OK, well instead of growing tons of grass for cattle food, we could grow tons of human-friendly food plants.
Most free-ranged grass-fed cattle aren't eating grass that's tended. Growing crops is expensive and labor intensive. I don't know how the two cost columns actually balance out, though.
However, I think the true reasoning is something more akin to what is going on from TFA: some people want to look out their windows and not see a trashy neighborhood.
Which is entirely subjective. Other people would drive into a neighborhood with no clothes lines and say, "this is abhorrent, these people are gratuitous CO2 polluters."
It's all well and good if you go into a HOA with these rules established, but usually the agreements read, "these rules and whichever rules may one day be added, rescinded, or changed." Since moving and re-establishing relationships is so expensive, HOA's are quite a devil's bargain.
Yes, I give up the personal freedom to spend my tax money the way I like.
And this is the objection of those who oppose socialism. The argument isn't one of utility, it's one of human rights, even at the cost of utility.
If your government uses violence to get that tax money and prevents competition then those who value freedom among the highest ideals will reject it. Whether you get a good value or not isn't part of that distinction.
If the system you have is really that good, it can survive in a non-coercive environment among those who choose to participate. But then some would argue that's not government.
Water distribution has been an important technology problem since before Rome built its aquaducts. Throw in a bumbling central bureaucracy screwing it up and you have a decent Slashdot article.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that technology is everything invented after you were born.
Blue used to be Republican and red was Democrat. All very strange.
It was always an incumbent/challenger thing until some socialists found it opportunistic to rail against the stupid people living in 'red states', meaning they voted Republican, and the mediasphere has played along with that since.
Yes, I remember the Reagan/Mondale map looking like this on TV.
In 2000, the Democrats had the White House, so Bush was the Red/challenger.
More importantly, it plays to the base tribal instincts that the Democratic/Republican parties use to vilify each other.
People built settlements on land with no water sources with the assumption that uphill sources of water would always be available to them as they flowed downhill. They profit from the cost, availability, and climate of that land.
Now that their base assumption has been proven wrong, they seek to use violence to not admit to that error and protect their malinvestments. Sadly, some of the people against whom they aggres are those living in sustainable locations.
That and some municipalities turn a profit by being a water provider and want to keep their water-meter rates up.
In a democracy, majority rules OK. You may think that the rule of law protects you, but you'll find more often than not that your rights are a paper shield in the face of the iron will of the general public.
Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.
What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests.
The Internet has had a temporary pass since governments react slowly to technology. Now they're catching up "the Internet" with the rest of the society these entities control.
You definitely do want drugs to pass regulation. You don't want untested drugs released.
This is where the FDA's one-size-fits all policies are wrong.
If I'm facing the choices: a) certain death, b) certain permanent kidney damage, or c) new drug pharmaceutical researchers think will fix my problem and have passed animal trials, I'll go for c).
c) may not be the best choice in my case, but it's more important that I'm free to make that choice than that the FDA guarantee my choice is safe. And they don't even do that all that well, so it's a false choice to begin with.
And the NRA supporters think that people with guns would help save the day?
Who are you expecting to be everywhere to defend you against this (supposed) drone threat? a.308 or buckshot isn't the most reliable mechanism, but do you expect the Feds to equip and man a Patriot battery for every town with a population over 2500?
Yes. When you take the profit out of it, they stop. The only reasons gangs exist in the USA is because of prohibition.
Economists have placed the real cost (sans government) of a heroin habit at $3.50/day. Government is the cause of drug-related crimes, a McEmployee could afford heroin if he was so unfortunately inclined.
Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.
Our problem is that our system of government is too expensive. Increasing revenues to government isn't going to help.
China has lower taxation and lower regulation, so they can compete better. The US has the second-highest corporation tax rates in the world and has to pass that on to all its customers.
the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.
If this is worth money to them then they'll keep changing the system. They will assume that whatever they put out will eventually get a break, but the point of security is never to win, it's to delay and incur costs.
They only need to stay unbroken long enough to get through most of their profit-generating phase, or if they have recurring profits, keep updating until it costs more to update than the profit stream reflects.
Ah, remember when doughnuts cost less than a dollar?:)
And an EM emitter, or even just a remote jamming device, or in case of a wireguided or automated drone a laser to interfere with or destroy the optics seems like pretty easy to come by and cheap solutions.
Yeah, if you know the specs ahead of time and can get the jammers widely distributed enough to cover 700,000 square miles of land area.
Developing a USB interface requires a pretty detailed understanding of USB
Hasn't this already been outsourced to the manufacturers who can provide you with a a chip that gives you USB on one side and you hook up your existing serial interface on the other? I haven't used one, but I assume they'd also give you serial pass-through to make all your customers happy.
So for $2 or so per unit you get to not have to understand USB.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, well instead of growing tons of grass for cattle food, we could grow tons of human-friendly food plants.
Most free-ranged grass-fed cattle aren't eating grass that's tended. Growing crops is expensive and labor intensive. I don't know how the two cost columns actually balance out, though.
However, I think the true reasoning is something more akin to what is going on from TFA: some people want to look out their windows and not see a trashy neighborhood.
Which is entirely subjective. Other people would drive into a neighborhood with no clothes lines and say, "this is abhorrent, these people are gratuitous CO2 polluters."
It's all well and good if you go into a HOA with these rules established, but usually the agreements read, "these rules and whichever rules may one day be added, rescinded, or changed." Since moving and re-establishing relationships is so expensive, HOA's are quite a devil's bargain.
The difference is he actually paid for his property and so has bought the moral right to maintain it in a way that makes sense for him.
Sort of. He only paid for the title to his property, the property belongs to the State, at least in most of the US.
Yes, I give up the personal freedom to spend my tax money the way I like.
And this is the objection of those who oppose socialism. The argument isn't one of utility, it's one of human rights, even at the cost of utility.
If your government uses violence to get that tax money and prevents competition then those who value freedom among the highest ideals will reject it. Whether you get a good value or not isn't part of that distinction.
If the system you have is really that good, it can survive in a non-coercive environment among those who choose to participate. But then some would argue that's not government.
Are you insane? ... Property tax is practically DOUBLING my monthly out-of-pocket expense for "owning" the home.
Somebody is insane alright!
I thought my taxes were crazy at 25%.
How is this article news for nerds?
Water distribution has been an important technology problem since before Rome built its aquaducts. Throw in a bumbling central bureaucracy screwing it up and you have a decent Slashdot article.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that technology is everything invented after you were born.
Blue used to be Republican and red was Democrat. All very strange.
It was always an incumbent/challenger thing until some socialists found it opportunistic to rail against the stupid people living in 'red states', meaning they voted Republican, and the mediasphere has played along with that since.
Yes, I remember the Reagan/Mondale map looking like this on TV.
In 2000, the Democrats had the White House, so Bush was the Red/challenger.
More importantly, it plays to the base tribal instincts that the Democratic/Republican parties use to vilify each other.
You're mistaken. Now Red and Blue both say "Get off our lawn."
Tromad wins.
People built settlements on land with no water sources with the assumption that uphill sources of water would always be available to them as they flowed downhill. They profit from the cost, availability, and climate of that land.
Now that their base assumption has been proven wrong, they seek to use violence to not admit to that error and protect their malinvestments. Sadly, some of the people against whom they aggres are those living in sustainable locations.
That and some municipalities turn a profit by being a water provider and want to keep their water-meter rates up.
In a democracy, majority rules OK. You may think that the rule of law protects you, but you'll find more often than not that your rights are a paper shield in the face of the iron will of the general public.
- George Carlin, 1937-2008
Didn't you get the memo - the Constitution is just a piece of paper. DC/GWB
Please try to keep up. That was Abe Lincoln. Or the guys who passed the Aliens and Sedition Act.
moving them to a new filing system.
Please use the site map to find what you are looking for
rewrite_map, bitches.
This is typical rule-addicted asinine knee-jerkism.
the lifeblood of the bureaucracy.
Which constitutional amendment governs our "internet freedom"? Double-points if you can point to the British version.
It's a private network with voluntary participation. Which enumerated power of Congress grants any power over that?
What's really needed is a multi-national organization to address what's clearly an all-out assault on internet freedom by a variety of vested interests.
The Internet has had a temporary pass since governments react slowly to technology. Now they're catching up "the Internet" with the rest of the society these entities control.
Goliath once again pursues David.
You definitely do want drugs to pass regulation. You don't want untested drugs released.
This is where the FDA's one-size-fits all policies are wrong.
If I'm facing the choices: a) certain death, b) certain permanent kidney damage, or c) new drug pharmaceutical researchers think will fix my problem and have passed animal trials, I'll go for c).
c) may not be the best choice in my case, but it's more important that I'm free to make that choice than that the FDA guarantee my choice is safe. And they don't even do that all that well, so it's a false choice to begin with.
And the NRA supporters think that people with guns would help save the day?
Who are you expecting to be everywhere to defend you against this (supposed) drone threat? a .308 or buckshot isn't the most reliable mechanism, but do you expect the Feds to equip and man a Patriot battery for every town with a population over 2500?
Yes. When you take the profit out of it, they stop. The only reasons gangs exist in the USA is because of prohibition.
Economists have placed the real cost (sans government) of a heroin habit at $3.50/day. Government is the cause of drug-related crimes, a McEmployee could afford heroin if he was so unfortunately inclined.
and ship the old computers to people who might be able to use them, say, in the third world countries.
We're lobbing to impose huge carbon taxes on developing economies and you want to ship them Pentium 4's?
Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.
Our problem is that our system of government is too expensive. Increasing revenues to government isn't going to help.
China has lower taxation and lower regulation, so they can compete better. The US has the second-highest corporation tax rates in the world and has to pass that on to all its customers.
the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.
If this is worth money to them then they'll keep changing the system. They will assume that whatever they put out will eventually get a break, but the point of security is never to win, it's to delay and incur costs.
They only need to stay unbroken long enough to get through most of their profit-generating phase, or if they have recurring profits, keep updating until it costs more to update than the profit stream reflects.
Knights, incidentially, the real knights, were catholics, and their fighting methods tried to take catholic ideology into account.
Love thy neighbor as thyself, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you - that kind of ideology?
I assume you're not talking about Knights Templar and other various Crusaders using that title?
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts
Ah, remember when doughnuts cost less than a dollar? :)
And an EM emitter, or even just a remote jamming device, or in case of a wireguided or automated drone a laser to interfere with or destroy the optics seems like pretty easy to come by and cheap solutions.
Yeah, if you know the specs ahead of time and can get the jammers widely distributed enough to cover 700,000 square miles of land area.
The idea of hundreds of citizens firing UP INTO THE AIR trying to hit a drone scares the hell out of me..
OK, but fear is no rationale for a decision.
Factors to consider include, at least:
Developing a USB interface requires a pretty detailed understanding of USB
Hasn't this already been outsourced to the manufacturers who can provide you with a a chip that gives you USB on one side and you hook up your existing serial interface on the other? I haven't used one, but I assume they'd also give you serial pass-through to make all your customers happy.
So for $2 or so per unit you get to not have to understand USB.