Seriously, they should all be shot. SUV ownership is like joining the nuclear club. Suddenly, your insurance goes way down because you're virtually invincible. Getting rid of SUVs will be just as difficult as nuclear disarmament. Anyone driving around a normal sized car is just asking to get clobbered.
What happens when global warming ends because we haven't any more money for cars having spent it all on this ring?
Then it will have worked?
But seriously, the world spends much more just on gas for its cars in a year than this would cost. I need not even mention the money the US has spent ferrying a certain group of people around the world on a certain fruitless little excursion...
The greenhouse "problem" isn't a problem with the rate of heat expulsion, it's a problem with the rate of change of the rate of heat expulsion.
Greenhouse gasses (like a greenhouse) trap heat that would be otherwise expelled normally. Getting rid of greenhouse gasses gets rid of the problem entirely, like opening the top of a greenhouse. It doesn't matter what's inside, be it solar panels or whatnot, as long as it doesn't produce more greenhouse gasses.
How stupid do you all have to be not to notice that the price tag is $500 billion, not the ridiculous trillions of dollars for that other particle solution. Even idiot bosses I've had can manage to pick out the cheapest solution from a list of alternatives. Why is it that half of Slashdot immediately goes for the most expensive one?
How much seawater could you pump into the central Sahara for $1 trillion?
Uh-oh. This sounds like it's gonna be stupid...
But how much cooler would that make the globe?
Not at all cooler. In fact, it would make the earth warmer because you'd be wasting energy moving water around needlessly.
How did this get modded up? And how did you get such a low UID? This must have something to do with the recent USSC decisions... like I've warped into another dimension or something...
"We don't understand how this works, therefore we're against it. Keep 'researching'."
Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Clearly you're already in the "man causes global warming camp". Why would you be against a large-scale technical solution to the problem instead of more hand-wringing?
More "environmental regulations" aren't going to change the fact that burning hydrocarbons creates CO2. It also won't change the fact that trying to re-capture that CO2 is a futile effort. Launching $500 billion worth of satellites is a drop in the ocean compared with what global energy demands will become in the coming decades. It may also provide the experience needed to harness solar power in an efficient way. You've been griping about that for decades, and now you're against it?
On an even more political note, now that you liberal idiots have finally woken up and realized that nuclear power isn't so bad after all, don't you feel even the slightest bit of irony that, had you come to that conclusion 20 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess with "global warming" in the first place? Perhaps, the next time scientists come up with a new technology, you should just fucking listen to them and keep your mouth shut instead of bitching because you don't comprehend what's at stake.
You're thinking too small. Think on a global scale. Solar cells require energy to build, as well as rare elements that are limited. Where does that energy come from? Oil? Coal? We're still churning out CO2...
Why don't you, and this guy start talking about when the Linux userbase will be large enough for games to be directly ported. Until you two can come to an agreement, I don't see it happening. I'm happy to be able to run Windows games (and programs) on a Free OS for now. I think asking for more is pie-in-the-sky dreaming at the moment.
That's right. Other than for the benefits in powering espionage/space devices, this move could be laying the groundwork for full scale Pu238 production, to mix with Pu239 (from fast breeders), as a deterrent to the use of Pu239 for weapons. The world will need breeders soon, and neutralizing their potential for weapons use will be a priority.
Actually, there's some truth to that. Wine is not an emulator, so Windows apps are technically running at the same level as native apps. There are a few tricks used to minimize the risks of known problem apps *cough* lookOut *cough*, and limitations keep most malware from running at the moment. But, as Wine matures, there's no reason that Windows security problems couldn't become Linux security problems.
I can tell you that this hypothesis is wrong. When OS/2 came out, I *was* the mass-market audience for it: intermediate Windows user, sick of constantly having to fix it.
I came very close to purchasing OS/2. The thing that killed it for me wasn't that it *did* run Windows apps, but that it didn't run them flawlessly. Reviews in the major computer magazines that spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt were enough to keep me away. That, and the price tag. It just wasn't worth the risk in case Word didn't run correctly.
It's here, but, no, I wouldn't expect a person to just stumble upon it. I had to go through two levels of tech support people (yelling all the way) before one finally admitted they were blocking port 25 at all.
Their speeds quite possibly couldn't be faster. They have an array of services to choose from, including a $25/mo "value" plan that's 512/128. They don't require you to have cable in order to get internet. I haven't ever needed support, though I've heard similarly bad opinions before. Unlike pppoe, Cox dhcp "just works" in Linux. I agree though, the port filters are lame.
Pricing is awful; if they didn't have to compete with Cox here, they would probably still have only one slow speed plan for $60/mo. You still have to have a dial tone, from them, before you can get DSL. They've done the "jack up your bill" thing here as well, trying to charge us for two lines. Watch your bills.
Tech support is awful; they insist the problem is on your end, even when it's obvious that one of their DNS servers has gone down, again. Their techs don't seem to understand "I can't ping the router on the other end of the P-t-P link" as being a problem.
Reliability is awful. We've had "area outages" in the past year as well. They started blocking port 25 here without notice, although there is a form hidden on their webpage to "opt out".
I agree that the only thing keeping their score from being lower is that things have gotten better lately. Though I'm afraid the higher speeds I'm noticing have more to do with indiscriminate port blocking than anything else.
Perhaps you missed the amendment that changed that section of the Constitution. It now reads:
To promote the elderly, dependent upon large groups of young people working in non-productive medical fields, and other large corporations, dependent upon cheap labor, by securing for as long as possible to said corporations the exclusive right to be free from competition for their respective products, thereby creating a command economy, dominated by monopolies, and fostering unemployment levels necessary to support them, and the globalist army;
It pisses me off when people stick with their simplified notions of the political "spectrum" instead of joining the 20th century and evaluating political parties based upon a metric with more than one dimension
Individual rights must be protected by individuals, by force if necessary. Property is an individual right. No one is responsible for protecting your property but you.
It's not that it wasn't protected, it's that the concept is so inane as to have been un-heard-of. It's like saying that the right to be free from gang rape isn't protected because it isn't in the Bill of Rights.
Bullshit. It's used all the time nowadays. It'll be used more often now that the supreme court has given carte blanche to poor, despotic local governments to "create jobs" by destroying things.
Are you retarded? Wal-Mart is a conservative corporation from the back woods of Arkansas. They didn't have anything to do with this case.
All of the "zoning" battles that Wal-Mart has been involved in usually involve some group of liberal busybodies asking for zoning changes to keep Wal-Mart out, not the other way around. Even when Wal-Mart goes to great lengths to comply with the zoning laws, liberals still whine and complain.
Let me tell you, they never had problems with being able to do what they want with their own property until they started building stores in the blue states. And it looks like the liberals on the court want to make sure busybodies everywhere can tell anyone what to do with their own property.
This is right there in line with seizing cash from someone because their isn't a good reason they should be carrying that much. Nothing illegal, just suspicious.
It's worse than that. It's stealing cash from someone because they won't spend it on something that has as high a return rate as whatever you might spend it on.
The person with that cash might buy RC Cola instead of Pepsi, because it's cheaper, even though there's a Pepsi bottler in town. The person with that cash might use it to build their own house instead of hiring the developer that is buddies with the city council.
It's no longer "individual buyers determine the market" and "the market will decide", it's "politicians spend our money for us because it's in the 'public interest'".
What if it provides local jobs, or gives the neighborhood a nice downtown?
According to government and their economists, "public good" is best served by keeping everyone constantly employed, doing some inane task. Unfortunately, according to the average person, "individual good" is best served by lounging around doing whatever the fuck you want to all day.
Whenever we reach the point as a civilization where individuals can afford to lounge around, the government (and banks) take it upon themselves to put them back to work by any means necessary. They'll go so far as to destroy things in order to keep us employed, so they can continue skimming off the product of our efforts. There is never an economic justification for destroying property and making people work to rebuild it. In my city, they've gone as far as buldozing entire city blocks, replacing them with open fields, and then wondering years later why the economy sucks, housing is over-crowded, and crime rates have tripled.
The two philosophies of "individual" and "public" good are in direct conflict, mostly because the original meaning of "public good" has been hijacked by socialist idiots such as the liberals on the Supreme Court. Originally, it meant "everyone benefits". Emminent domain is there to facilitate the situations in which the government can come in, pay Suzy for her property, Suzy can then go buy a similar (or better!) property, and everyone lives happily ever after.
With real estate, though, it never works that way. Someone already mentioned property taxes. Suzy will be paying more of those when she moves. People who own their own homes have usually put way more time, effort, and money into them than is reflected in the "market value". This value is lost when the government appraisers come in.
For every house bulldozed, the price of remaining houses goes up. By the time Suzy has spent 6 months living in hotels and searching for a suitable new property, she probably can't afford anything similar to her old house. Usually, Suzy will end up moving from a prime location to some suburb 10 miles from anywhere. She'll probably have to pay more for transportation.
Also, these "urban development" areas are usually picked ahead of time based on their low property values. Odds are good that Suzy will go from living in an affordable house that she owns to renting, and owning nothing.
The icing on the cake is that, 50% of the time, the planned development is something stupid and unproductive like a stadium or a park. So, instead of creating a net economic benefit large enough to compensate Suzy for her house as well as for the damages caused by relocation, these projects end up being economic burdens on the local economy and government. Instead of "everyone benefits" as in the "public good", no one benefits but some well-connected developers and politicians.
Block every third e-mail from a Hotmail address with a nice reply, a link to a site explaining Microsoft's motives in hijacking internet standards, and a GMail invite.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh-oh, I'll bet it's not...
have everyone on the planet plant at least one tree.
This could be going in the right direction...
trees would help cool the earth.
Yes, okay, and now for the science...
because they hold more water.
... Okay, not what I was expecting, but let's go with it...
trees also help water evaporate so there will be more rain.
But, I thought we were storing water, not helping it evaporate? There must be some logical reasoning behind this...
more rain = cooler weather.
Oh. Dear. God.
Seriously, they should all be shot. SUV ownership is like joining the nuclear club. Suddenly, your insurance goes way down because you're virtually invincible. Getting rid of SUVs will be just as difficult as nuclear disarmament. Anyone driving around a normal sized car is just asking to get clobbered.
What happens when global warming ends because we haven't any more money for cars having spent it all on this ring?
Then it will have worked?
But seriously, the world spends much more just on gas for its cars in a year than this would cost. I need not even mention the money the US has spent ferrying a certain group of people around the world on a certain fruitless little excursion...
The greenhouse "problem" isn't a problem with the rate of heat expulsion, it's a problem with the rate of change of the rate of heat expulsion.
Greenhouse gasses (like a greenhouse) trap heat that would be otherwise expelled normally. Getting rid of greenhouse gasses gets rid of the problem entirely, like opening the top of a greenhouse. It doesn't matter what's inside, be it solar panels or whatnot, as long as it doesn't produce more greenhouse gasses.
How stupid do you all have to be not to notice that the price tag is $500 billion, not the ridiculous trillions of dollars for that other particle solution. Even idiot bosses I've had can manage to pick out the cheapest solution from a list of alternatives. Why is it that half of Slashdot immediately goes for the most expensive one?
How much seawater could you pump into the central Sahara for $1 trillion?
Uh-oh. This sounds like it's gonna be stupid...
But how much cooler would that make the globe?
Not at all cooler. In fact, it would make the earth warmer because you'd be wasting energy moving water around needlessly.
How did this get modded up? And how did you get such a low UID? This must have something to do with the recent USSC decisions... like I've warped into another dimension or something...
"We don't understand how this works, therefore we're against it. Keep 'researching'."
Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Clearly you're already in the "man causes global warming camp". Why would you be against a large-scale technical solution to the problem instead of more hand-wringing?
More "environmental regulations" aren't going to change the fact that burning hydrocarbons creates CO2. It also won't change the fact that trying to re-capture that CO2 is a futile effort. Launching $500 billion worth of satellites is a drop in the ocean compared with what global energy demands will become in the coming decades. It may also provide the experience needed to harness solar power in an efficient way. You've been griping about that for decades, and now you're against it?
On an even more political note, now that you liberal idiots have finally woken up and realized that nuclear power isn't so bad after all, don't you feel even the slightest bit of irony that, had you come to that conclusion 20 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess with "global warming" in the first place? Perhaps, the next time scientists come up with a new technology, you should just fucking listen to them and keep your mouth shut instead of bitching because you don't comprehend what's at stake.
You're thinking too small. Think on a global scale. Solar cells require energy to build, as well as rare elements that are limited. Where does that energy come from? Oil? Coal? We're still churning out CO2...
Why don't you, and this guy start talking about when the Linux userbase will be large enough for games to be directly ported. Until you two can come to an agreement, I don't see it happening. I'm happy to be able to run Windows games (and programs) on a Free OS for now. I think asking for more is pie-in-the-sky dreaming at the moment.
That's right. Other than for the benefits in powering espionage/space devices, this move could be laying the groundwork for full scale Pu238 production, to mix with Pu239 (from fast breeders), as a deterrent to the use of Pu239 for weapons. The world will need breeders soon, and neutralizing their potential for weapons use will be a priority.
Preferably in your building. It's more reliable to put the admin on the other end of a long copper line than your server.
Actually, there's some truth to that. Wine is not an emulator, so Windows apps are technically running at the same level as native apps. There are a few tricks used to minimize the risks of known problem apps *cough* lookOut *cough*, and limitations keep most malware from running at the moment. But, as Wine matures, there's no reason that Windows security problems couldn't become Linux security problems.
I can tell you that this hypothesis is wrong. When OS/2 came out, I *was* the mass-market audience for it: intermediate Windows user, sick of constantly having to fix it.
I came very close to purchasing OS/2. The thing that killed it for me wasn't that it *did* run Windows apps, but that it didn't run them flawlessly. Reviews in the major computer magazines that spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt were enough to keep me away. That, and the price tag. It just wasn't worth the risk in case Word didn't run correctly.
It's here, but, no, I wouldn't expect a person to just stumble upon it. I had to go through two levels of tech support people (yelling all the way) before one finally admitted they were blocking port 25 at all.
Here (midwest) I'd give Cox about a 7.
Their speeds quite possibly couldn't be faster. They have an array of services to choose from, including a $25/mo "value" plan that's 512/128. They don't require you to have cable in order to get internet. I haven't ever needed support, though I've heard similarly bad opinions before. Unlike pppoe, Cox dhcp "just works" in Linux. I agree though, the port filters are lame.
I'll agree, 3 seems fair.
Pricing is awful; if they didn't have to compete with Cox here, they would probably still have only one slow speed plan for $60/mo. You still have to have a dial tone, from them, before you can get DSL. They've done the "jack up your bill" thing here as well, trying to charge us for two lines. Watch your bills.
Tech support is awful; they insist the problem is on your end, even when it's obvious that one of their DNS servers has gone down, again. Their techs don't seem to understand "I can't ping the router on the other end of the P-t-P link" as being a problem.
Reliability is awful. We've had "area outages" in the past year as well. They started blocking port 25 here without notice, although there is a form hidden on their webpage to "opt out".
I agree that the only thing keeping their score from being lower is that things have gotten better lately. Though I'm afraid the higher speeds I'm noticing have more to do with indiscriminate port blocking than anything else.
It pisses me off when people stick with their simplified notions of the political "spectrum" instead of joining the 20th century and evaluating political parties based upon a metric with more than one dimension
Individual rights must be protected by individuals, by force if necessary. Property is an individual right. No one is responsible for protecting your property but you.
therefore this isn't protected
It's not that it wasn't protected, it's that the concept is so inane as to have been un-heard-of. It's like saying that the right to be free from gang rape isn't protected because it isn't in the Bill of Rights.
but is rarely used
Bullshit. It's used all the time nowadays. It'll be used more often now that the supreme court has given carte blanche to poor, despotic local governments to "create jobs" by destroying things.
Are you retarded? Wal-Mart is a conservative corporation from the back woods of Arkansas. They didn't have anything to do with this case.
All of the "zoning" battles that Wal-Mart has been involved in usually involve some group of liberal busybodies asking for zoning changes to keep Wal-Mart out, not the other way around. Even when Wal-Mart goes to great lengths to comply with the zoning laws, liberals still whine and complain.
Let me tell you, they never had problems with being able to do what they want with their own property until they started building stores in the blue states. And it looks like the liberals on the court want to make sure busybodies everywhere can tell anyone what to do with their own property.
This is right there in line with seizing cash from someone because their isn't a good reason they should be carrying that much. Nothing illegal, just suspicious.
It's worse than that. It's stealing cash from someone because they won't spend it on something that has as high a return rate as whatever you might spend it on.
The person with that cash might buy RC Cola instead of Pepsi, because it's cheaper, even though there's a Pepsi bottler in town. The person with that cash might use it to build their own house instead of hiring the developer that is buddies with the city council.
It's no longer "individual buyers determine the market" and "the market will decide", it's "politicians spend our money for us because it's in the 'public interest'".
What if it provides local jobs, or gives the neighborhood a nice downtown?
According to government and their economists, "public good" is best served by keeping everyone constantly employed, doing some inane task. Unfortunately, according to the average person, "individual good" is best served by lounging around doing whatever the fuck you want to all day.
Whenever we reach the point as a civilization where individuals can afford to lounge around, the government (and banks) take it upon themselves to put them back to work by any means necessary. They'll go so far as to destroy things in order to keep us employed, so they can continue skimming off the product of our efforts. There is never an economic justification for destroying property and making people work to rebuild it. In my city, they've gone as far as buldozing entire city blocks, replacing them with open fields, and then wondering years later why the economy sucks, housing is over-crowded, and crime rates have tripled.
The two philosophies of "individual" and "public" good are in direct conflict, mostly because the original meaning of "public good" has been hijacked by socialist idiots such as the liberals on the Supreme Court. Originally, it meant "everyone benefits". Emminent domain is there to facilitate the situations in which the government can come in, pay Suzy for her property, Suzy can then go buy a similar (or better!) property, and everyone lives happily ever after.
With real estate, though, it never works that way. Someone already mentioned property taxes. Suzy will be paying more of those when she moves. People who own their own homes have usually put way more time, effort, and money into them than is reflected in the "market value". This value is lost when the government appraisers come in.
For every house bulldozed, the price of remaining houses goes up. By the time Suzy has spent 6 months living in hotels and searching for a suitable new property, she probably can't afford anything similar to her old house. Usually, Suzy will end up moving from a prime location to some suburb 10 miles from anywhere. She'll probably have to pay more for transportation.
Also, these "urban development" areas are usually picked ahead of time based on their low property values. Odds are good that Suzy will go from living in an affordable house that she owns to renting, and owning nothing.
The icing on the cake is that, 50% of the time, the planned development is something stupid and unproductive like a stadium or a park. So, instead of creating a net economic benefit large enough to compensate Suzy for her house as well as for the damages caused by relocation, these projects end up being economic burdens on the local economy and government. Instead of "everyone benefits" as in the "public good", no one benefits but some well-connected developers and politicians.
He was being sarcastic. Of course it's not public use. The Supreme Court has gone retarded.
Block every third e-mail from a Hotmail address with a nice reply, a link to a site explaining Microsoft's motives in hijacking internet standards, and a GMail invite.