I looked quickly at the nfl.com shop, and their jerseys are $89-$99, but they had jackets and coats that range from $100 to $200, and framed lithographs for $150.
I imagine that a counterfeiting organization might not just counterfeit logos, but possibly also signatures. Maybe there's a bunch of signed footballs in the group also.
They used the land, they made a product there, they made a profit.
Actually, if you read the lawsuit, you'll find that this isn't true. Part of "Old Monsanto" used the land, made a product there, and made a profit. That part of Old Monsanto split off as Solutia, and continued to make products under that name for 6 years, and eventually filed Chapter 11.
The agricultural part of "Old Monsanto" never used the land, and never made a profit off of Agent Orange. It is currently called Monsanto, and is actually unconnected to all this. They are the ones being sued.
Now the people who lived or worked there suffer and die and your "legal thinking" precludes redress?
Wrong again. The class action lawsuit identifies 9 families who are affected. Added together, there are 9 counts of "property damage" and 9 requests for "medical monitoring". This means that no one has gotten sick. No one is suffering adverse effects. No one has died. But, their property has probably lost value, due to its location. The chemical plant closing probably hurt their value as much the chemicals.
The money went into the coffers of Monsoto the death and misery should be absorbed by someone else?
I not talking negligence or guilt I just think economic crimes like this one always deserve swift and clean restitution.
I can understand frustration and anger. This land was probably perfectly fine for living on with the minimal amount of chemical pollutants, but it will be impossible to sell (partially because of the EPA, and partially because of fears of buyers). It makes sense that the people who decided to start the chemical plant could be sued, but most of those people are retired, if not dead today. The company they worked for has already been sued out of existence. So, now they're pulling at straws, trying to find someone else with money to pay for the damages.
TBH, I understand why the lawsuit was filed. It's frustrating to see your property lose value for reasons outside your control (just ask all the property owners of Wetlands, who lost all value when FEMA declared them unusable). If your property suddenly loses value, it makes sense to sue anyone you can think of that has money (it's how our lawyer-driven society operates). Unfortunately, I don't see any easy answers here. I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere (for reasons mentioned above).
Stories appear on the firehose before making it to the first page. You can actually post to the slashdot article before it goes live on the first page, using that method.
In defense of the article: Agent Orange was a 50:50 mix of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.
In your defense: 2,4,5-T is only moderately toxic, as long as it is not contaminated with TCDD.
It was legal in the U.S. to use it on crops until 1970. Even the 1970 ban had an exception: It could be used on rice crops.
In 1985, it was finally completely outlawed.
Basically, the lawsuit is saying that even though Monsanto had the right to make the chemical, sell the chemical, and use the chemical until 1970, the damage done to the land is bad enough that they should be sued anyway.
I think that the sentence should require the current Monsanto CEO to purchase a ticket to use a time machine, and go back and tell the previous CEO not to pursue 2,4,5-T.
Well, 60fps, where every second had 60 frames, and they were evenly spaced, would be incredible performance.
Unfortunately, even when I get 150-200fps in games, I still notice rather sizeable jitters. Sure, there may lots of frames that are 2-3 ms each, and they outnumber the one 600ms frame by enough of a margin to keep the average low, but that one 600ms frame is a killer. Usually this is due to a simulation task that takes too long, and rendering the scene over and over without an update in the simulation is pointless. So, the rendering hangs also.
There's a bit of a movement to start measuring performance in a more accurate way, but no one has come up with a real solution yet. So, we still use fps. If you play a game one day and get 120fps, and then your system launches a background task and your performance goes down to 80fps, the change will be rather noticeable.
I think you just proved my point. Legal / Illegal immigration is not a race-based issue. People that don't understand the issues try to turn it into one.
The hatred towards Latinos today is actually mild compared to the hatred towards Swedes and Norwegians 50 years ago in the north. The hatred towards Latinos today is comparable to the hatred 70 years ago against Italians and Irish in New England.
Here's a good question for you. Now that Scandinavians have taken over the North (ie. Minnesota, Wisconsin), and Italians and Jews have taken over New York, would you say that those people have "won"?
In a way, both sides have "won". As you just pointed out, we're all just "white guys" now. We may have been enemies once, but not any more. Anyone with half a brain can see that we are dealing with the exact same situation today, only with different nationalities. For you to think it is different, because skin color is now an issue, is frightenly naïve.
The issue is no different today with Latinos. There's a greater than 50% chance that I (and you too) will have great-grandchildren that are partially Latino, and I'm very proud of this. 60 years from now, it would be silly to think of Latinos and whites in America as different. Sure, back in Europe, the races may still be segregated, but here in "everyone has an opportunity-America", we'll all be very well blended.
The kind of opportunity this country has to people of all races is something that the conservatives have always been for. It was a conservative republican from my home town (Peoria, IL) that introduced the Civil Rights Bill of the 60's to congress. The people that I listed above all represent that same viewpoint. Mancow even staged a "Legal Immigrant" rally in Chicago, and got many of his (legal) Latino friends to march in it.
Your characterization of these people as racist, just because they are white and conservative, is ill-informed and bigoted. I hope to God that I never hate anyone as much as you hate conservatives.
Um, many of the biggest voices in conservatism are either legal immigrants, or they are eager to point out that they are children of legal immigrants (Erich Mancow Muller, Mark Steyn, Glenn Beck are all good examples).
It's the conservative voices that keep harping on the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Your understanding of conservatives is very, very shallow. Even Craig Ferguson, who starts out each night's show with "It's a great day for America", talks frequently at length about his legalization process.
I've found that in discussions like this, it's a bad idea to ever think of someone as a non-techie.
If the person truly has no interest in tech, then your discussion is not going to be productive. But, most everyone (even self-proclaimed Luddites) actually do have an interest in tech.
So, instead, separate people into "techies" and "techies-in-training". Look at your friend as a person who wants to learn about how the tech works, and then explain it to them, bringing in the SOPA discussion at the appropriate times.
By not dumbing it down, you have avoided sounding patronizing.
If you are trying to convince a conservative that SOPA/PIPA is bad, it's very easy:
Explain to a conservative that SOPA == "Fairness Doctrine - part 2"
The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to use the government to stop Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Like the show or not, it was too successful, and Congress felt like it was their duty to stop it. Because of 1st amendment, they couldn't just make the show illegal, so instead, they tried to give the FCC the ability to withdraw licenses from stations whose programming was too biased.
Now, the government sees the internet as another huge industry that cannot be controlled. The least-controlled part of the internet is forums (like Slashdot). People can, and do, say anything.
Once again, the first amendment gets in the way. But, Congress is creative. Is it possible for them to get the power to shutdown entire sites based only on the content posted to the site?
The answer is obvious... copyrighted material. Find a site that you don't like, submit copyrighted material (as a plant), and then if they don't clean it up completely, have them shut down at the DNS level.
The only obstacles were technical (no current method to force DNS servers to drop records), and political (DMCA guarantees safe harbor privileges to ISPs and websites from the actions of users). SOPA/PIPA are designed to clear both obstacles.
~~~~~ Liberals are a little different.
Usually liberals respond well to stories of corporate greed. Explain to them that the MPAA and Disney are big business, and that they are the only ones pushing for this legislation. I'd like to see a liberal respond with the best methods of persuading other liberals.
Seems to be a case of the DVD-CCA saying "the letter of the law states this", and Kaleidoscope saying "yes, but that's ridiculous, this in no way harms the DVD-CCA". The judge is simply siding with the law here. That's the way it should work. The problem is that the law's rubbish.
Um, I think that Kaleidoscope did adhere to the "letter of the law". The DVD-CCA is the one insisting on not following the letter of the law, but instead going with the principles.
The DMCA talks a lot about fair use. It says that fair use is still allowed, provided that a device that can be used to circumvent a copy protection scheme is not defeated, nor is such a device bought or sold.
Kaliedoscope followed the letter of the law by not messing with the copy protection. It doesn't circumvent it at all. It makes a backup copy of everything, including the copy protection. So, the copy protection mechanism is still in tact, and not defeated.
You may think that making the "backup copy" indicates a defeat of the copy protection mechanism. But backup copies are fully guaranteed by fair use. The DMCA clearly states that fair use still applies, as long as the copy protection mechanism remains in tact.
If you want to read the law for yourself, it's only 18 pages: DMCA pdf
Did anyone else start reading the summary assuming it was a story on biology? Here's how I first read it:
"Bitdefender reports that there exist viruses which, when they encounter other viruses, will merge and combine effects so that they create a new virus. 'A virus infects executable flies;
Instead of staring at the word "flies" which was actually "files", instead my eyes backed up and were focused on executable. What did it mean for a fly to be executable?
Back on topic: I couldn't find anything at Energy.gov that indicates what portion of my tax burden is due to supporting non-competitive forms of "green" energy.
I don't care where you come down on these issues, but anyone who views this site has to agree, that it is pure marketing. I run my monitor at 1920x1080, and I had to press 'PageDn' three times to get to the content!
Well, the story is clearly not about actual science, but how crazy some of these remote viewing people can be.
The group claiming to see the alien ship are not in the least bit credible. Slashdot efditors: If you are going to discuss lunatics, at least get someone with an interesting past. For example:
Reading Laura's site, she has a ton of amazing claims, in fact, the missions to Mars are far from being the craziest of her claims. You can tell it is written with sincerity, but I just can't believe a member of the Eisenhower family could be this crazy.
they've sneakily redefined the pound (in both the UK and the US) to be a unit of mass. The cads!
That just means it's meeting the same fate as the original kilogram.
In the traditional metric system, now referred to as the Gravitational Metric System, kilograms were used to measure force (and the French root for the word even means "weight"). If you wanted to measure mass, then the "hyl" or "metric slug" was used. It was the amount of mass that would accelerate 1 m/s^2 under the force of 1 kilogram!
The CGPM changed things in 1889 when they chose that mass would now be measured by grams and kilograms, and weight would be measured in Kilogram-force and gram-force.
The origin of the Newton (as a measure of force/weight) was is 1948, and officially adopted in 1960 by the new SI system.
As ugly as NTFS is, the one thing I've liked about it is that it's the only FS used by Windows and Windows Servers for a dozen years.
With Linux, on the other hand, I've had to deal with ext2, ResierFS, ext3, ext4, and those are only the popular ones! There are a ton of other specialized filesystems for other features, such as encryption or use on flash memory!
Wow, you are right to be sceptical. I hadn't thought critically about that point when I posted the article. Without actually doing any research, I believe your 115 bushels/acre number is actually low today. I think that in the last 5 years, we've surpassed 150 bushels/acre.
The only explanation that I can come up with is that they are using Net Energy Gain for the numbers of how many gallons can be produced per acre of corn.
Following links on Wikipedia, I eventually found this on the "Ethanol Fuel Energy Balance" page:
Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from.7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed.
As far as I know, most farm machinery runs on diesel fuel. The article I had quoted above is probably assuming that farm machinery would be converted to running off of biofuel, and the the 50 gallons/acre would be the amount actually produced after subtracting out what it took to run the farm machinery.
Um, Everclear is not denatured ethanol. Otherwise people would go blind or die from drinking it.
You're the second person who has fallen for this, but I promise, I was not trolling. I cut and pasted that directly from the.pdf. It should have made it clear that it was referring to denatured ethanol.
Sorry, I forget that a lot of people don't realize that the ethanol we use as fuel is denatured. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say:
E85 is an abbreviation for an ethanol fuel blend of up to 85% denatured ethanol fuel and gasoline or other hydrocarbon (HC) by volume.
Denatured Alcohol or methylated spirits is ethanol that has additives to make it more poisonous or unpalatable and, thus, undrinkable.
Maybe the article did overstate the dangers. I'm not completely sure whether denatured alcohol is more or less dangerous than standard gasoline if spilled on the skin, but the article definitely makes it sound like it is more dangerous.
Mr. Anymous Coward, let me explain why I posted. This may get a bit long.
Have you ever heard the quip that "It takes 1.2 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol"?
I've heard it a few times from several different sources, but have always been incredulous about the statement. This slashdot article made me curious, just how many gallons of fuel does it take to produce one gallon of ethanol.
So, I started searching on any keyword that I could come up with that might find some facts. The VAST majority of articles that state things like gallons produced per acre, or refinery cost per gallon produced are from sites that seem to be against the using of corn for fuel.
I came across that article. I was surprised that a professor from Berkley had written it, because most of the universities on the West Coast are well known bastions of liberal thought. I read the article, and realized that it discussed a lot of things I hadn't yet considered (namely the amount of fertilizer and the amount of water needed). If I found it interesting, I thought others might also. It clearly had a bias, but I figured that by keeping the title, and making it bold, people would at least see the bias upfront.
So, that was how I found the article, and why I posted it. Now that you understand the full rationale, I give you full power to skip the forward I put at the front, and consider the article for yourself. You are, after all, an adult (well probably).
Maybe I should have left out the general bias of California schools. I don't deny I have a bias, and I can tell from your comments you have one also. Most of my liberal friends are more trusting of research from schools on the West Coast, so that's why I pointed it out.
The University I attended has a very large agriculture department, and many times I met grad students who were working the feasibility of ethanol. I've visited some of the labs where this research was being done, and even though I've met lots of proponents of ethanol, they've always prefaced their excitement with "we're a long way from getting it to be economically feasible". Personally I'm a big fan of research into alternative fuels (I'm guess that you may be surprised by this), and hope to eventually drive a hydrogen powered car, or compressed air powered car. When it comes to ethanol, I really like the concept, but it just isn't feasible today.
I hope ethanol does some day become feasible (after all, I live in the heartland where all the corn is grown), but as of today, it is not. The government tried to shift consumer habits before the market was ready for it, and it has really been terrible for the economy. My only goals in posting those excerpts was to get others to see real data regarding the issue, and to come to their own conclusions, and am truly sorry, Mr. AC, that you were offended.
p.s. I still do want to know, how many gallons of fuel it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol! It's genuine curiosity.
Why Corn Ethanol is Unsustainable, Let Us Count the Ways: 4. Approximately 99% of U.S. corn is fertilized, requiring more fertilizer than any other crop. Nitrogen fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are all made from fossil fuels, as is the diesel fuel, gasoline, LPG, natural gas, electricity, transportation and irrigation used to grow and transport the corn.
7. Because ethanol is a toxic and hazardous substance, its use is regulated by OSHA, DOT, NFPA and NIOSH. Ethanol must be handled with extreme caution because it can enter the blood stream from breathing the fumes, or by penetration through the skin or mouth. Exposure can irritate the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat. As such, protective clothing, including gloves and splash-proof chemical goggles and face shields should be worn by anyone coming in contact with ethanol.
8. People are advised not to eat, smoke or drink where ethanol is handled, processed, or stored since the chemical can easily be absorbed. Moderate exposure can cause headaches, eye and skin irritation, nausea, and drowsiness, whereas higher levels of exposure (over 1000 parts per million over an 8-hour period) can cause shortness of breath, genetic mutations, damage to the liver and central nervous system and unconsciousness. Exposure to ethanol levels of over 3300 ppm can result in death.
9. Ethanol land requirements: Approximately 50 gallons of ethanol are produced per acre of corn. Thus 2.8 billion acres of land would be required to generate 140 billion gallons of fuel used in the USA annually, which is more than 5 times all of the cropland that is actually and potentially available for all crops in the USA.
10. Ethanol water requirements:...8,360 gallons of water are needed per equivalent gallon of gasoline in the form of ethanol. 140 billion gallons of gasoline are consumed in the USA annually, times 8,360 gallons of water = 1.17 trillion gallons of water needed to grow and process enough ethanol for the U.S. economy.
Re:E85 Has Been Dead For Years Here
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 2
E85 has not delivered on ANY of its hype.
It was hyped as government mandates trumping market decisions for the purpose of appeasing special interests.
Which part of that did it not achieve? Seriously, no one ever expected it to survive after the end of the subsidies (and taxes on petroleum based fuels). There was no secrecy. It was plainly presented as appeasement to the Corn Growers Association, paid for by all Americans who use fuel or eat food produced domestically (ie. everyone)
NASA's research is based on the Widom-Larsen theory, yet the video never gives credit to them.
Joseph Zawodny (who works for NASA at the Langely Research Center) used to give credit to Widom and Larrsen for this theory, but rcently has been trying to take credit for it by himself. This video by NASA is the result. It never once mentions Widom or Larsen.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked quickly at the nfl.com shop, and their jerseys are $89-$99, but they had jackets and coats that range from $100 to $200, and framed lithographs for $150.
I imagine that a counterfeiting organization might not just counterfeit logos, but possibly also signatures. Maybe there's a bunch of signed footballs in the group also.
They used the land, they made a product there, they made a profit.
Actually, if you read the lawsuit, you'll find that this isn't true. Part of "Old Monsanto" used the land, made a product there, and made a profit. That part of Old Monsanto split off as Solutia, and continued to make products under that name for 6 years, and eventually filed Chapter 11.
The agricultural part of "Old Monsanto" never used the land, and never made a profit off of Agent Orange. It is currently called Monsanto, and is actually unconnected to all this. They are the ones being sued.
Now the people who lived or worked there suffer and die and your "legal thinking" precludes redress?
Wrong again. The class action lawsuit identifies 9 families who are affected. Added together, there are 9 counts of "property damage" and 9 requests for "medical monitoring". This means that no one has gotten sick. No one is suffering adverse effects. No one has died. But, their property has probably lost value, due to its location. The chemical plant closing probably hurt their value as much the chemicals.
The money went into the coffers of Monsoto the death and misery should be absorbed by someone else?
I not talking negligence or guilt I just think economic crimes like this one always deserve swift and clean restitution.
I can understand frustration and anger. This land was probably perfectly fine for living on with the minimal amount of chemical pollutants, but it will be impossible to sell (partially because of the EPA, and partially because of fears of buyers). It makes sense that the people who decided to start the chemical plant could be sued, but most of those people are retired, if not dead today. The company they worked for has already been sued out of existence. So, now they're pulling at straws, trying to find someone else with money to pay for the damages.
TBH, I understand why the lawsuit was filed. It's frustrating to see your property lose value for reasons outside your control (just ask all the property owners of Wetlands, who lost all value when FEMA declared them unusable). If your property suddenly loses value, it makes sense to sue anyone you can think of that has money (it's how our lawyer-driven society operates). Unfortunately, I don't see any easy answers here. I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere (for reasons mentioned above).
Oops, wish I could take back that comment.
The "article" that I linked above is actually a journal. I forgot that they show up in the firehose also.
Stories appear on the firehose before making it to the first page. You can actually post to the slashdot article before it goes live on the first page, using that method.
For example, here's an example of someone making a first post before the article goes live:
http://slashdot.org/journal/277269/couple-links-that-dont-appear-to-work-any-more
In defense of the article: Agent Orange was a 50:50 mix of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.
In your defense: 2,4,5-T is only moderately toxic, as long as it is not contaminated with TCDD.
It was legal in the U.S. to use it on crops until 1970. Even the 1970 ban had an exception: It could be used on rice crops.
In 1985, it was finally completely outlawed.
Basically, the lawsuit is saying that even though Monsanto had the right to make the chemical, sell the chemical, and use the chemical until 1970, the damage done to the land is bad enough that they should be sued anyway.
I think that the sentence should require the current Monsanto CEO to purchase a ticket to use a time machine, and go back and tell the previous CEO not to pursue 2,4,5-T.
I'll give 30 karma to the first person who can find an article with a picture of the robot. Ok, maybe I can't give away karma, but you get my drift.
From now on, I declare that all slashdot articles referring to robotic crustaceans MUST include either a picture or video of the robot!
Well, 60fps, where every second had 60 frames, and they were evenly spaced, would be incredible performance.
Unfortunately, even when I get 150-200fps in games, I still notice rather sizeable jitters. Sure, there may lots of frames that are 2-3 ms each, and they outnumber the one 600ms frame by enough of a margin to keep the average low, but that one 600ms frame is a killer. Usually this is due to a simulation task that takes too long, and rendering the scene over and over without an update in the simulation is pointless. So, the rendering hangs also.
There's a bit of a movement to start measuring performance in a more accurate way, but no one has come up with a real solution yet. So, we still use fps. If you play a game one day and get 120fps, and then your system launches a background task and your performance goes down to 80fps, the change will be rather noticeable.
I think you just proved my point. Legal / Illegal immigration is not a race-based issue. People that don't understand the issues try to turn it into one.
The hatred towards Latinos today is actually mild compared to the hatred towards Swedes and Norwegians 50 years ago in the north.
The hatred towards Latinos today is comparable to the hatred 70 years ago against Italians and Irish in New England.
Here's a good question for you. Now that Scandinavians have taken over the North (ie. Minnesota, Wisconsin), and Italians and Jews have taken over New York, would you say that those people have "won"?
In a way, both sides have "won". As you just pointed out, we're all just "white guys" now. We may have been enemies once, but not any more. Anyone with half a brain can see that we are dealing with the exact same situation today, only with different nationalities. For you to think it is different, because skin color is now an issue, is frightenly naïve.
The issue is no different today with Latinos. There's a greater than 50% chance that I (and you too) will have great-grandchildren that are partially Latino, and I'm very proud of this. 60 years from now, it would be silly to think of Latinos and whites in America as different. Sure, back in Europe, the races may still be segregated, but here in "everyone has an opportunity-America", we'll all be very well blended.
The kind of opportunity this country has to people of all races is something that the conservatives have always been for. It was a conservative republican from my home town (Peoria, IL) that introduced the Civil Rights Bill of the 60's to congress. The people that I listed above all represent that same viewpoint. Mancow even staged a "Legal Immigrant" rally in Chicago, and got many of his (legal) Latino friends to march in it.
Your characterization of these people as racist, just because they are white and conservative, is ill-informed and bigoted. I hope to God that I never hate anyone as much as you hate conservatives.
Um, many of the biggest voices in conservatism are either legal immigrants, or they are eager to point out that they are children of legal immigrants (Erich Mancow Muller, Mark Steyn, Glenn Beck are all good examples).
It's the conservative voices that keep harping on the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Your understanding of conservatives is very, very shallow. Even Craig Ferguson, who starts out each night's show with "It's a great day for America", talks frequently at length about his legalization process.
I've found that in discussions like this, it's a bad idea to ever think of someone as a non-techie.
If the person truly has no interest in tech, then your discussion is not going to be productive. But, most everyone (even self-proclaimed Luddites) actually do have an interest in tech.
So, instead, separate people into "techies" and "techies-in-training". Look at your friend as a person who wants to learn about how the tech works, and then explain it to them, bringing in the SOPA discussion at the appropriate times.
By not dumbing it down, you have avoided sounding patronizing.
If you are trying to convince a conservative that SOPA/PIPA is bad, it's very easy:
Explain to a conservative that SOPA == "Fairness Doctrine - part 2"
The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to use the government to stop Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Like the show or not, it was too successful, and Congress felt like it was their duty to stop it. Because of 1st amendment, they couldn't just make the show illegal, so instead, they tried to give the FCC the ability to withdraw licenses from stations whose programming was too biased.
Now, the government sees the internet as another huge industry that cannot be controlled. The least-controlled part of the internet is forums (like Slashdot). People can, and do, say anything.
Once again, the first amendment gets in the way. But, Congress is creative. Is it possible for them to get the power to shutdown entire sites based only on the content posted to the site?
The answer is obvious ... copyrighted material. Find a site that you don't like, submit copyrighted material (as a plant), and then if they don't clean it up completely, have them shut down at the DNS level.
The only obstacles were technical (no current method to force DNS servers to drop records), and political (DMCA guarantees safe harbor privileges to ISPs and websites from the actions of users). SOPA/PIPA are designed to clear both obstacles.
~~~~~
Liberals are a little different.
Usually liberals respond well to stories of corporate greed. Explain to them that the MPAA and Disney are big business, and that they are the only ones pushing for this legislation. I'd like to see a liberal respond with the best methods of persuading other liberals.
Seems to be a case of the DVD-CCA saying "the letter of the law states this", and Kaleidoscope saying "yes, but that's ridiculous, this in no way harms the DVD-CCA". The judge is simply siding with the law here. That's the way it should work. The problem is that the law's rubbish.
Um, I think that Kaleidoscope did adhere to the "letter of the law". The DVD-CCA is the one insisting on not following the letter of the law, but instead going with the principles.
The DMCA talks a lot about fair use. It says that fair use is still allowed, provided that a device that can be used to circumvent a copy protection scheme is not defeated, nor is such a device bought or sold.
Kaliedoscope followed the letter of the law by not messing with the copy protection. It doesn't circumvent it at all. It makes a backup copy of everything, including the copy protection. So, the copy protection mechanism is still in tact, and not defeated.
You may think that making the "backup copy" indicates a defeat of the copy protection mechanism. But backup copies are fully guaranteed by fair use. The DMCA clearly states that fair use still applies, as long as the copy protection mechanism remains in tact.
If you want to read the law for yourself, it's only 18 pages: DMCA pdf
Did anyone else start reading the summary assuming it was a story on biology? Here's how I first read it:
"Bitdefender reports that there exist viruses which, when they encounter other viruses, will merge and combine effects so that they create a new virus. 'A virus infects executable flies;
Instead of staring at the word "flies" which was actually "files", instead my eyes backed up and were focused on executable. What did it mean for a fly to be executable?
Wow, there's a lot of trolls today.
Back on topic:
I couldn't find anything at Energy.gov that indicates what portion of my tax burden is due to supporting non-competitive forms of "green" energy.
I don't care where you come down on these issues, but anyone who views this site has to agree, that it is pure marketing. I run my monitor at 1920x1080, and I had to press 'PageDn' three times to get to the content!
Well, the story is clearly not about actual science, but how crazy some of these remote viewing people can be.
The group claiming to see the alien ship are not in the least bit credible. Slashdot efditors: If you are going to discuss lunatics, at least get someone with an interesting past. For example:
Laura Eisenhower, the great-granddaughter of Ike himself, is a whistleblower on the secret Mars colony project!!
Reading Laura's site, she has a ton of amazing claims, in fact, the missions to Mars are far from being the craziest of her claims. You can tell it is written with sincerity, but I just can't believe a member of the Eisenhower family could be this crazy.
That just means it's meeting the same fate as the original kilogram.
In the traditional metric system, now referred to as the Gravitational Metric System, kilograms were used to measure force (and the French root for the word even means "weight"). If you wanted to measure mass, then the "hyl" or "metric slug" was used. It was the amount of mass that would accelerate 1 m/s^2 under the force of 1 kilogram!
The CGPM changed things in 1889 when they chose that mass would now be measured by grams and kilograms, and weight would be measured in Kilogram-force and gram-force.
The origin of the Newton (as a measure of force/weight) was is 1948, and officially adopted in 1960 by the new SI system.
I'll agree.
As ugly as NTFS is, the one thing I've liked about it is that it's the only FS used by Windows and Windows Servers for a dozen years.
With Linux, on the other hand, I've had to deal with ext2, ResierFS, ext3, ext4, and those are only the popular ones! There are a ton of other specialized filesystems for other features, such as encryption or use on flash memory!
This is a bad idea.
Now we can count on some guy named 'Hans Resilient" to be tried and found guilty of murder.
Wow, you are right to be sceptical. I hadn't thought critically about that point when I posted the article. Without actually doing any research, I believe your 115 bushels/acre number is actually low today. I think that in the last 5 years, we've surpassed 150 bushels/acre.
The only explanation that I can come up with is that they are using Net Energy Gain for the numbers of how many gallons can be produced per acre of corn.
Following links on Wikipedia, I eventually found this on the "Ethanol Fuel Energy Balance" page:
Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed.
As far as I know, most farm machinery runs on diesel fuel. The article I had quoted above is probably assuming that farm machinery would be converted to running off of biofuel, and the the 50 gallons/acre would be the amount actually produced after subtracting out what it took to run the farm machinery.
Um, Everclear is not denatured ethanol. Otherwise people would go blind or die from drinking it.
You're the second person who has fallen for this, but I promise, I was not trolling. I cut and pasted that directly from the .pdf. It should have made it clear that it was referring to denatured ethanol.
Sorry, I forget that a lot of people don't realize that the ethanol we use as fuel is denatured. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say:
E85 is an abbreviation for an ethanol fuel blend of up to 85% denatured ethanol fuel and gasoline or other hydrocarbon (HC) by volume.
Denatured Alcohol or methylated spirits is ethanol that has additives to make it more poisonous or unpalatable and, thus, undrinkable.
Maybe the article did overstate the dangers. I'm not completely sure whether denatured alcohol is more or less dangerous than standard gasoline if spilled on the skin, but the article definitely makes it sound like it is more dangerous.
Mr. Anymous Coward, let me explain why I posted. This may get a bit long.
Have you ever heard the quip that "It takes 1.2 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol"?
I've heard it a few times from several different sources, but have always been incredulous about the statement. This slashdot article made me curious, just how many gallons of fuel does it take to produce one gallon of ethanol.
So, I started searching on any keyword that I could come up with that might find some facts. The VAST majority of articles that state things like gallons produced per acre, or refinery cost per gallon produced are from sites that seem to be against the using of corn for fuel.
I came across that article. I was surprised that a professor from Berkley had written it, because most of the universities on the West Coast are well known bastions of liberal thought. I read the article, and realized that it discussed a lot of things I hadn't yet considered (namely the amount of fertilizer and the amount of water needed). If I found it interesting, I thought others might also. It clearly had a bias, but I figured that by keeping the title, and making it bold, people would at least see the bias upfront.
So, that was how I found the article, and why I posted it. Now that you understand the full rationale, I give you full power to skip the forward I put at the front, and consider the article for yourself. You are, after all, an adult (well probably).
Maybe I should have left out the general bias of California schools. I don't deny I have a bias, and I can tell from your comments you have one also. Most of my liberal friends are more trusting of research from schools on the West Coast, so that's why I pointed it out.
The University I attended has a very large agriculture department, and many times I met grad students who were working the feasibility of ethanol. I've visited some of the labs where this research was being done, and even though I've met lots of proponents of ethanol, they've always prefaced their excitement with "we're a long way from getting it to be economically feasible". Personally I'm a big fan of research into alternative fuels (I'm guess that you may be surprised by this), and hope to eventually drive a hydrogen powered car, or compressed air powered car. When it comes to ethanol, I really like the concept, but it just isn't feasible today.
I hope ethanol does some day become feasible (after all, I live in the heartland where all the corn is grown), but as of today, it is not. The government tried to shift consumer habits before the market was ready for it, and it has really been terrible for the economy. My only goals in posting those excerpts was to get others to see real data regarding the issue, and to come to their own conclusions, and am truly sorry, Mr. AC, that you were offended.
p.s. I still do want to know, how many gallons of fuel it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol! It's genuine curiosity.
Even Scientists from Ag departments of California universities have known that looking to corn-based fuels is a bad idea. Look at this report from Professor Tadeusz Patzek, A Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley:
Excerpts:
Why Corn Ethanol is Unsustainable, Let Us Count the Ways:
4.
Approximately 99% of U.S. corn is fertilized, requiring more fertilizer than any other crop.
Nitrogen fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are all made from fossil fuels, as is the diesel
fuel, gasoline, LPG, natural gas, electricity, transportation and irrigation used to grow and
transport the corn.
7.
Because ethanol is a toxic and hazardous substance, its use is regulated by OSHA, DOT,
NFPA and NIOSH. Ethanol must be handled with extreme caution because it can enter the
blood stream from breathing the fumes, or by penetration through the skin or mouth. Exposure
can irritate the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat. As such, protective clothing, including gloves
and splash-proof chemical goggles and face shields should be worn by anyone coming in
contact with ethanol.
8.
People are advised not to eat, smoke or drink where ethanol is handled, processed, or stored
since the chemical can easily be absorbed. Moderate exposure can cause headaches, eye
and skin irritation, nausea, and drowsiness, whereas higher levels of exposure (over 1000 parts
per million over an 8-hour period) can cause shortness of breath, genetic mutations, damage to
the liver and central nervous system and unconsciousness. Exposure to ethanol levels of over
3300 ppm can result in death.
9.
Ethanol land requirements: Approximately 50 gallons of ethanol are produced per acre of
corn. Thus 2.8 billion acres of land would be required to generate 140 billion gallons of fuel
used in the USA annually, which is more than 5 times all of the cropland that is actually and
potentially available for all crops in the USA.
10. ...8,360 gallons of water are needed per equivalent gallon of
Ethanol water requirements:
gasoline in the form of ethanol. 140 billion gallons of gasoline are consumed in the USA
annually, times 8,360 gallons of water = 1.17 trillion gallons of water needed to grow and
process enough ethanol for the U.S. economy.
It was hyped as government mandates trumping market decisions for the purpose of appeasing special interests.
Which part of that did it not achieve? Seriously, no one ever expected it to survive after the end of the subsidies (and taxes on petroleum based fuels). There was no secrecy. It was plainly presented as appeasement to the Corn Growers Association, paid for by all Americans who use fuel or eat food produced domestically (ie. everyone)
NASA's research is based on the Widom-Larsen theory, yet the video never gives credit to them.
Joseph Zawodny (who works for NASA at the Langely Research Center) used to give credit to Widom and Larrsen for this theory, but rcently has been trying to take credit for it by himself. This video by NASA is the result. It never once mentions Widom or Larsen.
Here's an article about this whole thing from Larsen's perspective: LENR Gold Rush Begins at NASA