were sentenced to death unconstitutionally, but it's too late now, we're going to kill you anyway. Sorry."?
Your analysis is flawed in many ways, not least of which because you don't seem to understand that in the case of hydro, they are not limited to a choice between a) let water flow and generate power, or b) turn off the tap and hold it all back. They can let water flow by without power generation, and that is, in fact, the way large power grids deal with variable demand. Hydro power is the easiest to adjust to real-time demand variation so it's used as a "buffer".
This is beside the point though. Your entire argument is based upon the presumption that, in the future, growth of "free" renewable power generation will result in a huge surplus in generation capacity, thus requiring one portion of the generating infrastructure to be shut down. Now which gets shut down first? You approach it from a (flawed) technical analysis. In real life, the selection will be made mostly on price. The nuclear plants, at 4-6 cent per Kw-H, aren't going to be it. Cheap solar (and wind) is going to be competing with cheaper solar (and wind), because solar panels and windmills aren't free, nor is the labor to install, maintain, and operate them. As TFA says, we're looking at 43 freakin' cents per Kw-H for solar right now. It has a long way to go before it can knock nukes offline.
As our understanding of the physical world increases, it should be possible to extract electrons directly from the items undergoing fission. Then I'd consider it efficient use. Your grasp of physics is mind boggling. Nuclear is inefficient because it doesn't strip off electrons and feed them into the wire directly? You're completely daft. Electricity isn't a about supplying electrons, it's about moving them.
Professional wrestling.
In any case, what is it that you did there at AMD? Were you one of the interns they hire to run papers around for the engineers?
And just so you know, I was last an AMD employee about 8 years ago, after stints at MIPS Computer Systems and Digital, and some time at STM. So save your insults for somebody they actually apply to, bub. Oh, worked at AMD did you? You do know that nobody believes you, don't you? You're posting as AC. You're a condescending dickhead. You offer nothing but innuendo and unsupported assertions. "tomstdenis" is more credible than you simply by having posted regularly here for a few years. Take yourself out with the trash, loser. No one believes your stories. You might claim you don't care, but your continued monitoring of this sure indicates you do.
You are not the market for this. The desktop is not the market for this. Games are not the end-all be-all of high-intensity computation. In a more general sense, progress just fucking progresses. Are you saying AMD and Intel should just market their 2GHz parts forever, as that's plenty for everyone?
Seriously, this is equivalent to someone developing a 200mph freight train, and you coming along questioning its value, as the only freight you ever move is a trunk full of groceries 1 mile from the store to home, and your car is more than sufficient.