We're not talking free energy here; we're talking about giving up an opportunity to obtain energy from certain materials, in exchange for not releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Whether it's worth the benefit is the question.
It does so apply to biomass. If the goal is to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, then sequestering carbon removed from the atmosphere from plants will work just as well as failing to release it by burning petroleum products.
The big question is, will doing so really provide a benefit to the planet's ecosystems?
You're killing the planet! Recycling is bad! Landfills are good!
No, I'm not kidding.
Global warming may be due to humanity's CO2 emissions, or solar radiation, or something we haven't even discovered yet, but it's something detrimental to our society and it'd be nice to do something about it. Well, the best way is to stop burning stuff, obviously. On the other hand, our society runs on our burning stuff. That's not good.
Well, the least we can do is stop burning stuff that gives us the least benefit. That, my friends, is garbage. Waste incinerators, even if they provide cogeneration, would run at a loss if they weren't paid extra by people who don't want the stuff they burn. So it's not such a big deal to NOT burn the garbage and burn something more efficient instead.
Further, while there are some materials it may make sense to recycle, when it comes to plastics, you're better off burying it. Every bit of plastic you DON'T recycle is another quantity of oil that will never be burned, but will instead go back to sequestering carbon under the ground.
"The" business application is a do-it-all monster, like MS Office; and since it must not only do everything but do everything INSIDE everything (like actively linking spreadsheets inside word processing documents, and insane tasks like that), trimming it down is an enormous task.
Maybe the answer is to re-examine software inter-operation and see if these things can be moved further apart. I forget which open-source app was moving towards XMLizing all the data formats, but that's a step in the right direction. Next, in my opinion, will be XMLizing user output formats.
The end result? Application A, instead of having its code intermixed with application B, instead sends the embedded information to it, receives bitmap or vector data as an output, and places it in the user's view. Yes, it's a hell of a lot of added overhead; but the amount added would be worth it, in order to have nice, discrete, stable applications.
You folks do understand that this will apply to any online version of a newspaper? Might actually be a good thing, since right now newspapers, even online ones don't do a good job with retraction.
I don't believe this law will affect blogs that are run like forums (i.e. Slashdot), since there is plenty of opportunity for someone to post a rebuttal. (Might be tough to find once it was moderated into the ground, though...;-)
This ruling might become unwieldy when someone decides to provide a multi-terabyte response. Or one full of pop-up ads.
When you use an executable compressor, like PKLITE, on an executable file, it can't compress all the data. This is because EXEs will dynamically load more data, and if that data is compressed, the code can't read it.
I suspect these guys are going in and manually altering the code to perform a decompression. This would certainly produce a benefit.
Here's something for you to try: Take an executable and zip it. If it compresses, then there's probably SOME give in it. And most executables I see are compressable.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Shareaza's current implementation of BitTorrent sucks. Unless you want to be stuck in firewalled operating mode, get the reference client, or Eike Frost's experimental client, or even mjw's Snark will do a better job.
...that on a system with Palladium hardware, if the machine doesn't boot with a trusted OS, the crypto service is locked down. This means that it's useless for someone running, say, Linux to try and join such an encrypted P2P network. So you can have your free files, in exchange for having them on a computer that won't allow you to do anything with them. Fun fun fun.
If a company has an employee sign a non-compete agreement, they are effectively limiting that employee's future prospects, and placing a heavier load on the unemployment insurer. Therefore the insurance company should monitor what non-compete agreements the company uses and charge the company accordingly.
As to Mr. Robb's dilemma, he did not receive a valid work offer (because of the agreement he was essentially "not qualified" for the job anyway) and therefore should not have needed to report the offer to the insurer.
Tennessee's government has a history for playing tricks like this one. Several times they've had unannounced meetings in order to approve a state income tax; activists have been quite vigilant in finding when it happens and getting the word out. Local talk show hosts have been blamed for "inciting the public" into speaking out against the state tax, but it IS the public who must approve of such taxes.
Many modern IDE drives have a low-speed setting that reduces the spin rate. It also reduces power consumption and is used in some power-saving modes on some PCs. The only question is, how to get the mini-server to toggle that setting...
I think black hole lists are a great thing, but I will admit, they are certainly censorship, and the customers of an ISP using such a list may disagree with some or all of it.
Perhaps the solution is to design a standard format for a black hole list, and add that functionality to email applications? If the end users had such access for themselves, then they could decide whether they wanted someone else to censor their mail (and whether they wanted to bypass that censorship for certain specific people or networks).
And yes, I know there is software that does this, but it's all proprietary. Is anyone interested in adding a generic functionality to, say, Mozilla? Perhaps the ability to import an XML list of bans from one or more specified URLs, run by volunteer blackhole list sponsors?
It might be that the robots have some sort of artifact in their programming they can't get rid of, that keeps them from committing genocide. They can't let the humans starve, but the energy cost to feed them is too much to keep their own civilization running as well... Unless they recapture as much of that energy as possible...
On a pirate site which I shan't name, I saw, free for download, a collection of two Dreamcast emulation programs and all the games ever released worldwide for the platform. The collection weighed in at a staggering 3.3 gigabytes, compressed. I think there were some 2,000+ games. If it took you a day to get tired of a game, that's at least 6 years of no repeats.
With a legacy like that, I'd expect it to last a good, long time.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a politician, everything looks like a cash cow.
Has anyone here thought through what would happen if we all allowed politicians to tax email? First off, the money would not (as suggested) be used to pay for bandwidth and routing, it would be thrown into the general fund like most other taxes. If it WERE used to enhance bandwidth and routing, it would be done in the same way government does all of its programs; inefficiently. They would then claim to not be getting enough revenue to perform the task, and raise this "tax" higher. Much higher.
A program like this one might have one beneficial effect; it'd probably stimulate the genesis of a new, spam-resistant (but untaxed) email system. That would certainly be nice. Thing is, once this new system became established, the government would step in, say "this is email too", and tax the hell out of it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking free energy here; we're talking about giving up an opportunity to obtain energy from certain materials, in exchange for not releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Whether it's worth the benefit is the question.
It does so apply to biomass. If the goal is to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, then sequestering carbon removed from the atmosphere from plants will work just as well as failing to release it by burning petroleum products.
The big question is, will doing so really provide a benefit to the planet's ecosystems?
You're killing the planet! Recycling is bad! Landfills are good!
No, I'm not kidding.
Global warming may be due to humanity's CO2 emissions, or solar radiation, or something we haven't even discovered yet, but it's something detrimental to our society and it'd be nice to do something about it. Well, the best way is to stop burning stuff, obviously. On the other hand, our society runs on our burning stuff. That's not good.
Well, the least we can do is stop burning stuff that gives us the least benefit. That, my friends, is garbage. Waste incinerators, even if they provide cogeneration, would run at a loss if they weren't paid extra by people who don't want the stuff they burn. So it's not such a big deal to NOT burn the garbage and burn something more efficient instead.
Further, while there are some materials it may make sense to recycle, when it comes to plastics, you're better off burying it. Every bit of plastic you DON'T recycle is another quantity of oil that will never be burned, but will instead go back to sequestering carbon under the ground.
I tried to use mine when I had a case of the hiccups, and wound up on this great pr0n website. Now I can't figure out how to get back there. :(
A bunch of wires hanging down, and smashed electronics and lenses lying on the ground beneath them.
"The" business application is a do-it-all monster, like MS Office; and since it must not only do everything but do everything INSIDE everything (like actively linking spreadsheets inside word processing documents, and insane tasks like that), trimming it down is an enormous task.
Maybe the answer is to re-examine software inter-operation and see if these things can be moved further apart. I forget which open-source app was moving towards XMLizing all the data formats, but that's a step in the right direction. Next, in my opinion, will be XMLizing user output formats.
The end result? Application A, instead of having its code intermixed with application B, instead sends the embedded information to it, receives bitmap or vector data as an output, and places it in the user's view. Yes, it's a hell of a lot of added overhead; but the amount added would be worth it, in order to have nice, discrete, stable applications.
Small enough to fit in your pocket.
Unfortunately, you'll have to fill all your other pockets with batteries... *snicker*
Me: "Why did you hack into and destroy my PC???"
RIAA: "You had some of our copyrighted material."
Me: "I did not! Prove I had your stuff!"
RIAA: "No, you're the one suing me. You prove it."
Me: "I *CAN'T*! You destroyed my PC!"
RIAA: "A-ha!"
You folks do understand that this will apply to any online version of a newspaper? Might actually be a good thing, since right now newspapers, even online ones don't do a good job with retraction.
;-)
I don't believe this law will affect blogs that are run like forums (i.e. Slashdot), since there is plenty of opportunity for someone to post a rebuttal. (Might be tough to find once it was moderated into the ground, though...
This ruling might become unwieldy when someone decides to provide a multi-terabyte response. Or one full of pop-up ads.
Let SCO revoke the license, then keep on marketing. Then if SCO wants IBM to stop, they'll have to be the plaintiffs.
When you use an executable compressor, like PKLITE, on an executable file, it can't compress all the data. This is because EXEs will dynamically load more data, and if that data is compressed, the code can't read it.
I suspect these guys are going in and manually altering the code to perform a decompression. This would certainly produce a benefit.
Here's something for you to try: Take an executable and zip it. If it compresses, then there's probably SOME give in it. And most executables I see are compressable.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Shareaza's current implementation of BitTorrent sucks. Unless you want to be stuck in firewalled operating mode, get the reference client, or Eike Frost's experimental client, or even mjw's Snark will do a better job.
...that on a system with Palladium hardware, if the machine doesn't boot with a trusted OS, the crypto service is locked down. This means that it's useless for someone running, say, Linux to try and join such an encrypted P2P network. So you can have your free files, in exchange for having them on a computer that won't allow you to do anything with them. Fun fun fun.
Does this mean I can hypnotize the mafia boss in Everquest and he'll go slacking, and not have to pay him for protection?
...is higher unemployment insurance rates.
If a company has an employee sign a non-compete agreement, they are effectively limiting that employee's future prospects, and placing a heavier load on the unemployment insurer. Therefore the insurance company should monitor what non-compete agreements the company uses and charge the company accordingly.
As to Mr. Robb's dilemma, he did not receive a valid work offer (because of the agreement he was essentially "not qualified" for the job anyway) and therefore should not have needed to report the offer to the insurer.
If it drops too low, yeah. But the head should keep up at a much lower spin rate than the drive is rated for.
Tennessee's government has a history for playing tricks like this one. Several times they've had unannounced meetings in order to approve a state income tax; activists have been quite vigilant in finding when it happens and getting the word out. Local talk show hosts have been blamed for "inciting the public" into speaking out against the state tax, but it IS the public who must approve of such taxes.
Many modern IDE drives have a low-speed setting that reduces the spin rate. It also reduces power consumption and is used in some power-saving modes on some PCs. The only question is, how to get the mini-server to toggle that setting...
I think black hole lists are a great thing, but I will admit, they are certainly censorship, and the customers of an ISP using such a list may disagree with some or all of it.
Perhaps the solution is to design a standard format for a black hole list, and add that functionality to email applications? If the end users had such access for themselves, then they could decide whether they wanted someone else to censor their mail (and whether they wanted to bypass that censorship for certain specific people or networks).
And yes, I know there is software that does this, but it's all proprietary. Is anyone interested in adding a generic functionality to, say, Mozilla? Perhaps the ability to import an XML list of bans from one or more specified URLs, run by volunteer blackhole list sponsors?
We are now that much closer to the creation of the Strongbad HL2 mod.
It might be that the robots have some sort of artifact in their programming they can't get rid of, that keeps them from committing genocide. They can't let the humans starve, but the energy cost to feed them is too much to keep their own civilization running as well... Unless they recapture as much of that energy as possible...
The collection was for SNES.
X_X;
On a pirate site which I shan't name, I saw, free for download, a collection of two Dreamcast emulation programs and all the games ever released worldwide for the platform. The collection weighed in at a staggering 3.3 gigabytes, compressed. I think there were some 2,000+ games. If it took you a day to get tired of a game, that's at least 6 years of no repeats.
With a legacy like that, I'd expect it to last a good, long time.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a politician, everything looks like a cash cow.
Has anyone here thought through what would happen if we all allowed politicians to tax email? First off, the money would not (as suggested) be used to pay for bandwidth and routing, it would be thrown into the general fund like most other taxes. If it WERE used to enhance bandwidth and routing, it would be done in the same way government does all of its programs; inefficiently. They would then claim to not be getting enough revenue to perform the task, and raise this "tax" higher. Much higher.
A program like this one might have one beneficial effect; it'd probably stimulate the genesis of a new, spam-resistant (but untaxed) email system. That would certainly be nice. Thing is, once this new system became established, the government would step in, say "this is email too", and tax the hell out of it as well.
That was just one example... There are a lot more interesting references in the cartoons -- many of which have been cut out by censors.