That's because using corn for ethanol production is a net energy loser. You invest more energy in producing the ethanol than you ever get out of it, especially after you factor in transportation costs to distribution centers (i.e., gas stations).
Ethanol can only be efficiently produced from very high-energy crops like sugar beets - or even better, sugar cane. Unfortunately most of the land that's being used to grow corn doesn't do very well growing sugar beets, and can't be used to grow sugar cane at all. In fact, the places best suited for both of these crops are in central and south America. That is, places where there aren't any American farmers, nor any representatives in Congress.
You ever wonder why corn syrup is used as a sugar substitute in so many things, like, for instance, cola drinks? Because Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, outright bans the import of sugar past a certain allowed tonnage each and every year. The sole reason for doing so is to support corn farmers, who'd otherwise lose the corn syrup business to sugar cane farmers in other countries (it takes far less sugar to make something taste sweet than it does corn syrup, and sugar tastes better than corn syrup). It makes no economic sense for the rest of the country, but there you have it - your tax dollars at work in a government protection racket.
These same farmers push for corn-derived ethanol despite the fact that it can never be efficient, nor can it ever be economical for the rest of us - those of us who aren't corn farmers. Ethanol from corn is a bust, but don't expect the government to ever admit to that, or to admit that the only truly productive ethanol will come from places like central or south America, or Hawaii, or perhaps southern Florida. Too many Congresscritters would be out of a job if they ever admitted to that.
Sure, if you live in some armpit of the planet that still uses coal for power.
That would be about 80% of all power generation world-wide. While I, too, live in the Northwest and am happy that we don't have coal plants spewing thousands of tons of pollutants (including radioactive pollutants) into the air every year, the simple fact is that hydropower can only provide a small fraction of the world's energy requirements. We're lucky because we have just the right terrain needed to build hydrodams; most of the rest of the world doesn't, and will never, have that luxury.
That 'armpit' you're talking about is most of the rest of the world.
It could be because diesel vehicles smell like shit and make anyone with a working sense of smell gag from the stench. You want to know how much it sucks to be in an entire city overrun by diesel vehicles? Just visit Paris; near any major roadway the place stinks like a fucking sewer.
This is even more of a problem if punctuated equilibrium turns out to be the norm rather than the exception. If so, then *most* rapid transitions will be lost because there won't be a great many animals in any one generation during the transitional stage and the odds of any of those animals being fossilized are incredibly low. Large gaps in the record would exist, and would always exist, simply due to these low representative numbers and random chance. There simply wouldn't be any fossils to find - ever.
You're assuming the journalists themselves are somehow more intelligent or knowledgeable than their target audience. That would be a very, very mistaken assumption.
Apparently the poster is right: totalitarianism is just fine by you, so long as you're the one calling the shots and telling everyone else how to live, at gunpoint, because (obviously) anyone who disagrees with you is too fucking stupid to be making their own life choices.
Extremists on the left, extremists on the right; it's time moderates put both camps up against a wall.
Talk about propaganda. "Greenhouse deniers"? Your flunky-ism is showing. If you want to be taken seriously stop talking like a grammatically-challenged advert for Earth First!
I agree with you that there's a need, and an urgent one, to move away from fossil fuels. My concerns, however, are both geopolitical and what you might term 'locally' environmental; I don't for a moment think there's enough evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are accelerating, much less some sort of root cause of, global warming. I object to using coal and oil plants that put enormous amounts of life-shortening chemicals into the atmosphere, including tens of thousands of TONS of radioactive material straight into the very air we breathe every single year. The risks posed by these plants are real, quantifiable, and have been accurately measured over decades. They're extremely dirty, dangerous, and hazardous.
The only reasonable, readily-available alternative, however, is nuclear power coupled with hydrogen-driven vehicles. No emissions and all the pollutants are contentrated into a form that can be transported and stored for a good ten thousand years if the storage facility is built properly (cue the Swedes for a clue on how to accomplish this). Yet the greenies scream bloody murder whenever the word 'nuclear' is mentioned, as if somehow spewing tons of radioactive particles into the air from burning coal is better than keeping it all in one spot. There is no alternative power source that can provide anything remotely approaching our current energy requirements, and cutting back to some tiny fraction of that requirement is simply not an option for the 99% of us - and as yet, the other 1% don't have the power to force the rest of us into some hellish agrarian dystopia.
This is where the real disconnect begins. We could start switching to nuclear breeder reactors and hydrogen-powered cars, but the extremists would shit a brick - probably even become violent - if we did so. They have to have it THEIR way, for theirs is the One True And Right Path(TM), and anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking halfwit who needs to be FORCED onto said Path for his/her own good. All hail the great goddess Gaia, and the rest of that horseshit.
If we could force the extremists out of the equation we could solve a health problem, break away from dependence on certain Third World countries, and possibly - possibly - do something about any affect we might be having on rising temperatures here on Earth all at the same time. That's a big sell to quite a few people, but only if you cut the yahoos (extremist greenies) and scumbags (oil cartels) out of the talks and ignore them completely from that point on.
Last I checked there weren't any humans zipping about the Martian countryside in SUVs. If both Mars and Earth are undergoing global warming, it stands to reason that the root cause is *not* human-derived but most likely from a single common factor. One such proposed common cause is what appears to be an increase in the energy output of our sun (it's called a 'variable' star for a reason).
This doesn't preclude an acceleration of the process here on Earth due to human efforts, of course. But if people can't even get the cause right, whose to say they can possibly propose a likely, viable solution - if one even exists? It may very well be that our only option is to simply adapt, as we have always done.
At this point it is all speculation and probably will be until its too late to stop it it turned out it is happening, it will destroy life as we know it and it was our fault.
Just plain bullshit talking here. No scientist is claiming that global warming is going to "destroy life as we know it"; only the doomsday-lovers spout this kind of crap. What it would do is make life harder for some portion of the human race, primarily due to climate and coastline changes.
On the other hand, if the theories are correct but we don't take them seriously, we stand to lose... life on earth (as we know it).
Complete and utter crap. No sane scientist is claiming that global warming is going to destroy "life on earth as we know it". Even the extremists (among scientists, not the loony left) only assert that things will become quite inconvenient for some portion X of the human race, primarily due to changing weather patterns and the fact that many of us like to live along current coastlines.
And if the lazy fucking slackers are taking paid time off to go shopping then their sorry 'the-world-owes-me' asses should be fired and replaced with someone who'll, say, actually do the job. In the current economy, with so many looking for decent employment this should be an insanely easy thing to do.
When I taught middle school I was also in charge of the network for the schools I was at. The hype was all about the 'improper access' that kids might have to the internet, but nearly all the violations were by shithead teachers and employees who a) shopped online, b) surfed online, c) downloaded porn, or d) the worst of all - the Bearshare/Limewire/Gnutella folks who downloaded every damned piece of music they could find. The bitch of it was that the worst offenders were those highest up the food chain, and so much as suggesting that they cut that inappropriate shit out would get your position in the district 're-evaluated in light of budget constraints'.
These assholes were also the folks who kept bringing in the viruses past our skimpy firewalls and spreading them internally. Even suggesting they were to blame was a great way to get intimately involved with the unemployment office. This same situation held true in government when I worked for those scum-sucking bastards.
Your tax dollars at work. Hope you think you're getting your money's worth.
but respond with, "You can threaten me all you want, but I know you can't hurt me because I'm not going to hurt you, and I'm unarmed" s/he would be right.
In Oregon the presumption is that any trespasser who refuses to obey the lawful orders of the property owner is already conducting criminal activity, and therefore it's reasonable to expect that they mean to conduct further criminal activities. So I can arrest them. And I CAN use force on my property to effect that arrest if they won't submit. It's that simple. If they resist they're presumed to be a threat, and shooting them at that point is just fine, whether they're armed or not. The police might get pissed but apart from harrassing you (anti-gun nuts dominate most police forces) there's not a whole lot else they can do.
There's no provision in Oregon law requiring that the other guy be equally armed in order to constitute a threat, unlike some particularly socialist areas of the world (or even my own country). We don't think that a showdown with criminal swine should be 'fair'.
If they think the arrest is wrong, they're free to sue me in court. I'll laugh my ass off, since willfully trespassing in Oregon means you're pretty much screwed any which way unless you're under the age of 18. If you want to act like an idiot you should suffer the consequences of those actions.
Of course you could just shoot them anyway; it's their word against yours and well, they won't be talking much. But despite our vehemence over our property rights we almost never actually do that, regardless of what some liberal whackjobs state (just take a look at the stats; criminal trespassers are almost always held at gunpoint until the police arrive, not shot out of hand). You are, for instance, far more likely to get shot by a property owner in California than you are in Oregon, although I'm willing to bet you're much more likely to be told to get your ass off someone's property at gunpoint in Oregon than you are in California.
California has private ownership of beaches, hence the existence of fences along property lines. Oregon, on the other hand, bans ownership of beaches outright; the entire coast is public property, no exceptions.
But that doesn't mean that we extend that concept to all property. If you think otherwise, just try to cross some farmer's field uninvited for a nice, rude awakening.
If you do that in America the farmer is almost certain to come up to you and ask you what the hell you think you're doing on his property without permission. And there's a decent chance that when he asks you he'll be toting a shotgun, because you've proven yourself to be an abject asshole by ignoring the laws on trespass right from the beginning. If you're blatantly willing to break that law you're probably willing to break others, too.
I don't really see what the point is of owning property if you can't actually control who gets to use it and who doesn't. Sounds to me like the real owner is ol' Daddy Gubmint.
The people in the forest cost you nothing, regardless of who owns the land, so you're not "catering" to them.
It's my land, not theirs, so they don't have any business being on it unless I happen to invite them on it - and then only so long as the invitation lasts.
Don't know what crack you're smoking, but if someone trespasses on my property I have every right in the world to confront them, armed, and threaten violence if they don't leave. Should the trespasser at that point make it clear that they're willfully refusing to obey the law and will continue to trespass regardless of my warning, I can arrest them myself then and there, right on the spot. If they become violent themselves, I can shoot them as they've demonstrated a knowing disregard for the law and intent to do harm.
I live in Oregon, though, and we aren't quite as pansy-assed as some other states in the Union. Here a supposed property owner still has *some* rights. Your mileage will probably vary in places in places where the phrase "for the greater good!" sounds like it should be the state slogan.
I don't believe in any of this 'electrical harmony' crap and think the article is just another load of pseudo-scientific horseshit, but I agree with you in regard to the 'whine' that poorly-made motors make. For me, it's usually the cheap little fans that you find in most bathrooms or above the stove; the fucking high-pitched drone of these pissant pieces of shit drives me nuts. And that definitely isn't psychosomatic since I can clearly hear them and track them right down to the source in the homes of friends and family even when others are saying "what noise? what're you talking about?".
Turn it off - blessed relief. That is, until some clueless idiot turns it back on again, deciding that if *they* can't hear it you really can't either.
I've also noticed that failing monitors make a similar noise, and sometimes hard drives and internal case fans do as well. Which is admittedly useful at times. But as you've pointed out this is *noise*, not some mystical electro-harmonic dysonance.
Fact is most sites are in English, whether or not they're in English-speaking countries. American English is fast becoming the lingua franca of both the internet and the business world; if you (ignorantly) think otherwise just take a look at how Asia is scrambling to import ESL teachers for the sole purpose of making their populations (especially the younger generation) fluent in the language.
These countries are smart; they know that there isn't a chance in hell that the rest of the world is going to learn Korean, or Japanese, or Chinese, or any one of the one hundred or so 'unofficial' languages that various parts of Indonesia speak. But many countries have a very strong program designed specifically to make their citizens fluent in American English because they know that a common tongue is needed for business, and that common tongue was settled by American supremacy and the internet some time back. Whether or not America remains supreme is utterly beside the point; a common tongue is *useful*, and even if America disappeared from the planet tomorrow it would *still* be American English. Far too many countries have invested too much time and effort (and money) to suddenly shift gears and try to convince everyone that, say, Bundu would be a better choice for international communication.
So yes, regionalization would suck even if you don't understand the simple fact that not every American English site you vist actually happens to be in America, or run by Americans. But then what do I expect from a bunch of ignoramuses on Slashdot, eh?
Funny though that the assholes who are Ayn Rand fans are very good at having everyone else carry their burden, parasitic as they are...
That isn't Ayn Rand fans you're talking; those folks are called 'socialists'. Y'know, the assholes who want everyone else to support them so that they don't actually have to earn a living themselves.
Ayn Rand is nothing but a bunch of cavemenistic "might is right" crap
You've got your head stuck so far up your ass you could be your own comedy act. Every single one of Ayn Rand's books argued AGAINST using force to enslave others for "the greater good". Every - single - one. So either you've never actually read any of her books, or you're so fucking stupid someone should tack a sign labeled "Darwin Award Pending" to your head.
Ayn Rand used extremist arguments because she was arguing against extremists. During the time that she was writing a large chunk of the pseudo-liberal intelligentsia in the United States was dominated by half-wits who actually thought that communism was the greatest thing since sliced bread - and that using force against everyone who didn't think the way they did was just fine, because, like, they were 'enlightened' and stuff, and the rest of us would eventually come around.
There are still some of those dumb motherfuckers around, apparently. Fortunately most of us aren't gullible enough to listen to their ranting.
Thank to their self sacrifice
There's nothing wrong with self-sacrifice, *so long as that's exactly what it is*. That means that you can 'sacrifice' in any fashion you please, but you don't have any business demanding that everyone else sacrifice along with you. You don't get to FORCE us to follow your beliefs; you aren't our spiritual dictator.
Tend to your own house, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. If your example is actually worth following, then others will CHOOSE to follow on their own. If not, then they won't, and you'll just have to suck it up and deal with it.
I disagree with you on that. I don't think work for hire clauses are ever fair.
In a free market that's between the business and the person considering the contract. Third parties, such as yourself, don't have any call interfering in the process in a pseudo-parental fasion. You *don't* know any better than the person who's actually being offered the contract; you aren't any wiser or smarter, nor do you have the right to strip others of the ability to make the decision for themselves.
Then there are those of us who really don't give a damn if people switch to Linux or not, but pretend that we do in the hopes that game manufacturers will be fooled into thinking there are enough of us to produce Linux ports so we no longer have to dual-boot.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because using corn for ethanol production is a net energy loser. You invest more energy in producing the ethanol than you ever get out of it, especially after you factor in transportation costs to distribution centers (i.e., gas stations).
Ethanol can only be efficiently produced from very high-energy crops like sugar beets - or even better, sugar cane. Unfortunately most of the land that's being used to grow corn doesn't do very well growing sugar beets, and can't be used to grow sugar cane at all. In fact, the places best suited for both of these crops are in central and south America. That is, places where there aren't any American farmers, nor any representatives in Congress.
You ever wonder why corn syrup is used as a sugar substitute in so many things, like, for instance, cola drinks? Because Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, outright bans the import of sugar past a certain allowed tonnage each and every year. The sole reason for doing so is to support corn farmers, who'd otherwise lose the corn syrup business to sugar cane farmers in other countries (it takes far less sugar to make something taste sweet than it does corn syrup, and sugar tastes better than corn syrup). It makes no economic sense for the rest of the country, but there you have it - your tax dollars at work in a government protection racket.
These same farmers push for corn-derived ethanol despite the fact that it can never be efficient, nor can it ever be economical for the rest of us - those of us who aren't corn farmers. Ethanol from corn is a bust, but don't expect the government to ever admit to that, or to admit that the only truly productive ethanol will come from places like central or south America, or Hawaii, or perhaps southern Florida. Too many Congresscritters would be out of a job if they ever admitted to that.
Max
And your hands don't stink after you refuel it.
I live in Oregon, so my hands don't stink either. The hands of the gas station attendant stink, but mine stay perfectly clean.
Max
Sure, if you live in some armpit of the planet that still uses coal for power.
That would be about 80% of all power generation world-wide. While I, too, live in the Northwest and am happy that we don't have coal plants spewing thousands of tons of pollutants (including radioactive pollutants) into the air every year, the simple fact is that hydropower can only provide a small fraction of the world's energy requirements. We're lucky because we have just the right terrain needed to build hydrodams; most of the rest of the world doesn't, and will never, have that luxury.
That 'armpit' you're talking about is most of the rest of the world.
Max
It could be because diesel vehicles smell like shit and make anyone with a working sense of smell gag from the stench. You want to know how much it sucks to be in an entire city overrun by diesel vehicles? Just visit Paris; near any major roadway the place stinks like a fucking sewer.
Max
This is even more of a problem if punctuated equilibrium turns out to be the norm rather than the exception. If so, then *most* rapid transitions will be lost because there won't be a great many animals in any one generation during the transitional stage and the odds of any of those animals being fossilized are incredibly low. Large gaps in the record would exist, and would always exist, simply due to these low representative numbers and random chance. There simply wouldn't be any fossils to find - ever.
Max
You're assuming the journalists themselves are somehow more intelligent or knowledgeable than their target audience. That would be a very, very mistaken assumption.
Max
Apparently the poster is right: totalitarianism is just fine by you, so long as you're the one calling the shots and telling everyone else how to live, at gunpoint, because (obviously) anyone who disagrees with you is too fucking stupid to be making their own life choices.
Extremists on the left, extremists on the right; it's time moderates put both camps up against a wall.
Max
Talk about propaganda. "Greenhouse deniers"? Your flunky-ism is showing. If you want to be taken seriously stop talking like a grammatically-challenged advert for Earth First!
Max
I agree with you that there's a need, and an urgent one, to move away from fossil fuels. My concerns, however, are both geopolitical and what you might term 'locally' environmental; I don't for a moment think there's enough evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are accelerating, much less some sort of root cause of, global warming. I object to using coal and oil plants that put enormous amounts of life-shortening chemicals into the atmosphere, including tens of thousands of TONS of radioactive material straight into the very air we breathe every single year. The risks posed by these plants are real, quantifiable, and have been accurately measured over decades. They're extremely dirty, dangerous, and hazardous.
The only reasonable, readily-available alternative, however, is nuclear power coupled with hydrogen-driven vehicles. No emissions and all the pollutants are contentrated into a form that can be transported and stored for a good ten thousand years if the storage facility is built properly (cue the Swedes for a clue on how to accomplish this). Yet the greenies scream bloody murder whenever the word 'nuclear' is mentioned, as if somehow spewing tons of radioactive particles into the air from burning coal is better than keeping it all in one spot. There is no alternative power source that can provide anything remotely approaching our current energy requirements, and cutting back to some tiny fraction of that requirement is simply not an option for the 99% of us - and as yet, the other 1% don't have the power to force the rest of us into some hellish agrarian dystopia.
This is where the real disconnect begins. We could start switching to nuclear breeder reactors and hydrogen-powered cars, but the extremists would shit a brick - probably even become violent - if we did so. They have to have it THEIR way, for theirs is the One True And Right Path(TM), and anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking halfwit who needs to be FORCED onto said Path for his/her own good. All hail the great goddess Gaia, and the rest of that horseshit.
If we could force the extremists out of the equation we could solve a health problem, break away from dependence on certain Third World countries, and possibly - possibly - do something about any affect we might be having on rising temperatures here on Earth all at the same time. That's a big sell to quite a few people, but only if you cut the yahoos (extremist greenies) and scumbags (oil cartels) out of the talks and ignore them completely from that point on.
Max
One of life's amusing ironies: seeing a bumper stick decrying global warming.
A - bumper - sticker.
Makes me laugh every time.
Max
I would also point out that it appears that a similar bout of global warming is taking place on Mars. Here's just one article on the topic, hopefully from a fairly neutral source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html
Last I checked there weren't any humans zipping about the Martian countryside in SUVs. If both Mars and Earth are undergoing global warming, it stands to reason that the root cause is *not* human-derived but most likely from a single common factor. One such proposed common cause is what appears to be an increase in the energy output of our sun (it's called a 'variable' star for a reason).
This doesn't preclude an acceleration of the process here on Earth due to human efforts, of course. But if people can't even get the cause right, whose to say they can possibly propose a likely, viable solution - if one even exists? It may very well be that our only option is to simply adapt, as we have always done.
Max
At this point it is all speculation and probably will be until its too late to stop it it turned out it is happening, it will destroy life as we know it and it was our fault.
Just plain bullshit talking here. No scientist is claiming that global warming is going to "destroy life as we know it"; only the doomsday-lovers spout this kind of crap. What it would do is make life harder for some portion of the human race, primarily due to climate and coastline changes.
Max
On the other hand, if the theories are correct but we don't take them seriously, we stand to lose... life on earth (as we know it).
Complete and utter crap. No sane scientist is claiming that global warming is going to destroy "life on earth as we know it". Even the extremists (among scientists, not the loony left) only assert that things will become quite inconvenient for some portion X of the human race, primarily due to changing weather patterns and the fact that many of us like to live along current coastlines.
Max
And if the lazy fucking slackers are taking paid time off to go shopping then their sorry 'the-world-owes-me' asses should be fired and replaced with someone who'll, say, actually do the job. In the current economy, with so many looking for decent employment this should be an insanely easy thing to do.
When I taught middle school I was also in charge of the network for the schools I was at. The hype was all about the 'improper access' that kids might have to the internet, but nearly all the violations were by shithead teachers and employees who a) shopped online, b) surfed online, c) downloaded porn, or d) the worst of all - the Bearshare/Limewire/Gnutella folks who downloaded every damned piece of music they could find. The bitch of it was that the worst offenders were those highest up the food chain, and so much as suggesting that they cut that inappropriate shit out would get your position in the district 're-evaluated in light of budget constraints'.
These assholes were also the folks who kept bringing in the viruses past our skimpy firewalls and spreading them internally. Even suggesting they were to blame was a great way to get intimately involved with the unemployment office. This same situation held true in government when I worked for those scum-sucking bastards.
Your tax dollars at work. Hope you think you're getting your money's worth.
Max
but respond with, "You can threaten me all you want, but I know you can't hurt me because I'm not going to hurt you, and I'm unarmed" s/he would be right.
In Oregon the presumption is that any trespasser who refuses to obey the lawful orders of the property owner is already conducting criminal activity, and therefore it's reasonable to expect that they mean to conduct further criminal activities. So I can arrest them. And I CAN use force on my property to effect that arrest if they won't submit. It's that simple. If they resist they're presumed to be a threat, and shooting them at that point is just fine, whether they're armed or not. The police might get pissed but apart from harrassing you (anti-gun nuts dominate most police forces) there's not a whole lot else they can do.
There's no provision in Oregon law requiring that the other guy be equally armed in order to constitute a threat, unlike some particularly socialist areas of the world (or even my own country). We don't think that a showdown with criminal swine should be 'fair'.
If they think the arrest is wrong, they're free to sue me in court. I'll laugh my ass off, since willfully trespassing in Oregon means you're pretty much screwed any which way unless you're under the age of 18. If you want to act like an idiot you should suffer the consequences of those actions.
Of course you could just shoot them anyway; it's their word against yours and well, they won't be talking much. But despite our vehemence over our property rights we almost never actually do that, regardless of what some liberal whackjobs state (just take a look at the stats; criminal trespassers are almost always held at gunpoint until the police arrive, not shot out of hand). You are, for instance, far more likely to get shot by a property owner in California than you are in Oregon, although I'm willing to bet you're much more likely to be told to get your ass off someone's property at gunpoint in Oregon than you are in California.
Max
California has private ownership of beaches, hence the existence of fences along property lines. Oregon, on the other hand, bans ownership of beaches outright; the entire coast is public property, no exceptions.
But that doesn't mean that we extend that concept to all property. If you think otherwise, just try to cross some farmer's field uninvited for a nice, rude awakening.
Max
If you do that in America the farmer is almost certain to come up to you and ask you what the hell you think you're doing on his property without permission. And there's a decent chance that when he asks you he'll be toting a shotgun, because you've proven yourself to be an abject asshole by ignoring the laws on trespass right from the beginning. If you're blatantly willing to break that law you're probably willing to break others, too.
I don't really see what the point is of owning property if you can't actually control who gets to use it and who doesn't. Sounds to me like the real owner is ol' Daddy Gubmint.
Max
The people in the forest cost you nothing, regardless of who owns the land, so you're not "catering" to them.
It's my land, not theirs, so they don't have any business being on it unless I happen to invite them on it - and then only so long as the invitation lasts.
Makes me glad I don't live in Finland.
Max
Don't know what crack you're smoking, but if someone trespasses on my property I have every right in the world to confront them, armed, and threaten violence if they don't leave. Should the trespasser at that point make it clear that they're willfully refusing to obey the law and will continue to trespass regardless of my warning, I can arrest them myself then and there, right on the spot. If they become violent themselves, I can shoot them as they've demonstrated a knowing disregard for the law and intent to do harm.
I live in Oregon, though, and we aren't quite as pansy-assed as some other states in the Union. Here a supposed property owner still has *some* rights. Your mileage will probably vary in places in places where the phrase "for the greater good!" sounds like it should be the state slogan.
Max
I don't believe in any of this 'electrical harmony' crap and think the article is just another load of pseudo-scientific horseshit, but I agree with you in regard to the 'whine' that poorly-made motors make. For me, it's usually the cheap little fans that you find in most bathrooms or above the stove; the fucking high-pitched drone of these pissant pieces of shit drives me nuts. And that definitely isn't psychosomatic since I can clearly hear them and track them right down to the source in the homes of friends and family even when others are saying "what noise? what're you talking about?".
Turn it off - blessed relief. That is, until some clueless idiot turns it back on again, deciding that if *they* can't hear it you really can't either.
I've also noticed that failing monitors make a similar noise, and sometimes hard drives and internal case fans do as well. Which is admittedly useful at times. But as you've pointed out this is *noise*, not some mystical electro-harmonic dysonance.
Max
Fact is most sites are in English, whether or not they're in English-speaking countries. American English is fast becoming the lingua franca of both the internet and the business world; if you (ignorantly) think otherwise just take a look at how Asia is scrambling to import ESL teachers for the sole purpose of making their populations (especially the younger generation) fluent in the language.
These countries are smart; they know that there isn't a chance in hell that the rest of the world is going to learn Korean, or Japanese, or Chinese, or any one of the one hundred or so 'unofficial' languages that various parts of Indonesia speak. But many countries have a very strong program designed specifically to make their citizens fluent in American English because they know that a common tongue is needed for business, and that common tongue was settled by American supremacy and the internet some time back. Whether or not America remains supreme is utterly beside the point; a common tongue is *useful*, and even if America disappeared from the planet tomorrow it would *still* be American English. Far too many countries have invested too much time and effort (and money) to suddenly shift gears and try to convince everyone that, say, Bundu would be a better choice for international communication.
So yes, regionalization would suck even if you don't understand the simple fact that not every American English site you vist actually happens to be in America, or run by Americans. But then what do I expect from a bunch of ignoramuses on Slashdot, eh?
Max
That is entirely true. Her death in 1982 was the best thing she ever did, and the world is a better place for it.
If only you would follow in her footsteps....
Max
Funny though that the assholes who are Ayn Rand fans are very good at having everyone else carry their burden, parasitic as they are...
That isn't Ayn Rand fans you're talking; those folks are called 'socialists'. Y'know, the assholes who want everyone else to support them so that they don't actually have to earn a living themselves.
Ayn Rand is nothing but a bunch of cavemenistic "might is right" crap
You've got your head stuck so far up your ass you could be your own comedy act. Every single one of Ayn Rand's books argued AGAINST using force to enslave others for "the greater good". Every - single - one. So either you've never actually read any of her books, or you're so fucking stupid someone should tack a sign labeled "Darwin Award Pending" to your head.
Ayn Rand used extremist arguments because she was arguing against extremists. During the time that she was writing a large chunk of the pseudo-liberal intelligentsia in the United States was dominated by half-wits who actually thought that communism was the greatest thing since sliced bread - and that using force against everyone who didn't think the way they did was just fine, because, like, they were 'enlightened' and stuff, and the rest of us would eventually come around.
There are still some of those dumb motherfuckers around, apparently. Fortunately most of us aren't gullible enough to listen to their ranting.
Thank to their self sacrifice
There's nothing wrong with self-sacrifice, *so long as that's exactly what it is*. That means that you can 'sacrifice' in any fashion you please, but you don't have any business demanding that everyone else sacrifice along with you. You don't get to FORCE us to follow your beliefs; you aren't our spiritual dictator.
Tend to your own house, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. If your example is actually worth following, then others will CHOOSE to follow on their own. If not, then they won't, and you'll just have to suck it up and deal with it.
Max
I disagree with you on that. I don't think work for hire clauses are ever fair.
In a free market that's between the business and the person considering the contract. Third parties, such as yourself, don't have any call interfering in the process in a pseudo-parental fasion. You *don't* know any better than the person who's actually being offered the contract; you aren't any wiser or smarter, nor do you have the right to strip others of the ability to make the decision for themselves.
Max
Then there are those of us who really don't give a damn if people switch to Linux or not, but pretend that we do in the hopes that game manufacturers will be fooled into thinking there are enough of us to produce Linux ports so we no longer have to dual-boot.
Max