No, the tax rates would be established only by the board which oversees it, which would be elected by you, the people. They would not be established by congress or be withdrawn by congress.
So indeed, it would be completely independant of the state and would be democratically controlled by the people.
The goal is to make sure all sides and viewpoints are able to be
Government bailouts for private media companies would be a bad idea, similar to the unwise nature of subsidising private insurance companies. We are simply funding a biased source of information controlled by plutocratic media instutions with conflicts of interest.
Immediately when anyone mentioned public funding of a media institution, however, they assume immediately that would be a state run media that would propogate governments version of the story.
This is not the way it has to be set up. We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue, and whose directors are elected by the people. By charter design of this independant media all of the journalists involved would have complete journalistic freedom and would have a tenure, meaning that they would not have some corporation which receives financing from advertisers and perhaps is tied in with other economic interests looking over their shoulder. Such journalists could be randomly selected (like a jury selection pool from the general population), and some elected to assure all of the different ideological viewpoints are being represented. Since it is not tied to corporations or government, it would be completely free to report on things without having a conflict of interest.
The private media today is not independant, and instead of having an independant watch dog we have a media that has sympathies with large corporate interests which drive their advertising revenue, it is a conflict of interest, and therefore the media can be pushed into ignoring or whitewashing corporate corruption that it is exposing. Since the media today is owned by large corporate entities, which are connected to large parts of the corporate economy, it basically is an establishment "state media" that propagates an elites interests and viewpoints. People get far too wrapped up in terms like "government", "public", and so on, we need to realise that corporations are manifestation characteristics of government, they perhaps have even more power than government and have used their wealth to basically purchase the government, they are gaining control of almost the entire economy and effectively control our lives, if they dont like your hair or political views, they can fire you, and in this ownership society where all basic essentials are tied to money which is increasingly controlled in corporate dominated markets, this basically is a death sentence. Real power today lies with corporations, and unlike government, everyone does not have an equal right these corporations which have such a dramatic effect on our lives and our economy. Libertarians, ironically, attack the very democratic institutions that we have and that we actually elect, while at the same time supporting private corporations which are effectively enslaving us. All you need to do is control resources and you can control people by making people dependant on uyou for those resources. This is possible under capitalism and all you need is to get rid of any government regulation to have yourself a corporate police state where corporations for instance can tell you not to protest the way it is polluting a river or beating up workers, or else you will be fired and left absolutely homeless.
An independant media I think would be essential to helping us regain control over our democracy and our lives, as an independant media and source of news and information, and the ability for their to be pluralistic diversity where all sides are able to be heard equally so people can make up their own minds and are not indoctrinated and propogandised is essential to a functioning democracy and to freedom.
Will ares still have the same in orbit capabilities as the shuttle, such as to repair hubble and so on? If not, here is an idea that may or may not work: would it be possible to put a shuttle like thing in orbit and have to rocket capsule interface with that, and perhaps bring along a new supply of thrusters, if this is necessary, to manuever this permenant in orbit shuttle like craft?
sounds like a good idea, it seems. For this to work, can the correct signature be made only by the users private key, on the text in the email message, so someone couldnt just take the public key or whatever and spoof the signature?
Yahoo chat as well seems to be overtaken by this spamfest. They have tried to address it with captchas, but the spammers simply go ahead and entire the captcha code and keep spamming. They could require credit card verification to make it harder to open massive numbers of accounts, i suppose. Maybe they could have some sort of scanner that would look for sequences that could identify common patterns in spam messages and flag these messages for moderation. Even moderation itself is ripe for abuse with moderators who abuse that power that they have. Perhaps another solution is a voting system on particular messages like that on slashdot, in this case, simply as to whether the message is spam or not, the messages which are voted to be spam are basically collapsed but could be opened with a click, or can be shown with a show "spam marked messages" feature. Could be useful both on chat and also on message boards.
North America, has abundant resources, per capita, mainly because it is not overpopulated. I do agree that prosperity could be linked to stable population levels. It is true that as a countries prosperity grows, so does the level of education., and thus people make better reproductive choices. Poorer countries are locked into a vicious cycle of poverty->ignorance->poverty. All I support is educational and voluntary contraceptives to help keep population levels at a stable level. It is simply wrong, to try to portray those who want sustainable population levels and population stability, as wanting immoral reactions, when in fact, our goal is to reduce death and suffering, not cause it, and I have very high ethics and morality. Unless we address core problems, that is demand and growth outrunning resources, every attempt to increase resources will eventually be rendered null. The whole point of sustainable population growth is to save lives. THose who want unsustainable population growth seem intent on continuing behavior patterns that are the leading cause of poverty. Poverty rates have gone down according to some data, but this is from already high rates of poverty and malnutrition that have increased, and increased debasement of living conditions that simply did not exist 1000 years ago to the degree it does now, people living in such overpopulated, overcrowded slums they literally consume others sewage.
It is a basic natural law that resources are finite, adn can be overrun. Productivity of agriculture can be increased, but it often comes at a great toll on human and environmental welfare, such as out of control global warming due to destruction of rainforest's, mass extinctions due to lost wildlife habitat (happening right now), contamination of the environment with known carcinogenic chemicals (a large number of such chemicals used in agriculture are carcinogenic), GMO's which have been proven to cause allergies, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and kidney and liver damage, just to name a few. Productivity can only be pushed so far, and expecially without great envronmental and human health damage. A lot of this has been built in unsustainable technologies, such as oil, and as well, technologies and methods that are destroying topsoils and reducing the nutritional quality of food. The result is lower quality food and lower quality of living. We really should focus on quality and not quantity. Sure we might be able to pack in 10 billion people but this will lead to declining standards of living and a bleak, planet with disappearing forests and natural beauty, and a loss of freedom. A loss of freedom of independence due to the increased cost of land due to its scarcity, and the scarcity of land which has led to land ownership that have tied peoples survival into manipulated economic and monetary systems, leading directly to their enslavement and dependence. In this environment, it is nearly impossible for people to live independently, and this allows them to be manipulated by others, political structures and economic corporations.
Wrong! Your conclusion is totally flawed. The corporations would exist whether or not government existed. In fact, they would be even more powerful. All they have to do is consolidate, merge and buy themselves into a monopoly position. Apparently you seem to be completely ignorant about the fact that monopolies are in fact quite common and do happen with regularity. Even without a monopoly, corporations can still abuse consumers as with this net censorship. Without government there would be very little to stop censorship by ISPs, the FCC would not even be trying to accomplish this under the Obama Administration. A corporation, with its control and ownership of assetts and its private police forces is all it needs to take away all of your rights. In fact, it would be able to do that with even more speed without government there to stop it. Get off this anti-government garbage. The fact is, we need a government to protect our rights since it has the power and capability to do so, to regulate these corporations. if we want freedom, instead of no government, we need a government that is on our side and works for us. The way to accomplish that is to get the corporate money out of elections and the lobbyists out of washington. it is us the politicians should answer to and accountable to, not the corporations. The corporations would just LOVE for you to destroy your government, then there would be nothing left of any real significance to stop them from implementing their totalitarian regime, except perhaps a violent revolution to try to overthrow them. Corporations fund the Republicans particularly because they will allow them to expand their power by dismantling governmental oversite. Then corporations use their vast funds they acquired due to their abusive practices to fund the republicans, its a vicious cycle. Democratic government is the civilised way to make sure that the corporations are forced to respect us and that they are required to obey laws, that there will be no censorship and that they will not treat us like rubbish.
No. Wireless is slow and expensive. The best way is to require competition by forcing the companies to lease their underground lines at cost. This is the only way you will get real competition. Even more so, municipalities should own the last mile, and you could subscribe to many ISPs that would offer service on that. On top of that, we should have net neutrality that would simply requires ISPs to pass all data from third parties through unmolested.
I dont buy that. The vaccine if they really worked it wouldnt matter how many people got the vaccine. The people who got the vaccine would be protected, and the people who didnt would only be harming themselves.
There is evidence and testing that the swine flu vaccine has some serious problems due to the use of a Squalene adjuvant which has been proven to cause large numbers of cases of arthritis and autoimmune diseases in rats. Worse a lot of this may not show up right away but lead to a gradual degeneration which may not be attributed to the vaccine.
There is no compelling reason to force medicate peple and each person has to weigh the risk for themselves. The squalene ingredient probably should be illegal and when we have such a dangerous thing in a vaccine no one should take it. The mercury is also a concern and as long as vaccines contin mercury, formaldahyde and other nasties, which are known toxins, and not an essential part of the vaccine, and which causes more than rare health problems, the vaccine makers have already shown they are not trustworthy or concerned about safety.
Werent there some studies shown that a mainframe was actually more energy efficient than a cluster? I wonder if they did any actual scientific studies of efficiency or if the people in charge here just made some assumptions, and went along with the hype.
Books tend to take a lot of time and energy to write. If book market is wiped out, look forward to stagnation ahead as would be writers are deterred as it will simply be impossible to devote the time to do it and authors wont be able to support themselves. With all of our manufacturing gone, adn now with people not being able to get paid for creative work, it seems like many of the most productive things are being devalued, creative work is now being devalued and so few can make a living off it. Will it be that we will have a country of grocery baggers?
Perl is awesome. Still today it is the best choice for large applications. I dont know where people get that it is not elegant, it is an extremely elegant language to use and its design makes good sense. Especially compared to C++. Perl produces far better code than what you would do with C++, easier to debug, etc.
Thats a bunch of nonsense. Perl interpretor does not use anywhere near that. Its pretty efficient, and only uses a small amount of ram. How do people come up with these lies?
I certainly agree with you. I think many students, who really care about learning, probably would be better off with a tutor or studying at home, rather than sitting in a noisy, distracting, and uncomfortable school environment. The rigid nature of school, with all of its requirements and intimidating atmosphere, actually i am afraid may actually be discouraging and make learning to be something dreadful, rather than fun.
I did very poorly in public school. I was failing. And I was constantly being harrassed by bullies. It all contributed to a discouraged feeling, that caused me to give up. It was not until i went to a small private school, was away from that public school environment and could concentrate, did my self confidence recover, and my grades.
More school hours are not a good idea. Shorten them, and offer more school choice for students (not parents, what is best for the students), such as charter schools, and if necessary taking bullies out of the public schools and placing them in special needs schools so there can be some level of safety and order in schools is a good idea and would help tremendously.
Later on in college, my self confidence and grades were recovered. However I actually spent much of that time on things that I would probably never use. It also became clearly witht eh
When are dealing with toxic, carcinogenic materials that can cause terrible diseases, its better to be safe than sorry. You could very easily have fish living around this crap and end up eating seaweed or whatever growing on it, and end up with large concentrations in humans who eat the fish. There are concerns of far less pollution from mercury in fish from power plants. The plume of toxic waste enemating from this thing could be a danger to anyone who is near these oceans as the toxic chemicals are carried around in ocean currents.
Actually yuour wrong. 20 million or so children die every year or so of hunger. Sounds a lot worse than some educational programs and contraceptives to keep population growth at a sustainable level to me. Care to reply?
Well, Borlaug didnt invent running water, electricity and so forth. So I wouldnt thank him for any of those things. The fact I think we need to do what works to prevent poverty, that is zero population growth, I dont know how you connected that to an idea that I am against technology. I am for technology. Overpopulation itself will actually lead to such resource depletion that there will be people who will never be able to enjoy such technologies. If anything the man totally ignored the real causes of poverty, which cuases the very situation where people do not have running water, and then made it seem like his green revolution was the answer when it was not, and probably even added to the problem. It created a false sense of security and the idea that the problem had been solved so people went back to their old arrogant, selfish, overpopulating ways without thinking about how the world will feed 5 billion extra people. Thus, we are where we are now and we are set to break all old records on starvation and poverty. Poverty will get worse on the present track and no amount of green revolution will stop it. We have to address the fact that overpopulation will simply overrun any attempt to increase yeild and it already has. 2 billion living in poverty is pretty substantial proof. it is also substaintial that you would need 5 more of these planets if everyone lived like an american does with their running water, TVs, and cars.
GMO evidence is scientifically backed up. Its proven it is toxic poison. It also carries intrinsic risk and danger the the planets environment as a whole when things do go wrong, if we accidently create a poisonous food since it can breed with critical food crops, it could unleash a devastating global plague as this toxic variety could reproduce uncontrollably throughout the global environment. GMOs are too risky, we dont need them, and we can solve the worlds problems without them. GMOs actually in most cases actually all they do is increase dependance on pesticide since the GMO species is actually often less suited to a particular environment than one of the thousands of specialised breeds. Many GMOs are designed to be used with toxic pesticide and the FDA actually increased pesticide residue limits 3 times so GMOs could be used. Some GMOs have the pesticide directly in every cell in the plant as with Bt toxin. Not only what will this do to humans, but other species? Its a total disaster waiting to happen.
I agree. It is counterproductive that people get hysterical when overpopulation is mentioned, like you want to do some terrible thing. There are smart intelligent ways to solve overpopulation, abstinance, contraception, education, for instance. We are allegedly an intelligent species. We can, I think, when people are better educated, make wiser choices and have zero population growth. In nature, starvation would limit growth but we can make an intelligent choice and avoid that suffering. A scientist should do this, advocate zero population growth, they are in the best position to explain scientifically why its a problem and put evidence behind it. But you dont need a degree to see its a problem, its common sense, the earth only has so much land, water, space, oil, and other precious resources, sooner or later, growth will overrun all these and people will die. Its better, I think, to leave a huge margin between that and our population level, leaving room for other species and a huge safety margin in our land resources so that avialable resources are far more than what we actually need at any moment, to compensate for unexpected things like droughts and so for. Some evidence suggest we already are overpopulated globally and the situation with the fact 2 billion people live in poverty is pretty strong evidence for that. The load carrying capacity is not a steady thing but changes with weather patterns and so on. Plus we have that fact we have passed a point where we have comsumed so much of the lands surface area, we are not really starting to eat into criticla emaining wildlife refuges, increasing the risk of loss of species biodiversity forever. Overpopulation is the main thing driving destruction oif rainforests globally and loss of species.
The so called green revolution if anything had no net impact on global hunger and starvation as it simply does not address the core cause: overpopulation. It sounds great to increase yeild, but the reason we had a food shortage in the first place was growth that outstripped supply. Unless the growth is arrested, you will end up right back where you were before, with billions starving, and thats where we are today. There are more children starving to death today than ever before in the past. This is not success, this is failure to recognise real solutions in zero population growth. Eventually you will hit a limit as to how much the chemicals and breeding will improve yeild. You just cant make plants grow in the desert. So the idea that we can yield our way out of famine is futile.
Furthermore, aggressive farming techniques are causing loss of topsoil and depletion of soil quality which reduces th nutritional density of food. 60% of agricultural pesticides are carcinogenic and as such we are causing an increase possibly in death and reduction in quality of life due to mutagenic and cancer disorders and birth defects, a whole array of toxic effects, even reduced IQ and mental retardation. Maybe this is just me but i seem to see an increasing stagnation in artistic and mental development, and intellect as time goes by compared to past centuries.
Population growth is also fueling the global warming problem and destruction of the carbon sink, oxygen producing and biodiversity harboring forests on many continents including north and south america. This is leading to extinction of many plant and animal species which vanish off the face of the earth forever. This coms with a loss of human quality of life that comes from the quality that scenic beauty and wilderness recreation adds to our lives, and as well thinghs like bird watching, botany and animal watching.
Genetically modified organisms have been proven to cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, allergies and have less nutrients and more antinutrients than regular non GMO foods. GMOs should not be confused however with cross bred plants. Cross bred plants are safe by comparison. GMO introduces entirely new, scientifically documented, deadly consequences for humans and the entire environment. The documentation and scientific evidenc is clear, GMOs are a deadly experiment that is ruining peoples health. Read th book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith for more info. The only reason that the GMOs were ever approved was due to bribes from large corporations to politicians. If the decision were based on a precautionary principle and public health, they would have never been approved. The studies of cancer, mortality and liver and kidney damage is shocking and is simply ignored by the agribusiness lapdog FDA which is basically a part of the agribusiness corporations. GMOs are a great danger and cannot be underestimated. Even without a nefarious intent it is dangerous, but it is purely greed and profit motivated, and furthermore could be used for other evil agendas by controlling peoples bodies through engineering and designing food to cause certain physical effects in the body. At least nature does not have such agendas. Humans have evolved for millions of years to consume naturally coded food. GMOs by crossing species boundary and violating normal limits and safeguards of natural breeding, implement entirely novel protiens which would not occur in nature. The body does not know how to deal with this and often its like throwing a wrench into that delicate system. hence rats fed GMOs develop cancers, high mortality and kidney and liver issues.
Overall all of this stuff is basically going to kill us and destroy our quality of living and our planet. I dont want your pesticide contaminated GMO shit, no thanks.
Probably having the SSH run while the kernel boots (at least in the very early phases, but perhaps not in later phases) may not be realistic, but filesystem mounting, where most boot time problems seem to occur, can be delayed until after the kernel is booted, as long as the system files can be accessed from the filesystem. This probably would require some kernel level features to be added and so on. So certainly at that point Linux could start an SSH to debug the filesystem problems. But, with newer filesystems, you probably shouldnt have the bootup stalled with a demand for an fsck, and with ext2 you may be able to have fsck run automatically. I have had Linux bootups stop because of demands to run fsck on the ext2 filesystems.
With linux bootups becoming more reliable due to better filesystems, maybe it will become rarer that there are regular problems with Linux booting. Accessing the BIOS settings from Linux is a neat idea but I am sure does not probably exist.
I have often felt the need for this kind of feature. Not because i removed the video card. But because I didnt always have a monitor connected as i installed the system in a cabinet, and for purposes of remote diagnosis. There is the serial port idea but you need to plug it into another computer. Another option might be to see if any serial to ethernet solution exists, then you can login to the serial port through an ethernet connection. Some network cards have a netboot feature but i dont think this is what we are looking for. I couldnt really find any simple solution for the problem. The serial to ethernet seems interesting but i dont know if that exists. Most boot problems seem to originate with the Linux boot up process and filesystem scans but these may be rectified with the new filesystems. Once control has been passed to Linux from the BIOS, it really should be possible for linux to run some sort of ssh service to allow access even while the kernel is still booting. Maybe a solution that would require a hardware level addition is to allow BIOS settings to be modified from the OS after boot.
We really do need a public space program that can serve to expand humanities understanding of science. NASA does seem to be need more guidance from actual expert scientists on how to proceed. It has become too politicised. I do not think private space should be publicly funded at all, unless, the ships are sold to nasa for use on public programs. Private space programs will probably turn into a space tourist thing to shuttle wealthy tourists around, and just maybe very closed source proprietary science that is avialable only to those who pay a large fee. That is if they work at all. A public space program is important for the pure science missions like the satellites and robot missions. It provides scienific data for all humanity. We really should focus on those. ISS should have never been built but since it has we should keep it up there. Shuttle should be kept but flown less often until a craft that has same capabilities can be developed. Mars and moon missions are good for the ego put as far as the money spent, provide relatively little science compared to the robot missions that can provide lots of data and be done much more cheaply. We need a plan to replace hubble with new visible light telescopes. And more advanced propulsion research to find cheaper ways to do space travel.
Putting in a tarrif would first prevent the erosion of more jobs, the tarrif could simply balance the situation so there is no cost benefit to moving jobs overseas. A tariff can also be used to discourage and balance things against being moved overseas as well, and to bring jobs back. That would simply require americans creating new jobs and businesses, which would generate jobs in this country and help restore the economy. This would create more money to allow people to buy those things. We borrow from china because we cant afford to pay for things due to the fact our economy has been offshored. By bringing jobs back, well be able to pay for things once again and wont need to borrow from chinese anymore.
I find the fact that corporations such as this, especially in a time of economic hardship, are basically harming american workers and showing such contempt for the USA, to be greatly offensive and angers me to no end. i think its time that we detach from china and india which has basically decimated Americas economy and who have stolen our jobs. I think its clearly time that we need to stop allowing these companies to abuse the USA looking at it as only a market to sell their overpriced chinese crap, and start creating jobs here again. Globalisation is such a big scam its ridiculous, its destroying this countyr and allows these greedy companies to basically exploit slave labor in china. The US should and can, and must for its survival, implement a tariff on imports of cars, textiles, furniture, IT services, customer service calls to India and China, etc, and so on. When we have 15% unemployment in reality and people struggling to find work the notion of any company moving jobs somewhere else really should cause a revolt from americans and demands to implement tariffs. Its time to get past this irrational hysteria about tariffs. Tariffs are good and can help this countries economy rebound. There is nothing wrong with it since it simply allows americans to make products for other americans. Think about it, why cant the chinese make things for other chinese, and americans make things for other americans. it would be better for the chinese of the products that chinese workers stayed in china to benefit to the people there. It would be better for americans to create more jobs in the US making products for use by americans. The only people that globalisation benefits is the wealthy rich elite corporations who important products made by employees in slave labor camps in china making a few cents an hour, living in filthy dormitories, who are treated in the most inhumane way, beaten, and even not allowed to use the restroom, with litany of human rights abuses, the products these slaves make are then sold off at a 100% markup in the US and the wealthy elite take the profit. Both the american and the chinese worker are the losers. Globalisation is what has allowed as well corporations to basically dictate to countries basically how they will treat workers and the environment and rewards countries which allow their environment and workers to be ruthlessly exploited by massive global corporations. This is a system where massive global corporations get their way and make the laws through making countries compete against each other to see who can allow their employees to be treated in the most inhumane way. Through the global consolidation and globalisation the corporations are able to control markets resources, jobs, and so on in many different countries and operate as sort of transnational governments. Through this we are seeing a new world order emerge where the governments of countries are simply puppets of a powerful fascist global corporate order who controls wealth, resources, jobs, markets, capital, etc.
If we value our freedom, we need to implement tariffs which would give our own worker welfare laws, our own democratic state, some force and allow us to implement unions without the corporations threatening to move jobs to other countries. If you want to be treated like a decently like a human being, to have a good life and to be paid decently for decent work, we desperately need to implement broader democratic unions which allow employees a democratic vioce where they can act as a safeguard against mistreatment and slave wages. Unions are essential to our economic recovery and for stopping the destruction of the middle class. The unions built the middle class in the USA and ironically created a middle class that had the spending power which made companies like IBM so successful. Unions are essential for workers to have decent wage since it more often than not is the tendancy of corporations to pay workers as little as they can, leading to a vast impoverished state in the economy. Its just shocking and disgusting tha
Plugins and cookies are a huge problem. Cookies are a major privacy concern, and plugins well just depends on how much you trust the external plugin. Given that the js engine is loaded with security problems, its likely that java and flash are too. You really just want to block all of this out by default and allow certain websites to run them as needed. My policy would be to havea default security profile that allows no cookies, no plugins and no js, and then allow only certain websites to run the js. Javascript itself really should not be a problem if it were not for security problems in javascript itself. The best way is to fix those bugs in javascript to make it more secure. privacy violation however is what cookies are specifically intended for.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the tax rates would be established only by the board which oversees it, which would be elected by you, the people. They would not be established by congress or be withdrawn by congress.
So indeed, it would be completely independant of the state and would be democratically controlled by the people.
The goal is to make sure all sides and viewpoints are able to be
Government bailouts for private media companies would be a bad idea, similar to the unwise nature of subsidising private insurance companies. We are simply funding a biased source of information controlled by plutocratic media instutions with conflicts of interest.
Immediately when anyone mentioned public funding of a media institution, however, they assume immediately that would be a state run media that would propogate governments version of the story.
This is not the way it has to be set up. We could have a completely independnat source of news and information that was funded not by congress but directly from tax revenue, and whose directors are elected by the people. By charter design of this independant media all of the journalists involved would have complete journalistic freedom and would have a tenure, meaning that they would not have some corporation which receives financing from advertisers and perhaps is tied in with other economic interests looking over their shoulder. Such journalists could be randomly selected (like a jury selection pool from the general population), and some elected to assure all of the different ideological viewpoints are being represented. Since it is not tied to corporations or government, it would be completely free to report on things without having a conflict of interest.
The private media today is not independant, and instead of having an independant watch dog we have a media that has sympathies with large corporate interests which drive their advertising revenue, it is a conflict of interest, and therefore the media can be pushed into ignoring or whitewashing corporate corruption that it is exposing. Since the media today is owned by large corporate entities, which are connected to large parts of the corporate economy, it basically is an establishment "state media" that propagates an elites interests and viewpoints. People get far too wrapped up in terms like "government", "public", and so on, we need to realise that corporations are manifestation characteristics of government, they perhaps have even more power than government and have used their wealth to basically purchase the government, they are gaining control of almost the entire economy and effectively control our lives, if they dont like your hair or political views, they can fire you, and in this ownership society where all basic essentials are tied to money which is increasingly controlled in corporate dominated markets, this basically is a death sentence. Real power today lies with corporations, and unlike government, everyone does not have an equal right these corporations which have such a dramatic effect on our lives and our economy. Libertarians, ironically, attack the very democratic institutions that we have and that we actually elect, while at the same time supporting private corporations which are effectively enslaving us. All you need to do is control resources and you can control people by making people dependant on uyou for those resources. This is possible under capitalism and all you need is to get rid of any government regulation to have yourself a corporate police state where corporations for instance can tell you not to protest the way it is polluting a river or beating up workers, or else you will be fired and left absolutely homeless.
An independant media I think would be essential to helping us regain control over our democracy and our lives, as an independant media and source of news and information, and the ability for their to be pluralistic diversity where all sides are able to be heard equally so people can make up their own minds and are not indoctrinated and propogandised is essential to a functioning democracy and to freedom.
Will ares still have the same in orbit capabilities as the shuttle, such as to repair hubble and so on? If not, here is an idea that may or may not work: would it be possible to put a shuttle like thing in orbit and have to rocket capsule interface with that, and perhaps bring along a new supply of thrusters, if this is necessary, to manuever this permenant in orbit shuttle like craft?
sounds like a good idea, it seems. For this to work, can the correct signature be made only by the users private key, on the text in the email message, so someone couldnt just take the public key or whatever and spoof the signature?
Yahoo chat as well seems to be overtaken by this spamfest. They have tried to address it with captchas, but the spammers simply go ahead and entire the captcha code and keep spamming. They could require credit card verification to make it harder to open massive numbers of accounts, i suppose. Maybe they could have some sort of scanner that would look for sequences that could identify common patterns in spam messages and flag these messages for moderation. Even moderation itself is ripe for abuse with moderators who abuse that power that they have. Perhaps another solution is a voting system on particular messages like that on slashdot, in this case, simply as to whether the message is spam or not, the messages which are voted to be spam are basically collapsed but could be opened with a click, or can be shown with a show "spam marked messages" feature. Could be useful both on chat and also on message boards.
North America, has abundant resources, per capita, mainly because it is not overpopulated. I do agree that prosperity could be linked to stable population levels. It is true that as a countries prosperity grows, so does the level of education., and thus people make better reproductive choices. Poorer countries are locked into a vicious cycle of poverty->ignorance->poverty. All I support is educational and voluntary contraceptives to help keep population levels at a stable level. It is simply wrong, to try to portray those who want sustainable population levels and population stability, as wanting immoral reactions, when in fact, our goal is to reduce death and suffering, not cause it, and I have very high ethics and morality. Unless we address core problems, that is demand and growth outrunning resources, every attempt to increase resources will eventually be rendered null. The whole point of sustainable population growth is to save lives. THose who want unsustainable population growth seem intent on continuing behavior patterns that are the leading cause of poverty. Poverty rates have gone down according to some data, but this is from already high rates of poverty and malnutrition that have increased, and increased debasement of living conditions that simply did not exist 1000 years ago to the degree it does now, people living in such overpopulated, overcrowded slums they literally consume others sewage.
It is a basic natural law that resources are finite, adn can be overrun. Productivity of agriculture can be increased, but it often comes at a great toll on human and environmental welfare, such as out of control global warming due to destruction of rainforest's, mass extinctions due to lost wildlife habitat (happening right now), contamination of the environment with known carcinogenic chemicals (a large number of such chemicals used in agriculture are carcinogenic), GMO's which have been proven to cause allergies, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and kidney and liver damage, just to name a few. Productivity can only be pushed so far, and expecially without great envronmental and human health damage. A lot of this has been built in unsustainable technologies, such as oil, and as well, technologies and methods that are destroying topsoils and reducing the nutritional quality of food. The result is lower quality food and lower quality of living. We really should focus on quality and not quantity. Sure we might be able to pack in 10 billion people but this will lead to declining standards of living and a bleak, planet with disappearing forests and natural beauty, and a loss of freedom. A loss of freedom of independence due to the increased cost of land due to its scarcity, and the scarcity of land which has led to land ownership that have tied peoples survival into manipulated economic and monetary systems, leading directly to their enslavement and dependence. In this environment, it is nearly impossible for people to live independently, and this allows them to be manipulated by others, political structures and economic corporations.
Wrong! Your conclusion is totally flawed. The corporations would exist whether or not government existed. In fact, they would be even more powerful. All they have to do is consolidate, merge and buy themselves into a monopoly position. Apparently you seem to be completely ignorant about the fact that monopolies are in fact quite common and do happen with regularity. Even without a monopoly, corporations can still abuse consumers as with this net censorship. Without government there would be very little to stop censorship by ISPs, the FCC would not even be trying to accomplish this under the Obama Administration. A corporation, with its control and ownership of assetts and its private police forces is all it needs to take away all of your rights. In fact, it would be able to do that with even more speed without government there to stop it. Get off this anti-government garbage. The fact is, we need a government to protect our rights since it has the power and capability to do so, to regulate these corporations. if we want freedom, instead of no government, we need a government that is on our side and works for us. The way to accomplish that is to get the corporate money out of elections and the lobbyists out of washington. it is us the politicians should answer to and accountable to, not the corporations. The corporations would just LOVE for you to destroy your government, then there would be nothing left of any real significance to stop them from implementing their totalitarian regime, except perhaps a violent revolution to try to overthrow them. Corporations fund the Republicans particularly because they will allow them to expand their power by dismantling governmental oversite. Then corporations use their vast funds they acquired due to their abusive practices to fund the republicans, its a vicious cycle. Democratic government is the civilised way to make sure that the corporations are forced to respect us and that they are required to obey laws, that there will be no censorship and that they will not treat us like rubbish.
No. Wireless is slow and expensive. The best way is to require competition by forcing the companies to lease their underground lines at cost. This is the only way you will get real competition. Even more so, municipalities should own the last mile, and you could subscribe to many ISPs that would offer service on that. On top of that, we should have net neutrality that would simply requires ISPs to pass all data from third parties through unmolested.
I dont buy that. The vaccine if they really worked it wouldnt matter how many people got the vaccine. The people who got the vaccine would be protected, and the people who didnt would only be harming themselves.
There is evidence and testing that the swine flu vaccine has some serious problems due to the use of a Squalene adjuvant which has been proven to cause large numbers of cases of arthritis and autoimmune diseases in rats. Worse a lot of this may not show up right away but lead to a gradual degeneration which may not be attributed to the vaccine.
There is no compelling reason to force medicate peple and each person has to weigh the risk for themselves. The squalene ingredient probably should be illegal and when we have such a dangerous thing in a vaccine no one should take it. The mercury is also a concern and as long as vaccines contin mercury, formaldahyde and other nasties, which are known toxins, and not an essential part of the vaccine, and which causes more than rare health problems, the vaccine makers have already shown they are not trustworthy or concerned about safety.
Werent there some studies shown that a mainframe was actually more energy efficient than a cluster? I wonder if they did any actual scientific studies of efficiency or if the people in charge here just made some assumptions, and went along with the hype.
Books tend to take a lot of time and energy to write. If book market is wiped out, look forward to stagnation ahead as would be writers are deterred as it will simply be impossible to devote the time to do it and authors wont be able to support themselves. With all of our manufacturing gone, adn now with people not being able to get paid for creative work, it seems like many of the most productive things are being devalued, creative work is now being devalued and so few can make a living off it. Will it be that we will have a country of grocery baggers?
Perl is awesome. Still today it is the best choice for large applications. I dont know where people get that it is not elegant, it is an extremely elegant language to use and its design makes good sense. Especially compared to C++. Perl produces far better code than what you would do with C++, easier to debug, etc.
Thats a bunch of nonsense. Perl interpretor does not use anywhere near that. Its pretty efficient, and only uses a small amount of ram. How do people come up with these lies?
I certainly agree with you. I think many students, who really care about learning, probably would be better off with a tutor or studying at home, rather than sitting in a noisy, distracting, and uncomfortable school environment. The rigid nature of school, with all of its requirements and intimidating atmosphere, actually i am afraid may actually be discouraging and make learning to be something dreadful, rather than fun.
I did very poorly in public school. I was failing. And I was constantly being harrassed by bullies. It all contributed to a discouraged feeling, that caused me to give up. It was not until i went to a small private school, was away from that public school environment and could concentrate, did my self confidence recover, and my grades.
More school hours are not a good idea. Shorten them, and offer more school choice for students (not parents, what is best for the students), such as charter schools, and if necessary taking bullies out of the public schools and placing them in special needs schools so there can be some level of safety and order in schools is a good idea and would help tremendously.
Later on in college, my self confidence and grades were recovered. However I actually spent much of that time on things that I would probably never use. It also became clearly witht eh
When are dealing with toxic, carcinogenic materials that can cause terrible diseases, its better to be safe than sorry. You could very easily have fish living around this crap and end up eating seaweed or whatever growing on it, and end up with large concentrations in humans who eat the fish. There are concerns of far less pollution from mercury in fish from power plants. The plume of toxic waste enemating from this thing could be a danger to anyone who is near these oceans as the toxic chemicals are carried around in ocean currents.
Actually yuour wrong. 20 million or so children die every year or so of hunger. Sounds a lot worse than some educational programs and contraceptives to keep population growth at a sustainable level to me. Care to reply?
Well, Borlaug didnt invent running water, electricity and so forth. So I wouldnt thank him for any of those things. The fact I think we need to do what works to prevent poverty, that is zero population growth, I dont know how you connected that to an idea that I am against technology. I am for technology. Overpopulation itself will actually lead to such resource depletion that there will be people who will never be able to enjoy such technologies. If anything the man totally ignored the real causes of poverty, which cuases the very situation where people do not have running water, and then made it seem like his green revolution was the answer when it was not, and probably even added to the problem. It created a false sense of security and the idea that the problem had been solved so people went back to their old arrogant, selfish, overpopulating ways without thinking about how the world will feed 5 billion extra people. Thus, we are where we are now and we are set to break all old records on starvation and poverty. Poverty will get worse on the present track and no amount of green revolution will stop it. We have to address the fact that overpopulation will simply overrun any attempt to increase yeild and it already has. 2 billion living in poverty is pretty substantial proof. it is also substaintial that you would need 5 more of these planets if everyone lived like an american does with their running water, TVs, and cars.
GMO evidence is scientifically backed up. Its proven it is toxic poison. It also carries intrinsic risk and danger the the planets environment as a whole when things do go wrong, if we accidently create a poisonous food since it can breed with critical food crops, it could unleash a devastating global plague as this toxic variety could reproduce uncontrollably throughout the global environment. GMOs are too risky, we dont need them, and we can solve the worlds problems without them. GMOs actually in most cases actually all they do is increase dependance on pesticide since the GMO species is actually often less suited to a particular environment than one of the thousands of specialised breeds. Many GMOs are designed to be used with toxic pesticide and the FDA actually increased pesticide residue limits 3 times so GMOs could be used. Some GMOs have the pesticide directly in every cell in the plant as with Bt toxin. Not only what will this do to humans, but other species? Its a total disaster waiting to happen.
I am not against selective breeding.
I agree. It is counterproductive that people get hysterical when overpopulation is mentioned, like you want to do some terrible thing. There are smart intelligent ways to solve overpopulation, abstinance, contraception, education, for instance. We are allegedly an intelligent species. We can, I think, when people are better educated, make wiser choices and have zero population growth. In nature, starvation would limit growth but we can make an intelligent choice and avoid that suffering. A scientist should do this, advocate zero population growth, they are in the best position to explain scientifically why its a problem and put evidence behind it. But you dont need a degree to see its a problem, its common sense, the earth only has so much land, water, space, oil, and other precious resources, sooner or later, growth will overrun all these and people will die. Its better, I think, to leave a huge margin between that and our population level, leaving room for other species and a huge safety margin in our land resources so that avialable resources are far more than what we actually need at any moment, to compensate for unexpected things like droughts and so for. Some evidence suggest we already are overpopulated globally and the situation with the fact 2 billion people live in poverty is pretty strong evidence for that. The load carrying capacity is not a steady thing but changes with weather patterns and so on. Plus we have that fact we have passed a point where we have comsumed so much of the lands surface area, we are not really starting to eat into criticla emaining wildlife refuges, increasing the risk of loss of species biodiversity forever. Overpopulation is the main thing driving destruction oif rainforests globally and loss of species.
The so called green revolution if anything had no net impact on global hunger and starvation as it simply does not address the core cause: overpopulation. It sounds great to increase yeild, but the reason we had a food shortage in the first place was growth that outstripped supply. Unless the growth is arrested, you will end up right back where you were before, with billions starving, and thats where we are today. There are more children starving to death today than ever before in the past. This is not success, this is failure to recognise real solutions in zero population growth. Eventually you will hit a limit as to how much the chemicals and breeding will improve yeild. You just cant make plants grow in the desert. So the idea that we can yield our way out of famine is futile.
Furthermore, aggressive farming techniques are causing loss of topsoil and depletion of soil quality which reduces th nutritional density of food. 60% of agricultural pesticides are carcinogenic and as such we are causing an increase possibly in death and reduction in quality of life due to mutagenic and cancer disorders and birth defects, a whole array of toxic effects, even reduced IQ and mental retardation. Maybe this is just me but i seem to see an increasing stagnation in artistic and mental development, and intellect as time goes by compared to past centuries.
Population growth is also fueling the global warming problem and destruction of the carbon sink, oxygen producing and biodiversity harboring forests on many continents including north and south america. This is leading to extinction of many plant and animal species which vanish off the face of the earth forever. This coms with a loss of human quality of life that comes from the quality that scenic beauty and wilderness recreation adds to our lives, and as well thinghs like bird watching, botany and animal watching.
Genetically modified organisms have been proven to cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, allergies and have less nutrients and more antinutrients than regular non GMO foods. GMOs should not be confused however with cross bred plants. Cross bred plants are safe by comparison. GMO introduces entirely new, scientifically documented, deadly consequences for humans and the entire environment. The documentation and scientific evidenc is clear, GMOs are a deadly experiment that is ruining peoples health. Read th book Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith for more info. The only reason that the GMOs were ever approved was due to bribes from large corporations to politicians. If the decision were based on a precautionary principle and public health, they would have never been approved. The studies of cancer, mortality and liver and kidney damage is shocking and is simply ignored by the agribusiness lapdog FDA which is basically a part of the agribusiness corporations. GMOs are a great danger and cannot be underestimated. Even without a nefarious intent it is dangerous, but it is purely greed and profit motivated, and furthermore could be used for other evil agendas by controlling peoples bodies through engineering and designing food to cause certain physical effects in the body. At least nature does not have such agendas. Humans have evolved for millions of years to consume naturally coded food. GMOs by crossing species boundary and violating normal limits and safeguards of natural breeding, implement entirely novel protiens which would not occur in nature. The body does not know how to deal with this and often its like throwing a wrench into that delicate system. hence rats fed GMOs develop cancers, high mortality and kidney and liver issues.
Overall all of this stuff is basically going to kill us and destroy our quality of living and our planet. I dont want your pesticide contaminated GMO shit, no thanks.
Probably having the SSH run while the kernel boots (at least in the very early phases, but perhaps not in later phases) may not be realistic, but filesystem mounting, where most boot time problems seem to occur, can be delayed until after the kernel is booted, as long as the system files can be accessed from the filesystem. This probably would require some kernel level features to be added and so on. So certainly at that point Linux could start an SSH to debug the filesystem problems. But, with newer filesystems, you probably shouldnt have the bootup stalled with a demand for an fsck, and with ext2 you may be able to have fsck run automatically. I have had Linux bootups stop because of demands to run fsck on the ext2 filesystems.
With linux bootups becoming more reliable due to better filesystems, maybe it will become rarer that there are regular problems with Linux booting. Accessing the BIOS settings from Linux is a neat idea but I am sure does not probably exist.
I have often felt the need for this kind of feature. Not because i removed the video card. But because I didnt always have a monitor connected as i installed the system in a cabinet, and for purposes of remote diagnosis. There is the serial port idea but you need to plug it into another computer. Another option might be to see if any serial to ethernet solution exists, then you can login to the serial port through an ethernet connection. Some network cards have a netboot feature but i dont think this is what we are looking for. I couldnt really find any simple solution for the problem. The serial to ethernet seems interesting but i dont know if that exists. Most boot problems seem to originate with the Linux boot up process and filesystem scans but these may be rectified with the new filesystems. Once control has been passed to Linux from the BIOS, it really should be possible for linux to run some sort of ssh service to allow access even while the kernel is still booting. Maybe a solution that would require a hardware level addition is to allow BIOS settings to be modified from the OS after boot.
We really do need a public space program that can serve to expand humanities understanding of science. NASA does seem to be need more guidance from actual expert scientists on how to proceed. It has become too politicised. I do not think private space should be publicly funded at all, unless, the ships are sold to nasa for use on public programs. Private space programs will probably turn into a space tourist thing to shuttle wealthy tourists around, and just maybe very closed source proprietary science that is avialable only to those who pay a large fee. That is if they work at all. A public space program is important for the pure science missions like the satellites and robot missions. It provides scienific data for all humanity. We really should focus on those. ISS should have never been built but since it has we should keep it up there. Shuttle should be kept but flown less often until a craft that has same capabilities can be developed. Mars and moon missions are good for the ego put as far as the money spent, provide relatively little science compared to the robot missions that can provide lots of data and be done much more cheaply. We need a plan to replace hubble with new visible light telescopes. And more advanced propulsion research to find cheaper ways to do space travel.
Putting in a tarrif would first prevent the erosion of more jobs, the tarrif could simply balance the situation so there is no cost benefit to moving jobs overseas. A tariff can also be used to discourage and balance things against being moved overseas as well, and to bring jobs back. That would simply require americans creating new jobs and businesses, which would generate jobs in this country and help restore the economy. This would create more money to allow people to buy those things. We borrow from china because we cant afford to pay for things due to the fact our economy has been offshored. By bringing jobs back, well be able to pay for things once again and wont need to borrow from chinese anymore.
I find the fact that corporations such as this, especially in a time of economic hardship, are basically harming american workers and showing such contempt for the USA, to be greatly offensive and angers me to no end. i think its time that we detach from china and india which has basically decimated Americas economy and who have stolen our jobs. I think its clearly time that we need to stop allowing these companies to abuse the USA looking at it as only a market to sell their overpriced chinese crap, and start creating jobs here again. Globalisation is such a big scam its ridiculous, its destroying this countyr and allows these greedy companies to basically exploit slave labor in china. The US should and can, and must for its survival, implement a tariff on imports of cars, textiles, furniture, IT services, customer service calls to India and China, etc, and so on. When we have 15% unemployment in reality and people struggling to find work the notion of any company moving jobs somewhere else really should cause a revolt from americans and demands to implement tariffs. Its time to get past this irrational hysteria about tariffs. Tariffs are good and can help this countries economy rebound. There is nothing wrong with it since it simply allows americans to make products for other americans. Think about it, why cant the chinese make things for other chinese, and americans make things for other americans. it would be better for the chinese of the products that chinese workers stayed in china to benefit to the people there. It would be better for americans to create more jobs in the US making products for use by americans. The only people that globalisation benefits is the wealthy rich elite corporations who important products made by employees in slave labor camps in china making a few cents an hour, living in filthy dormitories, who are treated in the most inhumane way, beaten, and even not allowed to use the restroom, with litany of human rights abuses, the products these slaves make are then sold off at a 100% markup in the US and the wealthy elite take the profit. Both the american and the chinese worker are the losers. Globalisation is what has allowed as well corporations to basically dictate to countries basically how they will treat workers and the environment and rewards countries which allow their environment and workers to be ruthlessly exploited by massive global corporations. This is a system where massive global corporations get their way and make the laws through making countries compete against each other to see who can allow their employees to be treated in the most inhumane way. Through the global consolidation and globalisation the corporations are able to control markets resources, jobs, and so on in many different countries and operate as sort of transnational governments. Through this we are seeing a new world order emerge where the governments of countries are simply puppets of a powerful fascist global corporate order who controls wealth, resources, jobs, markets, capital, etc.
If we value our freedom, we need to implement tariffs which would give our own worker welfare laws, our own democratic state, some force and allow us to implement unions without the corporations threatening to move jobs to other countries. If you want to be treated like a decently like a human being, to have a good life and to be paid decently for decent work, we desperately need to implement broader democratic unions which allow employees a democratic vioce where they can act as a safeguard against mistreatment and slave wages. Unions are essential to our economic recovery and for stopping the destruction of the middle class. The unions built the middle class in the USA and ironically created a middle class that had the spending power which made companies like IBM so successful. Unions are essential for workers to have decent wage since it more often than not is the tendancy of corporations to pay workers as little as they can, leading to a vast impoverished state in the economy. Its just shocking and disgusting tha
Plugins and cookies are a huge problem. Cookies are a major privacy concern, and plugins well just depends on how much you trust the external plugin. Given that the js engine is loaded with security problems, its likely that java and flash are too. You really just want to block all of this out by default and allow certain websites to run them as needed. My policy would be to havea default security profile that allows no cookies, no plugins and no js, and then allow only certain websites to run the js. Javascript itself really should not be a problem if it were not for security problems in javascript itself. The best way is to fix those bugs in javascript to make it more secure. privacy violation however is what cookies are specifically intended for.