And that lesson is "Joe Shmoe still has no idea how to find out where that pop-up window came from." The FTC has to wait until they themselves are the victims because the people that are usually the victims have literally no idea how to report the crime (let alone who to report it to).
Do you think your grandmother knows what IP sent her that pop-up?
"but there is a heck a lot of land out there used for the farming industry of which can be used to place wind turbines."
Farms are large and clear-cut for a reason. Is the farmer compensated for the effect the turbines' shadows will have on his crops? Plants on the north side of a single turbine will get less sunlight per day the closer it is to the turbine, with the land adjacent to the turbine unusable for growing much of anything. The problem gets worse when you start looking at multiple turbines, where some areas are within the shadow sweep of two or more turbines over the course a day can be almost as bad off as land up against the turbine.
"When placed on land used for, let's say, raising cattle,"
Cattle eat a lot of grass, which is also affected by the loss of sunlight these turbines will cause.
"The average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day."
I see you used the word "average." Averaged over a week? A month? A year? What ranges of latitudes were included in this average? What's the standard deviation from that average?
Let me put this another way: How much electricity does a house at around 37 degrees north latitude in the middle of January need? January, when the days are short and cloudy and there's a pretty good chance your solar panels are covered in snow (unless, of course, the house has poor thermal insulation, which would increase its energy requirements). And what if we assume a totally "green" solution where the house uses electric heat instead of fossil fuels? I would imagine such a house would need quite a bit more than that average you mentioned.
Using that average number pretty much assumes that the house has some sort of energy storage system that can store up energy surpluses and hold onto it for months at a time with manageable loss, as well as able to return that energy with a power output similar to the solar cells themselves. Hydrogen might work here, but then there's the NIMBY issue.
I wouldn't have bought a Genesis and all four Phantasy Star games if I hadn't first discovered Phantasy Star on Meka. I can't say much about the other games in the Sega Ages series, but I believe that the remake of Phantasy Star is definately worth the 2500 yen price tag, even in the age of emulators.
They still have to be ported, and they have to compete with SNES ports. Besides, Sega handhelds like the Game Gear and Nomad didn't even have to wait for ports and they still fared poorly.
"And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?"
Because environmentalists want to change a lot more than power generation. The big sources of greenhouse gasses aren't power plants so much as factories, the ones that make the things than we use to maintain our standard of living.
But even ignoring that, renewable energy sources have their own problems environmental associated with them. Going all solar or all wind, for example, means clearing a lot of land that might otherwise be natural wilderness. It's hard to say that's better than a coal-fired plant, and I know I personally feel that it's worse than a nuclear power plant.
"I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed."
Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day. The Kyoto Protocols restrict the greenhouse output only of developed countries that have already moved on to more efficient (and therefore cleaner) means of energy production. China and India as "developing" nations are exempt. In many ways the Kyoto Protocols increase the greenhouse output of these countries, hobbling local manufacturing in the industrialized world and making the cheapier and dirtier manufacturing operations over there seem all that more attractive.
"As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies."
This looks a little like hypocricy. You don't want us to be prejudiced against the views of environmentalists because of who they are ("tree-hugging hippies looking for a cause"), but you seem to be prejudiced against the views of non-environmentalists because of who they are ("money-grubbing fat cats looking for a quick buck").
"Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards?"
People (especially young people) like to have a cause they can feel passionately about, one they feel all but defines their lives. A titanic struggle against "The Man," something a lot more exciting than an otherwise mundane life. They have an emotional investment in all this.
"Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out."
Interesting analogy. You do know that most of the methods we have for fighting cancer is almost as bad as the disease itself, right? Personally, I'd like to find out for sure one way or the other before starting chemotherapy. If the diagnosis is wrong, all I'd be doing is heaping more problems on top of doing nothing about whatever the real cause of the symptoms are.
"GWB will use this as an excuse to drop the whole hydrogen economy thing and further increase America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil."
Huh? As it stands, it's the "hydrogen economy" itself that is going to increase our dependence on oil. You need energy to separate hydrogen out of compounds, and unless we start building more nuclear power plants (you know, like GWB is pushing for) that energy will come from the fossil fuel burning plants that make up the majority of the power plants in this country.
"Based on the specs, Nintendo is gonna have a run for its money,"
The Game Boy has never had a competitor that wasn't more technologically advanced than it was. If you want to just look at the specs and at history, the trend seems to be that the PSP will join the Lynx, Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket Color, etc. on the trashheap of forgotten handhelds.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the games. Unless Sony can make a game for their PSP that is as popular than, say, Pokemon, I don't see it lasting very long.
First off, I can't begin to describe how shocked and appalled not by the board's decision, but the "reasoning" Chairman Powell claims is behind the decision. At any rate...
"Today's decision strikes a careful balance between content protection and technology innovation in order to promote consumer interests."
How exactly does content protection figure into consumer interests? It seems on its face that content protection is against consumer interests in that it limits what the consumer can do with the content. The only way content protection could be seen as being in the consumers' interests is if the provider takes the stance of "you'll have my product my way or no way at all," and even then having the product only on the provider's terms is only considered to be "in the consumers' interest" is if the product in question is some sort of narcotic, where the "consumer" needs the product in question at some level.
Considering that, even in the Twenty-First Century more people own a radio than own a television, are we really at the point where the American public needs television, so much so that the seller's desires must be catered to? After all, recent actions by the Commission works to ensure that content on television and on the radio come from the same providers.
If the consumer interest is so important to Mr. Powell, why doens't he take a more capitalistic approach and let the market itself decide exactly what kind of balance is required between consumer use and content control? I fail to see how an artificial, legislated "balance" mechanism such as this can ever be considered a true balance.
"In working through the difficult technical and policy questions in this area, I am very pleased that we have once again crafted digital TV policy in a bipartisan manner."
Bipartisanship is this important? Is it not possible for both Republicans and Democrats to be wrong at the same time?
"First, the broadcast flag decision is an important step toward preserving the viability of free over-the-air television."
This depends entirely what exactly "free over-the-air television" means. Does "free" in this context simply mean "received at no direct cost to the consumer," or does it mean "free to do with in your home as you please?" These are two very different and not always complimentary concepts.
"Because broadcast TV is transmitted "in the clear," it is more susceptible than encrypted cable or satellite programming to being captured and retransmitted via the Internet."
This analogy doens't hold water because, to my knowledge, nothing like this broadcast bit mechanism exists in private content networks such as cable and satellite. In fact, many of these private networks promote copying, archiving and time-shifting of their programs (consider the numerous set-top boxes that have built-in digital recording capabilities), all activities that the broadcast bit is essentially intended to stop. In this respect, these private networks are far more free than the "free, in-the-clear" broadcast market the FCC is now creating. And don't forget that most channels on these private networks rely on advertising revenue just as broadcast networks do.
"The widespread redistribution of broadcast TV content on the Internet would unnecessarily drive high value programming to more secure delivery platforms. The losers would be the 40 million Americans who rely exclusively on free over-the-air TV."
Except that those 40 million Americans you mention are the last people that would adopt digital television technology. Without the greater volume of content that private providers offer, digital television only appeals to die-hard technophiles. Even the FCC knows such people are few and far between; the new broadcast bit rule is an admission by the FCC that content is far more important than picture resolution.
But even if each and every one of those 40 million people did manage to scrape
"What should DARPA do to sort out these problems?"
Well, considering what the D in DARPA stands for, the solution is obvious: Ask Congress for more money, claiming that the race is vital for national security. Duh!
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
"Territorial integrity?" Iraqs borders today are exactly where they were a year ago. Iraq has yet to lose sovereign territory, and I don't see it happening any time soon (unless certain Kurds have their way).
"Political indepence?" The stated aims of the invasion is to return control of Iraq back to its people as soon as is feasable. Neither in whole or in part is Iraq going to become the 51st state.
And as for "inconsistent with the purposes of the UN" bit, one of the much-flaunted goals of the organization is to allow for and support the self-determination of a people. Before the invasion, there was only one person in Iraq who had any sort of self-determination.
"And unfortunately, since e-mail FROM addresses tend to be forged, you're spamming some poor joe with your challenge messages."
Generally speaking, the challenges are issued once per e-mail address, not once per e-mail. If you send another e-mail while the system is still waiting for your response from the first one, you don't get another challenge.
Or, if the poor schmuck also has a c/r system, both c/r systems talk to each other while neither end user sees much of anything.
"same result, you get a nice film on the surface and damages the local ecology plus you can get it from your local gas station"
Except that heavy hydrocarbons aren't something you want to drink (or breathe, for that matter). Or would you mind of I add a little 92 octane to your drinking water? The idea of this film is to prevent evaporation and only evaporation, with negligible effects on the human body upon ingestion and (as a secondary goal) having as small a footprint on the local ecosystem as possible.
"how about spending money on better infrastructure"
What's going to flow through the pipes?
"or de-salination plants first ?"
Where are you going to put it once you desalinate it?
"then you wouldnt need to stop evaporation,"
Salt water evaporates too, ya know...
"remember 80% of the globe is covered with H2O so evaporation is not the problem"
Ignoring drought for the moment (like you seem to be doing), even without RTFA I can tell you that these tests were conducted in Morocco. Morocco as in "middle of the freakin' Sahara" Morocco. "80% of the surface" is all well and good until you recall that the distribution is far from homogeneous.
Slashdot Mirror
"There's a lesson for us all, there."
And that lesson is "Joe Shmoe still has no idea how to find out where that pop-up window came from." The FTC has to wait until they themselves are the victims because the people that are usually the victims have literally no idea how to report the crime (let alone who to report it to).
Do you think your grandmother knows what IP sent her that pop-up?
"but there is a heck a lot of land out there used for the farming industry of which can be used to place wind turbines."
Farms are large and clear-cut for a reason. Is the farmer compensated for the effect the turbines' shadows will have on his crops? Plants on the north side of a single turbine will get less sunlight per day the closer it is to the turbine, with the land adjacent to the turbine unusable for growing much of anything. The problem gets worse when you start looking at multiple turbines, where some areas are within the shadow sweep of two or more turbines over the course a day can be almost as bad off as land up against the turbine.
"When placed on land used for, let's say, raising cattle,"
Cattle eat a lot of grass, which is also affected by the loss of sunlight these turbines will cause.
"The average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day."
I see you used the word "average." Averaged over a week? A month? A year? What ranges of latitudes were included in this average? What's the standard deviation from that average?
Let me put this another way: How much electricity does a house at around 37 degrees north latitude in the middle of January need? January, when the days are short and cloudy and there's a pretty good chance your solar panels are covered in snow (unless, of course, the house has poor thermal insulation, which would increase its energy requirements). And what if we assume a totally "green" solution where the house uses electric heat instead of fossil fuels? I would imagine such a house would need quite a bit more than that average you mentioned.
Using that average number pretty much assumes that the house has some sort of energy storage system that can store up energy surpluses and hold onto it for months at a time with manageable loss, as well as able to return that energy with a power output similar to the solar cells themselves. Hydrogen might work here, but then there's the NIMBY issue.
I wouldn't have bought a Genesis and all four Phantasy Star games if I hadn't first discovered Phantasy Star on Meka. I can't say much about the other games in the Sega Ages series, but I believe that the remake of Phantasy Star is definately worth the 2500 yen price tag, even in the age of emulators.
They still have to be ported, and they have to compete with SNES ports. Besides, Sega handhelds like the Game Gear and Nomad didn't even have to wait for ports and they still fared poorly.
"Oddly enough, Diebold also makes ATMs. I wonder why the same accountability standards weren't used for the voting machines?"
Legislators can be bought^H^H^H^H^H^Hbribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributed to. Banks already have all the money and like to keep it that way.
"And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?"
Because environmentalists want to change a lot more than power generation. The big sources of greenhouse gasses aren't power plants so much as factories, the ones that make the things than we use to maintain our standard of living.
But even ignoring that, renewable energy sources have their own problems environmental associated with them. Going all solar or all wind, for example, means clearing a lot of land that might otherwise be natural wilderness. It's hard to say that's better than a coal-fired plant, and I know I personally feel that it's worse than a nuclear power plant.
"I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed."
Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day. The Kyoto Protocols restrict the greenhouse output only of developed countries that have already moved on to more efficient (and therefore cleaner) means of energy production. China and India as "developing" nations are exempt. In many ways the Kyoto Protocols increase the greenhouse output of these countries, hobbling local manufacturing in the industrialized world and making the cheapier and dirtier manufacturing operations over there seem all that more attractive.
"As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies."
This looks a little like hypocricy. You don't want us to be prejudiced against the views of environmentalists because of who they are ("tree-hugging hippies looking for a cause"), but you seem to be prejudiced against the views of non-environmentalists because of who they are ("money-grubbing fat cats looking for a quick buck").
"Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards?"
People (especially young people) like to have a cause they can feel passionately about, one they feel all but defines their lives. A titanic struggle against "The Man," something a lot more exciting than an otherwise mundane life. They have an emotional investment in all this.
"Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out."
Interesting analogy. You do know that most of the methods we have for fighting cancer is almost as bad as the disease itself, right? Personally, I'd like to find out for sure one way or the other before starting chemotherapy. If the diagnosis is wrong, all I'd be doing is heaping more problems on top of doing nothing about whatever the real cause of the symptoms are.
"GWB will use this as an excuse to drop the whole hydrogen economy thing and further increase America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil."
Huh? As it stands, it's the "hydrogen economy" itself that is going to increase our dependence on oil. You need energy to separate hydrogen out of compounds, and unless we start building more nuclear power plants (you know, like GWB is pushing for) that energy will come from the fossil fuel burning plants that make up the majority of the power plants in this country.
"Run for office"
I did.
"Based on the specs, Nintendo is gonna have a run for its money,"
The Game Boy has never had a competitor that wasn't more technologically advanced than it was. If you want to just look at the specs and at history, the trend seems to be that the PSP will join the Lynx, Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket Color, etc. on the trashheap of forgotten handhelds.
Ultimately, it all boils down to the games. Unless Sony can make a game for their PSP that is as popular than, say, Pokemon, I don't see it lasting very long.
He was a television reporter. Consider who signs his paychecks.
First off, I can't begin to describe how shocked and appalled not by the board's decision, but the "reasoning" Chairman Powell claims is behind the decision. At any rate...
"Today's decision strikes a careful balance between content protection and technology innovation in order to promote consumer interests."
How exactly does content protection figure into consumer interests? It seems on its face that content protection is against consumer interests in that it limits what the consumer can do with the content. The only way content protection could be seen as being in the consumers' interests is if the provider takes the stance of "you'll have my product my way or no way at all," and even then having the product only on the provider's terms is only considered to be "in the consumers' interest" is if the product in question is some sort of narcotic, where the "consumer" needs the product in question at some level.
Considering that, even in the Twenty-First Century more people own a radio than own a television, are we really at the point where the American public needs television, so much so that the seller's desires must be catered to? After all, recent actions by the Commission works to ensure that content on television and on the radio come from the same providers.
If the consumer interest is so important to Mr. Powell, why doens't he take a more capitalistic approach and let the market itself decide exactly what kind of balance is required between consumer use and content control? I fail to see how an artificial, legislated "balance" mechanism such as this can ever be considered a true balance.
"In working through the difficult technical and policy questions in this area, I am very pleased that we have once again crafted digital TV policy in a bipartisan manner."
Bipartisanship is this important? Is it not possible for both Republicans and Democrats to be wrong at the same time?
"First, the broadcast flag decision is an important step toward preserving the viability of free over-the-air television."
This depends entirely what exactly "free over-the-air television" means. Does "free" in this context simply mean "received at no direct cost to the consumer," or does it mean "free to do with in your home as you please?" These are two very different and not always complimentary concepts.
"Because broadcast TV is transmitted "in the clear," it is more susceptible than encrypted cable or satellite programming to being captured and retransmitted via the Internet."
This analogy doens't hold water because, to my knowledge, nothing like this broadcast bit mechanism exists in private content networks such as cable and satellite. In fact, many of these private networks promote copying, archiving and time-shifting of their programs (consider the numerous set-top boxes that have built-in digital recording capabilities), all activities that the broadcast bit is essentially intended to stop. In this respect, these private networks are far more free than the "free, in-the-clear" broadcast market the FCC is now creating. And don't forget that most channels on these private networks rely on advertising revenue just as broadcast networks do.
"The widespread redistribution of broadcast TV content on the Internet would unnecessarily drive high value programming to more secure delivery platforms. The losers would be the 40 million Americans who rely exclusively on free over-the-air TV."
Except that those 40 million Americans you mention are the last people that would adopt digital television technology. Without the greater volume of content that private providers offer, digital television only appeals to die-hard technophiles. Even the FCC knows such people are few and far between; the new broadcast bit rule is an admission by the FCC that content is far more important than picture resolution.
But even if each and every one of those 40 million people did manage to scrape
"DIVX died."
DiVX didn't have the weight of Congress behind it.
"What should DARPA do to sort out these problems?"
Well, considering what the D in DARPA stands for, the solution is obvious: Ask Congress for more money, claiming that the race is vital for national security. Duh!
"I suppose this is why over two thirds of Americans believe that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. (etc.)"
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. Such are the perils of democracy.
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
"Territorial integrity?" Iraqs borders today are exactly where they were a year ago. Iraq has yet to lose sovereign territory, and I don't see it happening any time soon (unless certain Kurds have their way).
"Political indepence?" The stated aims of the invasion is to return control of Iraq back to its people as soon as is feasable. Neither in whole or in part is Iraq going to become the 51st state.
And as for "inconsistent with the purposes of the UN" bit, one of the much-flaunted goals of the organization is to allow for and support the self-determination of a people. Before the invasion, there was only one person in Iraq who had any sort of self-determination.
You do realize that you're talking about the same US government that gave the com domain to VeriSign, right?
"Except I read that Google was valued at 9 billion which would sure eat into MS' reserves."
Don't worry, I'm sure Microsoft could have made up the shortfall with their Xbox sales.
When will they be making a movie based on Typing of the Dead?
"Human beings did not evolve to subsist on protein. We evolved as *active* animals who browsed and hunted for food."
We evolved as smart animals given the ability to figure out easier ways of doing things.
"And unfortunately, since e-mail FROM addresses tend to be forged, you're spamming some poor joe with your challenge messages."
Generally speaking, the challenges are issued once per e-mail address, not once per e-mail. If you send another e-mail while the system is still waiting for your response from the first one, you don't get another challenge.
Or, if the poor schmuck also has a c/r system, both c/r systems talk to each other while neither end user sees much of anything.
"same result, you get a nice film on the surface and damages the local ecology plus you can get it from your local gas station"
Except that heavy hydrocarbons aren't something you want to drink (or breathe, for that matter). Or would you mind of I add a little 92 octane to your drinking water? The idea of this film is to prevent evaporation and only evaporation, with negligible effects on the human body upon ingestion and (as a secondary goal) having as small a footprint on the local ecosystem as possible.
"how about spending money on better infrastructure"
What's going to flow through the pipes?
"or de-salination plants first ?"
Where are you going to put it once you desalinate it?
"then you wouldnt need to stop evaporation,"
Salt water evaporates too, ya know...
"remember 80% of the globe is covered with H2O so evaporation is not the problem"
Ignoring drought for the moment (like you seem to be doing), even without RTFA I can tell you that these tests were conducted in Morocco. Morocco as in "middle of the freakin' Sahara" Morocco. "80% of the surface" is all well and good until you recall that the distribution is far from homogeneous.
There there... This should help take away the pain.
"I've had about 2 e-mails a day of this ilk with respect to my Earthlink account for at least 3 months."
You know, there's a real easy way to stop that...
Seriously, I find that challenge-response e-mail does to spam what Moz does to pop-ups.