I might "positively" vote for this Obama fellow because he seems better than most, but I disagree with him on quite a few issues. Hell, I'm something of a small-L libertarian/"political atheist" and I think I'd vote for him, even if only to give all those cracker bastards out there apoplexy at the notion of a "nigra prez-det". He's no worse than any of the myriad losers we've had run up till now.
Unless of course he happens to be protesting against his being subpoenaed even though he should be protected under California's Shield Laws, which protect journalists from being required to turn over unaired footage. Shield laws only apply to information imparted in confidence. He had no such agreement with the skull-cracking asshats.
If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail. well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says "show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail time.
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage the production of creative works by guaranteeing that a work's creator has a chance to derive financial benefit from his work, and to protect that work from alteration and distortion.... It's a recognition of, and protection of, the existence of rights that occur naturally when we create something. I love to hear your substantiation of the assertion that there is a natural right to control one's intellectual creations. Before copyright, the very idea would have been considered ridiculous. Imagine a tribe of stone-age folks: Thag tells a story around the campfire about the moon god. He mostly just makes it up as he goes along. It's a good story. A couple weeks later, Grod is delivering obsidian arrow heads to the tribe in the next valley and stays overnight. At the campfire, Grod tells Thag's moon god story, adding a few embellishments. Where does the "natural right" of Thag to control the story occur? Thag has lost nothing. Where would one even get the notion that there is any property right to something as insubstantial as a story? Copyright is purely an outgrowth of the publishing industry, and is wholly unnatural.
Dung beetles were using wheels before humans were. No, a ball is not a wheel. What makes the invention of "the wheel" important is the non-rotating load carried by the wheel's axle. A wheel with no axle if fucking useless.
Radiation may not be a big problem for Nuclear energy with waste reprocessing in place but reprocessing can give rise to something people fear more: Nuclear Proliferation. No, because the plutonium that comes from reprocessing is a mixture of Pu isotopes that are essentially inseparable and cannot achieve critical mass. It takes a very specific sort of reactor design to create weapons grade plutonium, and unfortunately a lot of ignorant idiots have tarred all breeder reactors than produce plutonium with the same brush because they don't know what an isotope is and think all plutonium is the same. Obviously, a fuel reprocessing reactor would not be built such that it creates weapons grade Pu. It's really as simple as that.
The only real obstacle to nuclear power is public terror.
I'm no expert on the subject (or even that well versed really), but the main reasonable sounding objection I've heard is that it isn't economically feasible.
<repeating shit I heard>No nuclear power plant ever built has paid for itself before being EOLd. France is the biggest user of nuclear power and that industry is heavily subsidized.</repeating shit I heard>
Is this untrue?
If it is true are there any hard numbers to show that efficiencies of scale would overcome it were it to be put into widespread use?
Part of the problem with here in the US is that every single nuclear plant is a one-off design. It's like what the price of cars used to be back when each one was built by hand, piece by piece, from a plan drawn up for that car alone. France uses a somewhat standardized design and spends a lot less money. If we were to come up with a simple, standardized nuclear power station design, the cost of building, maintaining, and operating would go way down.
OK, so at present consumption we've got 100 years.... Instead of 20% we go to 100% plus transportation and heating and we've got less than 10 years, fifty with your scratch dirt reserves, it's hardly worth building the reactors. Way to handwave away the numbers, man. 100 years' reserves we've already found. Projected reserves are 500 years worth. And allow me to repeat (more slowly this time, so it's heard) that with fuel reprocessing those numbers go up by a factor of ten. That equals 1000 and 5000 years worth, respectively. Even converting all electric power generation, that only increases consumption seven-fold, giving us 140 years on current reserves, 700 years projected total including undiscovered reserves.
Don't pin it all on the long-hairs - people are also a bit worried about nuclear reactors/plants blowing the fuck up on their doorstop, or the effects from such an explosion raining down on their homes. Those folks are not greenist nutters - they have legitimate worries. No, they have illegitimate scare-monger derived worries. How, exactly, does a sensible nuclear reactor "blow up"? Don't bother to cite Chernobyl, as nobody but the safety-unconcerned Soviets would ever dream of building a flammable graphite shielded reactor, much less one with a huge positive void coefficient like the RBMK. The worst nuclear accident in US history was TMI-2, a 30% meltdown, and it was completely contained until the asshats in charge of cleanup decided it would be OK to simply vent some of the excess radioactive steam and hydrogen into the atmosphere. Even still, there were no injuries or deaths from the incident, and the projected number of additional cancer deaths from the vented radioactive material has been calculated at approximately one.
Now take a sensibly designed reactor with a negative void coefficient (like the French use) and there's no problem.
And don't confuse the US with the rest of the world. The rest of the world hasn't "politicized" nuclear power to the extent you claim the US has. Maybe the US will take the lead from other countries, once it's realised it's beneficial. Where did I confuse the US with the rest of the world? I thought I made it pretty clear with the Jimmy Carter bit which geopolitical sphere I was referring to.
nuclear power is the answer but we have a fairly limited amount of fuel Nonsense. Current uranium reserves are enough for 100 years at current consumption, projected accessible reserves are enough for about 500 years. With fuel reprocessing those numbers go up by a factor of 10 (and eliminate the radioactive waste issue as well).
Going to nuclear is only a transformation of waste.
Simply this is a shift in waste not a solution.
Then suddenly its no longer CO2 but it is some radioactive stuff that needs to be buried for thousends of years underground. One might store CO2 in the first place underground and skip the expensive uranium in between.
Remember uranium isn't an endless power solution either, thats why we try to research fusion. Uranium is a limited feul on earth. Current estimated accessible uranium reserves are enough to last approximately 500 years, at the current rate of consumption. If all electricity production (hydro and other "clean" power included) was converted to nuclear, there'd still be enough for nearly 80 years. This is assuming the current wasteful method of not reprocessing fuel. Waste reprocessing, which itself generates energy, would increase the fuel utility by a factor of 10, and would eliminate nuclear waste entirely. In short, we have enough fuel to run fission reactors in place of all the conventional CO2 generating power plants for over 1000 years. Fuel is not the problem. The problem is enviro/peacenik whackos who conflate nuclear weapons with nuclear power and tar them all with the same brush. People like that create a groundswell of popular ignorance that leads to things like Jimmy Carter signing an executive order banning the building of ALL breeder reactors. A particular type of breeder reactor is used to make weapons-grade plutonium. Fuel reprocessing breeder reactors, however, create an inseperable mix of plutonium that is utterly unusable as a weapon. Now why Carter, a trained nuclear engineer, would ban all breeder reactors is a question with only two possible answers: a) the man's an idiot and faked his way through school, or b) he was making a purely symbolic, political gesture. The issue of nuclear power has been thoroughly politicized, to the point where it's hardly about science anymore.
The best things here would be a natural energy source. All energy sources are natural, from water running downhill, to hydrocarbons combusting, to atoms splitting. You can't apply a "back to nature" philosophy to the production of energy!
there are many places with legal systems based on British common law that still hold to a presumption of liability in civil cases.
What are you on about? I've never heard of such a thing. In the UK at least, it's on "balance of probabilites" - less than the "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, but far from a presumption of liability. Cases involving Defamation have generally been heavily slanted towards the plaintiff in the UK. See the European Court of Human Rights declaration regarding the "McLibel" case where McDonalds was awarded 40,000 pounds for a pamphlet accusing them of depleting the rain forest. UK libel and slander standards are ridiculous.
I would compare it to the early versions of the Garmin hand-held GPS receivers. Several models had their buttons above the screen. You had to "drive" it with two hands; one to hold it and one to run the keypad with a finger so that you could navigate through the menus. It was my major gripe about their GPS at the time, and the reason that I went with a Magellen GPS receiver back then (I have since purchased a Garmin eTrex).
You're supposed to hold it in the palm of your hand and operate the buttons with your thumb.
Also, I fail to understand your assertion that putting the buttons below the screen allows you to operate it with one hand more easily. In one handed operation your fingers are busy holding the unit, leaving only the thumb loose.
Anything is innovative once you see it. The summary's question, "Why didn't I think of that?" illustrates this point. I assume you meant "obvious" rather than "innovative". Trouble is, this idea is nothing new. Take a look at any Garmin handheld GPS unit made in the last decade has the keypad on top, screen below. Prior art, if you ask me; but it's not patented, so it doesn't count. This is no better than the usual "same old stuff... with a computer or on the internet" patents.
Boston, and to a lesser extent, the Feds, way overreacted to the situation. Indeed, what we see here is the interaction of two groups of morons. The idiot authorities, who are so hyped up on terror alert juice that a home-made electronic blinky sign looks like a "potential bomb"; and the dopes who put up the signs, who should have easily predicted what the aforementioned idiot authorities would think of an anonymously placed electronic blinky sign.
I don't understand why "under the table" cash is even necessary. Why do that if they can just get a discount? Do public filings even show which company is getting Dell's money? I don't think they are broken down that far. The cash is to keep Intel from having to answer awkward questions from the FTC. You have to be careful with your anticompetitive practices when you're the largest company in your market.
IANAL, but I'm sure a pro can find a few nicely worded offenses commited by this company (Breaking the freedom of choosing its employer, being considered as a serf belonging to the company while slavery has been abolished for some time, moral prejudice for unneeded sufferings, cruelty (in group), libel (?), being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is), intimidation, unheeded meddling in someone's affairs, etc... Cripes, this is what's wrong with Ask Slashdot. The "offenses" you list demonstrate that not only are you not a lawyer, you haven't even watched a single episode of any TV crime drama either. With the exception of "libel", none of the other things have any basis in law. They sound like something out of a Monty Python skit!
Harry Potter apparently never loses. It gets annoying. I mean, he seems to come out in front in every confrontation throughout the books, so there's no build up of tension, no waiting for him to finally win, etc. It gets boring. What's even worse is that he wins not through hard work, or intelligence, but through (bad) serendipity, or (worse) some innate ability he never had to learn, but just discovers just in time. Nothing but deus ex machina crap.
Least Interesting Character Ever.
The seatbelt laws are not just to protect Bob, they're also to protect the other party from incurring more severe repercussions simply due to Bob's negligence. Bollocks. Complete, utter, nonsense. I challenge you to find a single assertion, either by an associated legislator or in the law itself, substantiating this. The intended purpose of seat belt laws is solely to limit injury, not liability.
There's this little thing called second-hand smoke. I seem to recall it being actually worse than first-hand smoke, since the first-hand smoker at least has a filter. Actually, that "worse for you" analysis is based on a kernel of truth, but is largely false. It is true that the smoke coming from the end of a cigarette is worse for you than the smoke inhaled through the filter. However, it is false in that the vast overwhelming majority of second hand smoke does not come from the lit end of the cigarette. Leave a lit cigarette smoldering in an ash tray. Will it fill the room with smoke? Not hardly. You need a smoker dragging on it an exhaling huge clouds of smoke to fill a room properly. Most second hand smoke you encounter is exhaled smoke from the lungs of the smoker. Most second hand smoke has been filtered both by the cigarette filter AND by the smoker's lungs. By volume, nearly all second hand smoke is less dangerous than the smoke pulled through the filter by virtue of having been inhaled once already.
Personally, I'm OK with the smoking ban. I hate the shit. However, I also hate mythology like the "second hand smoke is worse" canard that's based upon a complete and utter failure to consider the basic mechanics of smoking. Smoking in enclosed public places is disgusting. Let's leave it at that. We don't need propaganda invented by unthinking zealots to make that point.
Sorry, but light is light. Unless there's something odd going on with colour perception or absorption, this is probably just your imagination! Light of a certain frequency, intensity and angle of incidence will be reflected exactly the same, whether it comes from incandescent or fluorescent sources. The light emitted by common fluorescent lights is composed mostly of yellow and blue, with little from the red or green end of the spectrum. Incandescent bulbs emit light from the whole spectrum. It's not his imagination. You probably shouldn't comment on stuff you obviously know nothing about.
which is why you can get a parking ticket, have it blown off your windshield, and have the fine double (and if you refuse to pay, your license revoked. You know, if you're going to lecture on the law, you ought to get it right. Parking tickets are assessed against the registered owner of the vehicle, and are attached to the registration. License to drive never enters into the equation at any point. If you don't pay, they add it on to the registration fees for the vehicle. An unpaid parking ticket will never result in suspension of a driver's license because by definition there is no freakin' driver of a parked car! Really, it's bloody obvious if you take a moment and actually think about it. Do meter maids write your driver's license on the parking ticket? No, because they don't even know your driver's license.
How do you find out where Google gets its images from? Check the copyright at the lower right of every Google Maps picture. NAVTEQ or TANA, for the most part. Others in foreign countries.
Look at zip code 23186 (Williamsburg, VA) -- you can't get shit for detail there. I wonder if it's because Camp Perry is right there... No, that's just plain old lack of GIS data, i.e. no one has paid them to take a better picture of the area yet. The way you can tell is that the low-res area containing Camp Peary Naval Reserve turns abruptly to high-res a mile to the south east, in the middle of Yorktown Naval Weapons Station. I guarantee that Camp Peary (despite it housing "The Farm"--- the CIA's famous training facility) has little of interest above ground. Yorktown NWS, however, is where the store the weapons and ammo for most of the Atlantic Fleet.
Seriously, the military had been dealing with satellite surveillance from the soviets long before Google Maps came along. You can bet your ass they weren't asking the ruskies to please blur out the sensitive areas they took pictures of. If it's sensitive, you can't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you and the judge disagree and you don't come around to the judge's point of view, you're going to jail. well.... yeah.... same situation, basically. Like the OP says: when the judge says "show up and testify", you show up and testify. Refusing to show up gets you jail time.
I'm no expert on the subject (or even that well versed really), but the main reasonable sounding objection I've heard is that it isn't economically feasible.
<repeating shit I heard>No nuclear power plant ever built has paid for itself before being EOLd. France is the biggest user of nuclear power and that industry is heavily subsidized.</repeating shit I heard>
Is this untrue?
If it is true are there any hard numbers to show that efficiencies of scale would overcome it were it to be put into widespread use?
Part of the problem with here in the US is that every single nuclear plant is a one-off design. It's like what the price of cars used to be back when each one was built by hand, piece by piece, from a plan drawn up for that car alone. France uses a somewhat standardized design and spends a lot less money. If we were to come up with a simple, standardized nuclear power station design, the cost of building, maintaining, and operating would go way down.
And don't confuse the US with the rest of the world. The rest of the world hasn't "politicized" nuclear power to the extent you claim the US has. Maybe the US will take the lead from other countries, once it's realised it's beneficial. Where did I confuse the US with the rest of the world? I thought I made it pretty clear with the Jimmy Carter bit which geopolitical sphere I was referring to.
Algae produce most of the oxygen in the world. Algae are primarily plants, and the ones that aren't are plant-like protists.
The best things here would be a natural energy source. All energy sources are natural, from water running downhill, to hydrocarbons combusting, to atoms splitting. You can't apply a "back to nature" philosophy to the production of energy!
I would compare it to the early versions of the Garmin hand-held GPS receivers. Several models had their buttons above the screen. You had to "drive" it with two hands; one to hold it and one to run the keypad with a finger so that you could navigate through the menus. It was my major gripe about their GPS at the time, and the reason that I went with a Magellen GPS receiver back then (I have since purchased a Garmin eTrex).
You're supposed to hold it in the palm of your hand and operate the buttons with your thumb.Also, I fail to understand your assertion that putting the buttons below the screen allows you to operate it with one hand more easily. In one handed operation your fingers are busy holding the unit, leaving only the thumb loose.
Least Interesting Character Ever.
Personally, I'm OK with the smoking ban. I hate the shit. However, I also hate mythology like the "second hand smoke is worse" canard that's based upon a complete and utter failure to consider the basic mechanics of smoking. Smoking in enclosed public places is disgusting. Let's leave it at that. We don't need propaganda invented by unthinking zealots to make that point.
Check the copyright at the lower right of every Google Maps picture. NAVTEQ or TANA, for the most part. Others in foreign countries.
Look at zip code 23186 (Williamsburg, VA) -- you can't get shit for detail there. I wonder if it's because Camp Perry is right there... No, that's just plain old lack of GIS data, i.e. no one has paid them to take a better picture of the area yet. The way you can tell is that the low-res area containing Camp Peary Naval Reserve turns abruptly to high-res a mile to the south east, in the middle of Yorktown Naval Weapons Station. I guarantee that Camp Peary (despite it housing "The Farm"--- the CIA's famous training facility) has little of interest above ground. Yorktown NWS, however, is where the store the weapons and ammo for most of the Atlantic Fleet.
Seriously, the military had been dealing with satellite surveillance from the soviets long before Google Maps came along. You can bet your ass they weren't asking the ruskies to please blur out the sensitive areas they took pictures of. If it's sensitive, you can't see it.