I would compost, but I don't have anything I could do with the compost.
Ummm...grow your own organic food, maybe? That way, you wouldn't have to drive to the store so much. And, while you are mowing your lawn, you *are* leaving the clippings behind as a natural organic fertilizer, right? And you are mowing with a push-mower, rather than a highly polluting 2-stroke gas/oil engine, yes?
Just say NO, and encourage your legislature to just say NO too.
Perhaps it is time to stop Federalism and go back to the Articles of Confederation. After all, isn't this a classic case of abnegation of the Fifth Amendment?
There's a theory which states that complex systems eventually end up working against the very purpose they were created to serve.
That is from the work of the late-19th Century sociologist Max Weber, who pointed out that bureaucracies tend to end up *becoming* the problem that they were originally created to solve. He was also the first to point out that the average bureaucracy grows at a rate of about 5% per year.
The classic reference is to the US Dept of Agriculture. When it was first created, there were a million farmers and only a few bureaucrats. Now, the numbers are exactly reversed.
...I find it disgusting yet majestic. With joy and honor, I expel my living odor in your general direction.
First Conscent
The Malordians to the Earthians, c. 2205 AD
If we seriously consider the anthropic principle, we find that humans, like all other DNA-based lifeforms, *communicate* by some sort of chemical expression: scent, in a word. (Having now evolved other, more precise, air-based communication techniques, we now use it largely only for sexual reproduction purposes. But is indubitably still present.) For many species, it is their primary social communication mechanism.
Therefore, logic dictates that the large-brained bipeds whom we shall inevitably meet will *probably* use some form of this, and we must quickly adapt, or risk being seem as 'inhuman' (so to speak.)
As the Mals say, "No scents; nonsense."
(Fortunately, humans possess an adult sub-group that is uncannily attuned to scent: I refer to the "schizophrenics". Their sensitivity to odor is well-documented. Let's make sure we have a few on board every spaceship that goes out there. Seriously.)
The flip side of this, is that, we are also pattern *makers*: that's why we perceive a picture of the Virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich, or once, in the heavens, constellations as patterns of stars.
When all you are is a pattern hunting machine, though, everything looks like a pattern. Try not to be paranoid -- some apparent patterns really AREN'T.
I'm always amazed at how many plastic (or paper) bags the grocer insists on giving me every week
Don't be so passive. Bring your own bag - either an old large paper bag (some stores will give you a credit for doing so) or [better] a canvas bag which can be reused almost endlessly.
As to the other things, all of which will both cost less and improve your lifestyle:
Replace all incadescent lights with the new fluorescents (those twisty looking ones) -- they use about 1/3 of the power, but give off 90% of the light.
Make sure your computer monitor is EnergyStar compliant.
Insulate your house, so you use less energy heating it.
Don't watch TV. Read a book instead.
Raise your own food; thus, you will drive to the store less often (as well as getting more exercise).
Get a smaller and/or more energy efficient refrigerator.
Turn off lights and appliances which are not being used.
Set your thermostat lower, and wear sweaters to compensate.
These are all common sense ideas that *I* personally have used. I've saved 30% on my various utility bills.
That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--'Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace... They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'"
So, Commissioner Copps, you *ARE* for Low Power FM boardcasting, then, aren't you? You will recall that a study was done after the NAB complained that LPFM would 'interfere' with current channels and it was found that that was a *lie*. If you are all about freedom in the marketplace, why don't you slap down the NAB -- you know, "somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace" -- and ensure that LPFM goes forward with all deliberate speed? You are for free speech -- right? And what could be more democratic and indicative of an "ownership society" than permitting citizens to build, own and run their own low-power radio stations (that have now been shown to NOT interfere with commercial radio)?
Article I, Section 15. [Freedom of speech and of the press -- Libel.]
No law shall be passed to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Since the law as passed merely mandates that the ISP give the consumer a choice, it doesn't violate this Article. What I did find interesting, though, is this is the first Constitution I've seen that incorporates the principle of *jury nullification* into law -- albeit only in one narrowly defined area.
It's this part: "the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
True.com, of course, has ensured that it would be exempt from the warning requirement.
Aha! A Bill of Attainder! Congress (and, by extension the states, since the Consitution,when it references lawful activities, trumps any state law referencing the same activities) is prohibited from passing a bill that targets a single individual (or, since corporations insist that they are "individuals", corporations). Since True.com has "ensured" that they would be 'exempt', such a law *constitutes* a Bill of Attainder and is, therefore, pre facto, unconstitutional.
And let's not forget that, since internet sites are common carriers, *requiring* those sites to *solicit* PRIVATE information that is not -- like one's Credit Card information -- *necessary* in order to use those sites violates the Constitution as well -- the well-known "penumbra of privacy" implicit in the Bill of Rights. This may even rise to the level of "an unlawful search" clearly prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, since it is evident that True.com expects to protect its business model by government action.
They jazzed up the tune a little this year -- added some rhythm. While it's still not the greatest theme, it's better than the filk-like dirge from previous years.
Welcome to the corporate media. I have noticed that "news" no longer means what it used to. It used to be, when the media covered a story, they named names. Now we get these vague references to "officials" and "unnamed sources" and "a spokesman who did not wish to be identified".
Anyway, this is the new way of floating trial balloons: throw up a vague story and assess the reaction. Of course, if only the fringies on Slashdot object, it will probably happen.
The scheme for generating the compact strings can be applied in any place where one needs to transmit or store binary floating-point information, with the constraints that one has to limit some arbitrary character set and one wants to make it as compact as possible while preserving a desired level of accuracy.
What Microsoft is claiming ownership of here is, basically, *any* encoding system whose output is subject to a length constraint. While the primary thrust of the patent is the collision of Natural Area Coding with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle (for the purposes of minimizing URL length on mobile devices), *this* part attempts to boldly snatch algorithms which have been part of science for decades. Anyone ever hear of a guy named Huffman? Or Morse?
Even more chilling are the implications for biologic patents. What, I submit, is RNA but an encoding scheme designed to cram information into 3-bit packets?
I must have thought of about 10 sarcastic rejoinders to this post while I was waiting for the page to load. I'll go with this one:
"Yes, I *AM* the President of the United States. Would you like to scan me again to confirm that? I *KNOW* that's not the name on my passport -- I'm traveling incognito! OK, thank you. I accept your apology. And may I have your vote in November?"
It is because it gives hope to third parties when in fact IRV strengthens the hand of the major parties. Why? Because it only works correctly on a level playing field, where the parties involved are of approximately equal size. This is not the case in America, where two of the parties each get 49% of the vote and the next two parties average about 1%.
So any benefit that IRV activists hope to get is based on their theory that "someday we will be big boys too!" (Great -- new boss, old boss, yada yada yada.)
If we are going to talk about "reforming" the voting system in America, let's skip IRV, Approval, etc. and go directly to Proportional Representation. PR gives a voice to everyone.
PR is kind of the reverse of "winner-take-all": the current system which tends to disenfranchise underrepresented views. Under PR, any party which receives more than X% [usually taken to be about 5%] of the vote in a given district is entitled to a representative from that district. Given that there are about 4 parties that might reach that threshold, this should lead to about 3 times as many representatives from every district, on the average. (I suspect that the location of the "center" is different in each district, but that the minor parties most 'opposite' the center will not quite be able to make the 5%. But I might be wrong.)
This will benefit everyone in several ways. First of all, more good ideas will surface in legislatures, precisely because there will be more points of view. Secondly, it will lead to a rise in voter participation, as voters realize that their vote really *does* count. Thirdly, multi-partisan coalitions will arise, leading to better legislation. (There is only *1* possible bipartisan coalition, while there are 1+4 + 6 +4 = 15 possible multipartisan coalitions [not 16: a coalition with no members is not a coalition, is it?]). (Passing *any* legislation will probably turn out to require at least a tripartisan coalition). And fourth, it will lead to *much* more interesting and meaningful political campaigns (as *all* sides of every issue are explored), which is what we all want! 8^D
[Sorry if that took longer than 30 seconds, but I believe that the American voter is more intelligent than you give them credit for, especially once they figure out what their self-interest *really* is.]
OK,/.ers -- tell me *why* PR is *not* a better solution than 'ranking' systems. (And I pre-call "bullshit!" on any assertion that argues that it is 'more complicated' than a ranking system. Under PR, people still only get one vote: it's the aggregate vote that matters.)
And furthermore, Resprentatives are awarded per population (I don't have the numbers offhand, but it's somewhere around a million citizens per Representative)
It's about 650,000 citizens per Representative (but the actual number depends on how many citizens your state has, as well as how many people the decennial census counts in the nation as a whole.)
Where does this intense desire to use an electronic voting system come from in the first place?
OK, I'll bite.
It is much easier to steal an election if there is no way to recount the votes. Clear?
It is much easier to avoid recounting the votes if you replace all the voting machines with new "efficient, electronic" machines that have no recount ability. Clear?
It is much easier to replace all of the voting machines if you argue that this will "improve" voting for disabled people. Clear?
It is much easier to sell the concept of electronic voting if you point out that the machines will be cheaper without each one having to have a printer. Clear?
It is much easier to build cheaper machines if you have all of the new machines built by companies controlled by Republicans. Clear?
Conclusion: Stealing elections by requiring people to vote on machines which leave no paper trail that were built by the party in power is the American Way!
Clear?
If this is not clear to you, pick up the book Black Box Voting by Bev Harris. She explains it better than I ever could.[Direct link to Amazon, not affiliate]
"The real question is not whether the United States is a wealthy place but rather whether it's producing more wealth than it's consuming. Obviously, we are. We're using a lot of the world's resources but we're producing far more of the world's resources."
We are *NOT* "producing far more of the world's resources". Unless, of course, you redefine "resource" to mean something other than what it actually means. As a matter of fact, 'resource' in this context does not mean something that "we" can produce; it means something that nature produces. In that context, all that *we* "produce" falls under the category of excrement -- and that's about where I would file this fellow's dizzyingly deluded comment.
...that both candidates are pro-violence [they are both for "winning the war on terrorism" by killing as many 'terrorists' as they can, aren't they?] and in favor of disenfranchising American sovereignity [they are both pro-NAFTA].
Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree.
Unfortunately, it's not the only one. Please vote for *anybody* but these clowns and help to destroy this duopoly masquerading as a democracy. You may think that it's a "wasted vote" today, but citizens of the future will consider you a brave visionary.
that would allow people to register for these tours, perhaps issue them with a ticket, and even let them cancel their reservation,
You could cancel reservations by having people enter a [randomly generated] number which is printed on their ticket -- in essence, outsourcing the sessionID to the physical ticket.
It would make more sense, too, to just have them print out a ticket from the website [with the date, time and cancellation #]; that way, they wouldn't even *need* an email address to be able to take the tour.
Re:energy independence begins at home
on
Solar Shingles
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How about paving roads with solar panels, under some hard (metamaterial) transparent aluminum? About 16M hectares of America is paved road and parking..
While you are right that there is an inordinately large amount of paved area, I think another poster has enlightened you on the transparent aluminum problem.
Still, along those same lines: just covering all parking lots with these panels would be a big step forward. Additionally, parking structures could have these *both* over the top level *and* down the southern exposures. The municipality who paid for the installation would then recover the cost of the panels from their reduced energy costs and/or reselling the energy thus generated back to the electric company.
An additional benefit is that all those parking spaces are now protected from the weather, thus reducing maintenance costs for any car parked there.
And while we're at it, we could use the superstructure that supports the solar panels to also support small wind turbines. Careful design of parking structures could ensure that wind that blows through the structure is accelerated (by narrowing the apertures), thus increasing its usability when captured at the other side of the structure.
In any case, Doc, that was very nice forward thinking.
Programs themselves are just mathematical descriptions.
They are not *just* descriptions; they *do* something. That's what you are missing. If they were merely descriptions, they could not be patented. But *doing something* -- processing some material and creating useful output (in this case, data) -- makes them machines, and hence patentable (assuming non-obviousity, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm...grow your own organic food, maybe? That way, you wouldn't have to drive to the store so much. And, while you are mowing your lawn, you *are* leaving the clippings behind as a natural organic fertilizer, right? And you are mowing with a push-mower, rather than a highly polluting 2-stroke gas/oil engine, yes?
Perhaps it is time to stop Federalism and go back to the Articles of Confederation. After all, isn't this a classic case of abnegation of the Fifth Amendment?
That is from the work of the late-19th Century sociologist Max Weber, who pointed out that bureaucracies tend to end up *becoming* the problem that they were originally created to solve. He was also the first to point out that the average bureaucracy grows at a rate of about 5% per year.
The classic reference is to the US Dept of Agriculture. When it was first created, there were a million farmers and only a few bureaucrats. Now, the numbers are exactly reversed.
Therefore, logic dictates that the large-brained bipeds whom we shall inevitably meet will *probably* use some form of this, and we must quickly adapt, or risk being seem as 'inhuman' (so to speak.)
As the Mals say, "No scents; nonsense."
(Fortunately, humans possess an adult sub-group that is uncannily attuned to scent: I refer to the "schizophrenics". Their sensitivity to odor is well-documented. Let's make sure we have a few on board every spaceship that goes out there. Seriously.)
The flip side of this, is that, we are also pattern *makers*: that's why we perceive a picture of the Virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich, or once, in the heavens, constellations as patterns of stars.
When all you are is a pattern hunting machine, though, everything looks like a pattern. Try not to be paranoid -- some apparent patterns really AREN'T.
Don't be so passive. Bring your own bag - either an old large paper bag (some stores will give you a credit for doing so) or [better] a canvas bag which can be reused almost endlessly.
As to the other things, all of which will both cost less and improve your lifestyle:
Replace all incadescent lights with the new fluorescents (those twisty looking ones) -- they use about 1/3 of the power, but give off 90% of the light.
Make sure your computer monitor is EnergyStar compliant.
Insulate your house, so you use less energy heating it.
Don't watch TV. Read a book instead.
Raise your own food; thus, you will drive to the store less often (as well as getting more exercise).
Get a smaller and/or more energy efficient refrigerator.
Turn off lights and appliances which are not being used.
Set your thermostat lower, and wear sweaters to compensate.
These are all common sense ideas that *I* personally have used. I've saved 30% on my various utility bills.
So, Commissioner Copps, you *ARE* for Low Power FM boardcasting, then, aren't you? You will recall that a study was done after the NAB complained that LPFM would 'interfere' with current channels and it was found that that was a *lie*. If you are all about freedom in the marketplace, why don't you slap down the NAB -- you know, "somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace" -- and ensure that LPFM goes forward with all deliberate speed? You are for free speech -- right? And what could be more democratic and indicative of an "ownership society" than permitting citizens to build, own and run their own low-power radio stations (that have now been shown to NOT interfere with commercial radio)?
Well?
Article I, Section 15. [Freedom of speech and of the press -- Libel.] No law shall be passed to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Since the law as passed merely mandates that the ISP give the consumer a choice, it doesn't violate this Article. What I did find interesting, though, is this is the first Constitution I've seen that incorporates the principle of *jury nullification* into law -- albeit only in one narrowly defined area.It's this part: "the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
Aha! A Bill of Attainder! Congress (and, by extension the states, since the Consitution,when it references lawful activities, trumps any state law referencing the same activities) is prohibited from passing a bill that targets a single individual (or, since corporations insist that they are "individuals", corporations). Since True.com has "ensured" that they would be 'exempt', such a law *constitutes* a Bill of Attainder and is, therefore, pre facto, unconstitutional.
And let's not forget that, since internet sites are common carriers, *requiring* those sites to *solicit* PRIVATE information that is not -- like one's Credit Card information -- *necessary* in order to use those sites violates the Constitution as well -- the well-known "penumbra of privacy" implicit in the Bill of Rights. This may even rise to the level of "an unlawful search" clearly prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, since it is evident that True.com expects to protect its business model by government action.
Dear Slashdot Reader:
Welcome to my world.
Sincerely yours,
Carl Jung
Welcome to the corporate media. I have noticed that "news" no longer means what it used to. It used to be, when the media covered a story, they named names. Now we get these vague references to "officials" and "unnamed sources" and "a spokesman who did not wish to be identified".
Anyway, this is the new way of floating trial balloons: throw up a vague story and assess the reaction. Of course, if only the fringies on Slashdot object, it will probably happen.
Funny .... I thought "google" was a verb .
What Microsoft is claiming ownership of here is, basically, *any* encoding system whose output is subject to a length constraint. While the primary thrust of the patent is the collision of Natural Area Coding with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle (for the purposes of minimizing URL length on mobile devices), *this* part attempts to boldly snatch algorithms which have been part of science for decades. Anyone ever hear of a guy named Huffman? Or Morse?
Even more chilling are the implications for biologic patents. What, I submit, is RNA but an encoding scheme designed to cram information into 3-bit packets?
"Yes, I *AM* the President of the United States. Would you like to scan me again to confirm that? I *KNOW* that's not the name on my passport -- I'm traveling incognito! OK, thank you. I accept your apology. And may I have your vote in November?"
So any benefit that IRV activists hope to get is based on their theory that "someday we will be big boys too!" (Great -- new boss, old boss, yada yada yada.)
If we are going to talk about "reforming" the voting system in America, let's skip IRV, Approval, etc. and go directly to Proportional Representation. PR gives a voice to everyone.
PR is kind of the reverse of "winner-take-all": the current system which tends to disenfranchise underrepresented views. Under PR, any party which receives more than X% [usually taken to be about 5%] of the vote in a given district is entitled to a representative from that district. Given that there are about 4 parties that might reach that threshold, this should lead to about 3 times as many representatives from every district, on the average. (I suspect that the location of the "center" is different in each district, but that the minor parties most 'opposite' the center will not quite be able to make the 5%. But I might be wrong.)
This will benefit everyone in several ways. First of all, more good ideas will surface in legislatures, precisely because there will be more points of view. Secondly, it will lead to a rise in voter participation, as voters realize that their vote really *does* count. Thirdly, multi-partisan coalitions will arise, leading to better legislation. (There is only *1* possible bipartisan coalition, while there are 1+4 + 6 +4 = 15 possible multipartisan coalitions [not 16: a coalition with no members is not a coalition, is it?]). (Passing *any* legislation will probably turn out to require at least a tripartisan coalition). And fourth, it will lead to *much* more interesting and meaningful political campaigns (as *all* sides of every issue are explored), which is what we all want! 8^D
[Sorry if that took longer than 30 seconds, but I believe that the American voter is more intelligent than you give them credit for, especially once they figure out what their self-interest *really* is.]
OK, /.ers -- tell me *why* PR is *not* a better solution than 'ranking' systems. (And I pre-call "bullshit!" on any assertion that argues that it is 'more complicated' than a ranking system. Under PR, people still only get one vote: it's the aggregate vote that matters.)
It's about 650,000 citizens per Representative (but the actual number depends on how many citizens your state has, as well as how many people the decennial census counts in the nation as a whole.)
OK, I'll bite.
It is much easier to steal an election if there is no way to recount the votes. Clear?
It is much easier to avoid recounting the votes if you replace all the voting machines with new "efficient, electronic" machines that have no recount ability. Clear?
It is much easier to replace all of the voting machines if you argue that this will "improve" voting for disabled people. Clear?
It is much easier to sell the concept of electronic voting if you point out that the machines will be cheaper without each one having to have a printer. Clear?
It is much easier to build cheaper machines if you have all of the new machines built by companies controlled by Republicans. Clear?
Conclusion: Stealing elections by requiring people to vote on machines which leave no paper trail that were built by the party in power is the American Way!
Clear?
If this is not clear to you, pick up the book Black Box Voting by Bev Harris. She explains it better than I ever could.[Direct link to Amazon, not affiliate]
We are *NOT* "producing far more of the world's resources". Unless, of course, you redefine "resource" to mean something other than what it actually means. As a matter of fact, 'resource' in this context does not mean something that "we" can produce; it means something that nature produces. In that context, all that *we* "produce" falls under the category of excrement -- and that's about where I would file this fellow's dizzyingly deluded comment.
Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree.
Unfortunately, it's not the only one. Please vote for *anybody* but these clowns and help to destroy this duopoly masquerading as a democracy. You may think that it's a "wasted vote" today, but citizens of the future will consider you a brave visionary.
You could cancel reservations by having people enter a [randomly generated] number which is printed on their ticket -- in essence, outsourcing the sessionID to the physical ticket.
It would make more sense, too, to just have them print out a ticket from the website [with the date, time and cancellation #]; that way, they wouldn't even *need* an email address to be able to take the tour.
While you are right that there is an inordinately large amount of paved area, I think another poster has enlightened you on the transparent aluminum problem.
Still, along those same lines: just covering all parking lots with these panels would be a big step forward. Additionally, parking structures could have these *both* over the top level *and* down the southern exposures. The municipality who paid for the installation would then recover the cost of the panels from their reduced energy costs and/or reselling the energy thus generated back to the electric company.
An additional benefit is that all those parking spaces are now protected from the weather, thus reducing maintenance costs for any car parked there.
And while we're at it, we could use the superstructure that supports the solar panels to also support small wind turbines. Careful design of parking structures could ensure that wind that blows through the structure is accelerated (by narrowing the apertures), thus increasing its usability when captured at the other side of the structure.
In any case, Doc, that was very nice forward thinking.
David Cobb arrested attempting to debate.
By the way, it appears that Cobb was the first one in -- Badnarik came in a minute later.
They are not *just* descriptions; they *do* something. That's what you are missing. If they were merely descriptions, they could not be patented. But *doing something* -- processing some material and creating useful output (in this case, data) -- makes them machines, and hence patentable (assuming non-obviousity, etc.)