I did not mean to say RP voted yes. I should have mentioned that. I was aware he did not vote on the bill. I was not aware as to why he did not vote on it.
No he would not. Kucinich is opposed to warrantless searches, and also does not support confiscation of private property. We would also see a more sound fiscal policy than we do under republicans, without the massive spending on wars, that have driven up $ 2 trillion in costs. A well designed universal health care system as kucinich proposes would increase coverage and quality of health care, and as been shown to reduce the overhead of providing health care. The private insurance system in the US has one of the highest administrative overheads of health care systems in the world.
Kucinich also strongly disagrees with unfair taxation, or taxation that would cut into a persons living wage. Taxes need to be kept affordable and reasonable and we know this. We would roll back the tax cuts on the very wealthy, who do not need them since the taxes do not cut into their living wage, in fact, they have plenty left over to afforda a very luxurious lifestyle. So taxes would be kept affordable to all. We will look into fine tuning as needed to assure affordability and i fully agree that taxes should not be overburdening.
Republicans have spent us into a deep hole of debt, and they will have caused massive economic damage to this country, and a debt our children will pay for dearly. It is they you should be concerned about.
Yes I agree, you have made the points very well. The child is not property of the parents. Just as parents do not have a right to pull out a childs fingernails, or cut off their ears, they dont have a right to circumcise healthy parts of their body. parents have responsibility to protect children from injury. Circumcision actually contradicts that responsibility since it destroys a part of a childs body that is normal and has nothing wrong with it. Parental responsibility has limits, it does not mean a parent can do anything they want with a child. They cannot lock them in a closet for weeks, they cannot injure them, they cannot circumcise (mutilate) a healthy, normal part of their bodies.
My stand against circumcision does actually support the basic rights of the individual to self determination, including their rights to make their own choices about permenant alterations of medically healthy and normal body parts that having nothing wrong with them, for themselves. The problem with circumcision of children is there are going to be people who do not want to be circumcised. If you want to be circumcised, fine, you can always make that choice for yourself for your own body. But it should not be forced on other people who dont want it and who do want an intact body. You can always choose to get circumcised, but you can never choose to get your foreskin which was violently and cruelly stolen from you back, if you do not want to be circumcised. Circumcision should be the choice of the person whose body it is and will be affected by this for the rest of their lives. Circumcision does have significant disadvantages, including loss of the most sensitive parts of the human body, 70% of penile senstivity [1][2][3].
Circumcision is not being done to the bodies of the parents, it is inflicted on the infant. It is not the parents right to take away the bodily integrity rights of the person upon who circumcision is inflicted, to a whole body, for the rest of their lives. Do parents, if they decide they do not like how the babies nose looks, even though it is medically normal, to have plastic surgery to alter the babies nose? Do parents have a right to tattoo things all over the babies body? Do they have a right to cut off other "unnecessary" parts, like the babies nipples or earlobes, because "we dont like how they look"? No, of course they do not, and it is the same with the foreskin, they have no right to cut off normal part of their babies body. This shows that if we take an objective look at circumcision, it can be seen for what it is, a cruel violation of the childs rights.Most People Would see the cutting off a childs nipples as wrong, because it is violating basic standards of humanity and ethics, it is not common, there is no societal pressure to conform to a societal norm so they follow their own inner humane ethical guidance which shows that cutting off healthy parts of a childs body is wrong, so therefore cutting off a childs nipples is wrong. However, often people disregard these basic rights, when it is contradicted by a cultural practice, no matter how contrary that cultural practice is to human rights. They allow culture pressure to reprogram them and override their values of human rights. There is a cultural brainwashing that goes on, where people analyse things not by what the thing does or involves, but how many people support it. Lawrence Kohlberg and Stanley Milgram showed most people, when pressured, break to cultural influence and end up doing things they otherwise would find abhorrent. A minority people have independantly functioning morality, and are able to question the norms when they are violating human rights, and oppose some cruelty no matter how common it is. Just because everything is doing something does not make it right. People, if they followed human rights to bodily integrity the same as they would with the nipples would see circumcision as wrong, but if they are pressured by society, they may override that. We see therefore, how human rights are conveniently and selectively ignored by a society when it contradicts one of its beloved practices of mutilating and disfiguring childrens genitals. But how popular it is, or how long it has been done for is no indicator as to whether it is human, ethical, or respectful of bodily integrity and other human rights for a person to make their own choices about unessential mutilation of their own body.
Cultures over and over again have been shown to support the most abhorrent and vile violations of human rights, en mass, including mass ritual mutilations of children. One example of chinese foot binding. Another example is Female Genital Mutilation. FGM as practiced in many countries is no more severe than the type of Male Genital
We also have the issue of the rights of the infant, who is also a human being. Just because the infant is still in the womb does not mean it is not a sentient, emotional, feeling human being. Abortion of children, especially after the 1 to 2 month period when the neurological system becomes active, is the violent murder of a human being. Even aborting the baby before then is denying and ending a life, that otherwise would develop into a fully aware and conscious being. But to abort the baby after 2 months when it has a neurological system and has become conscious, is appalling and brutal. The late term abortions, are too shocking to fathom, they involve pulling the infants head partly out of the womb and then jabbing a sharp tube through the infants skull and vacuuming out its brains. This violates every notion of kindness, human rights, and a persons right to be treated humanely. That infant, even before it is born is a living aware being and deserves to be respected as a human being. Just because it is inside a human being does not mean it is not sentient, aware, conscious human being. The mothers body ends where the unborn infants body begins. I am not saying this from a religious perspective, im not christian, but from a human rights/secular perspective. I am also a registered democrat, not a hypocritical republican. I am truly pro-life, unlike some republicans, I do not claim to be pro life and anti-abortion, and then cancel programs that are a life line for the poor, providing food and medical care to the poor, i do not want to implement policies that would hurt the poor, malnourish them or deny them healthcare, so we can fatten up the pockets of the very wealthy and reduce their taxes. I do not oppose policies that would assure health care to all americans. And i have not support the war in iraq which is a massive human slaughter, commited by so called "pro-life" republicans.
That i support welfare programs, in other words, that i do not want to see families living on the streets, without enough food to eat, or children who need medical care being denied access to this, does not at all equate to being against any rights or liberties. In fact, I support the right to life and liberty more so than republicans do, who want, basically the working class to be treated like fodder to be used, exploited, and then tossed into the gutter and left to die when they are no longer needed. In the Republican policies, people not needed by the ever so dominate corporate economy are left to die and whither away, so the wealthy elite class can have low taxes and afford their vast fleets of yachts and ceos can enjoy their $200 million dollar salaries. I also support the rights of free speech, the right to privacy, net neutrality, habeus corpus, oppose torture and so on. Liberals are by definition strong on all civil liberties, and also are strong on making sure the people of this country are not living in fear of not having enough food to eat or a roof over their head, terrorised by wealthy corporations who can lay them off at their slightest whim.
He has also been one of the strongest supports of civil liberties in the house and has repeatedly voted down legislation that erodes away americans civil liberties.
You are full of it. The democrats have given far more support for the net neutrality laws than republicans have http://www.freepress.net/news/23995 , and in the power grabs after 9-11, the democrats have been far more concerned about the civil rights violations. Overall democrats have tended more to vote against freedom depriving laws like the patriot act and resist power grabs and more erosion of your privacy.
Dennis Kucinich has repeatedly voted against bills that would deprive americans of their freedom and privacy. He voted against the Patriot Act which erodes away key civil liberties, and the "Thought Crime Bill" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/261007_ensnare_activists.htm , which could be, which is so broadly worded and loosely defined it could be used against peaceful activists. Even Ron Paul did not vote against the Thought Crime Bill. Kucinich was one of only 6 representatives to vote against it. If you want freedom, and you want your liberties preserved, the best choice is Kucinich.
It would have been nice to see what the trapped rainbow looks like. It is too bad the article does not contain an actual picture of it. This seems quite common of many articles of some fascinating discovery, heavy on hype, but not providing much data or depictions of it actually in action.
I would say, donate them to charitable causes, give them to people who do not have them, garage sales, or sell to used computer stores, ebay, etc, people who dont have computers etc. Linux is great for older computers since it can still be run with older window managers and such that run well on older hardware. It is terrible to allow perfectly good computers that work fine except they are not the latest and greatest to end up in landfills. There ought to be a law against throwing away useable old electronics and such, both to keep them out of land fills for environmental purposes and for them to be used by others who might gain benefit from them.
Nuclear is not a panacea it seems to be. It is not a sustainable resource as the supply of uranium is finite and limited, so it is not at all unlimited, not at all. The supply of uranium is so small that it could not be counted on for a very long term solution. Nuclear is a best a short term solution. It may not be something, running out of uranium, that we have to deal with in our lifetime, but our children will. I tend to have a longer term outlook on these kinds of things and think about how we can leave a secure world for our future generations rather than heap up problems for them due to our shortsightedness and apathy.
Generating hydrogen from algae, biofuels from breaking down non edible easy to grow non edible plants like cannibus, and other biological processes provide some interesting ideas.
Probably the only kind of energy source that would be very high yield, provide massive amounts of power with very low impact on the planet, and would be totally sustainable would be over unity energy technologies. It should be a priority to, if such technology is possible, to find a way to do it. It has not at all been disproven. It is difficult to prove something is impossible, more so than to show it is possible. There is much we do not know about the universe and it is possible there could be a specific configuration of magnets that utilises an undiscovered property of the universe that perhaps allows some sort of infinite energy potential to be accessed. If such a configuration were precise, that a very precise spatial, velocity, and geometric configuration were needed, it would be easy to see how it could have remained undiscovered until now. We assume the physical laws applying under one circumstance apply to all is assuming much and unverified, as there are millions of possible configurations of magnets that have not been throughly tested for instance. It may not only be magnetic fields but electric fields, gravity, or undiscovered primary forces as well. As the saying goes, if we dont look for it we wont find it if it exists. Given an infinite supply of energy would solve all of our poverty problems, the payoff from finding it would be immense and if it does exist the only barrier to it not being found is our own dogmatic arrogance, scientists who assume they know everything, or our current understandings of the universe are complete, when certainly they could be incomplete and yet undiscovered aspects. There is plenty of room for that, by no means have we excluded the chance that we may have undiscovered effects in nature. Many scientists laugh at the idea OU, yet they cannot prove it is impossible, and the response is unscientific to say the least. Socrates once said to be aware of our own ignorance, and there is much that we do not know about nature and the universe.
Just release the code, and let people decide whether or not to use it or clean it up. Do not be embarrassed about the amatuer code. You can provide it in an as-is condition with a disclaimer that you will not be doing any more work on this code and if people want to improve it, they are free to do so themselves. I would say releasing the code in an imperfect state is better than not releasing it at all. It can't hurt anything, if you provide the proper warnings about its state.
This was looking good until i read about the cadmium. This is somewhat of a concern especially when the panels needs to be disposed of. Cadmium is a rather unfriendly substance.
I do wonder if with the right economy of scales and improvement in manufacturing efficiency if the present common solar panel technology could be made more inexpensive, i have heard that perhaps as production scaled up the price of the present technology would come down some more and become more affordable.
This suggestion of a linux fork is absurd and could be quite destructive if anyone took it seriously. At the kernel level it does not make much sense. Perhaps distros might have their own focus or whatever in regards to what packages you want to install. But usually with the kernel, you dont need to load drivers and such unless they are needed so drivers for server hardware might not need to be loaded on a desktop. I dont really think there is a compelling reason that there should be a seperate server and desktop kernel, they probably have similar needs and benefit from the same improvements to say the scheduler. There was also talk of perhaps including a plugin interface for the scheduler so the user could plugin different schedulers easily. Con suggested this so the staircase could be used in Linux without needing kernel patches, or CFS depending on user preference.
Ive read more into moonlight and its seems good. At least it will be an open source technology which is really the most important part. So I can see if the open source version is 100% compatable it could be a benefit and perhaps at least get an open source alternative to flash implemented.
Well i really ought to correct myself and remind my self to RTFA. The moonlight will be open source so it should run on other OSs, still but I still am concerned that it will be 100% compatable with whatever microsoft does.
It would be neat if perhaps moonlight could interface with the firefox DOM, and for some sort of cross language interface between firefox javascript and moonlight, that would be pretty significant. DOM was always designed to be language nuetral.
I still consider this to be a bad idea, to use a closed source proprietary plugin for creating content on the web. Microsoft says they are supporting Linux, but this assumes Linux is the only operating system besides Windows people use. It leaves those who run FreeBSD and other OSs still pretty much in the same situation and leaves us in a similar predicament as we were before, proprietary closed source plugins that can only be used on paritcular OSs, locking people out of viewing web content on a broad range of other platforms.
Really we ought to be looking to improving the browser html/css/javascript/svg environment itself including SVG and SMIL and adding all the features it needs so it can complete with things like silverlight, and do so in a matter where it can be viewed using an open source software program. SVG and SMIL support has been coming along much too slowly in firefox even though the internet is being ruined by multitudes of proprietary flash content pages.
I like to add, i would much rather see technologies which would provide an open protocol flash replacement implemented in the existing browser platform where they can be used in conjuction with existing technologies, extended and improving upon them, rather than in seperate non integrated plugins. Integrating things like svg into the html/css/javascript environment allows for vastly improved functionality and also for pages of content to gracefully degrade if a browser does not support a new feature. using things like svg together with html, css and javascript can produce an extremely flexible environment and allows all these technologies to be levereged together and for existing technologies to be utilised and improved upon. I really want to see the web browser become a complete full featured applications development environment, where instead of having to use seperate java plugins, everything you need to do can be done right inside of the browser using javascript, css, dom, html, svg, smil and so on. Improving the programming facilities and features available and the amount of fine programming control over the content display is of great importance especially in providing an open source way of acheiving the features and capabilities found in flash without the need for proprietary closed source plugins, and allowing interoperability between new features and existing web technologies.
The last thing we need is another proptietary content format for the web. The open source community really needs to be focusing on implementing SMIL and SVG on Firefox which will turn it more into the high performance graphics environment which can compete with Flash. This would bring it a long way there. The w3c standards are good starting points however in many cases I think they come short of implementing enough control over the browser and features to make interactive applications more doable and eisier to implement. The sad fact is that a large number of indespensable technologies, including xmlhttprequest, designmode, innerhtml, scrolltop, and so on have been originated by microsoft, and the obvious need for these have been completely overlooked by w3c. Often it seems w3c standards are not designed by real users where the need for certain features becomes apparent. In the area of standards it is a good idea to apply the standard as a minimum, but at the same time if there is a feature that would improve the programming environment and add beneficial functionality that would allow for a broader scope of applications to be developed, it should be go ahead and be implemented and then standardisation of the feature can then occur. When we have badly needed features that need to be implemented we should not wait till a standard is realesed for them but implement them and at the same time work to get them integrated into a standard. Not doing so simply holds us back and encourages the implementation of proprietary, closed source technology, due to the shortcomings of the open standards and technologies, so ultimately waiting for something to be standardised before implementing it can do far more harm than good. I do agree standards are very important but they should not hold back progress in technology, so if we have an idea for a good feature, it should be implemented and we can begin a standards process too. But standards processes can take a long time so the feature should go ahead and be made avialable. Its more important to well document a technology and make it open source, which allows it to be used in a non-proprietary manner and with maximum portability without being locked into a certain browser, etc. Browsers should and do pick up features that have been introduced in other browsers. Firefox has implemented many features of IE, because, they were simply good ideas, like xmlhttprequest. Those features should also be integrated into w3c standards.
I think they are similar in their single login goal, but Open ID is far more decentralised, which means you do not rely upon a single provider for your identity, who may vanish along with your identity. I dont see why I or anyone here would want to use a proprietary MS thing that makes people dependant on MS, when we have an open source, open protocol, decentralised system such as Open ID.
The rate of technology advancement indeed has been quite impressive in recent years, with the advancement of computers for instance where yesterdays million dollar computer can be outperformed by todays $200 computer. Computers were once mainly text oriented devices, and now even the cheapest ones can play video and render complex 3D graphics. This information age which has come to pass, is one of the best things that could have happened, especially if it is controlled and utilised by the masses rather than for the few, in a climate of completely free and unbridled free speech and expression. We must hang on to that, and i believe such diversity is critical to our continued development intellectually, its when we have only a few viewpoints and persons which are able to express themselves that we risk stagnation. The internet has opened up anyone to be able to pubish information and anyone to be able to access it easily, so this has allowed for a lot of talent to be developed where it otherwise wouldnt have.
However, if we are going to continue this, we need to look for a renewable source of energy to power our machines and computers, and the only one I can think of is some sort of over unity system. Solar and wind it appears now are too low in power density to make more of a drop in the bucket of difference. Fusion might be too expensive and costly to provide energy on a large scale to provide cheap energy to all of the worlds population. Solar and wind energy do not even produce enough energy density to manufacture these very sorts of devices and fossil fuels are still necessary to manufacture them. Free energy would lift humanity out of the enslavement of poverty, and allow for poverty to be eliminated and first world standards of living to be brought to all areas of the world, all without burning one drop of fossil fuels burning any earth material or any fuels. Completely free, clean, cheap electricity which can be access anywhere without the need for quickly depleated, environmentally destructive and difficult to access and rare forms of energy such as fossil fuels. To not want this would be insane, it would be to want to see the continued suffering and impoverishment of millions of souls.
The over unity energy technology may be quite possible. If so, it is only our arrogance and ignorance, and our self assuredness that the laws of nature as we know know them apply in every single instance, which has not been proven at all. Perhaps there is some yet undiscovered force or effect that only manifests in one configuration of magnets out of millions. Unless you have been actively and carefully looking at all possibilities and testing all possibilites for such varations they would have been completely missed. Since every possible configuration of magnets, mechanical or electrical systems has not been tested that their is not some sort of force that may manifest in some special condition is based on faith. Withj this It is much harder to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive, because there are so many different cases where such a thing may be possible which have not been tested at all.
Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic \ufffd and this we know it is, for certain then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time]
The need for expanded address space for the internet is quite obvious, and a solution to the address crunch is needed. However, I have been somewhat unimpressed by the migration efforts.
Part of the problem with IPv6 migration is there are so few IPv6 sites there is little incentive for users to make upgrades to IPv6, and since so few users use IPv6, there is little incentive for sites to provide it. Furthermore, the large body of legacy software, equipment and operating systems makes further complicates things and legacy systems cannot be expected to go away. As long as such systems exist it would be impossible to move hosts completely to ipv6 without needing an ipv4 address without cutting off ipv4 users.
The only way i see to ease the migration is to allow for ipv4 and ipv6 hosts to co-exist for some time, including as well ipv4 only software, this means ipv4 sites being able to connect to ipv6 ones and vice versa. Connecting to an ipv4 from ipv6 should be fairly easy. It is going the other way that is difficult. One proposed solution to that is to use the DNS system and a type of NAT together. An ipv4 client, when attempting to connect to an ipv6 resource via a DNS address for instance, would send the DNS request to its DNS server. If the request is for an Ipv6 host, the DNS server would then signal to the gateway a connection request has been recieved for an Ipv6 address from an ipv4 client. The gateway would likely have both connections to Ipv6 and ipv4 networks. The gateway would assign a temporary private ipv4 IP address to the connection from the Ipv4 client to the IPv6 host, and all requests for that IP address coming into the gateway from that client would then be translated to the ipv6 address and routed to the ipv6 networks.
Furthermore, a special ipv6 top level domain would be created, allowing for ipv4 clients to access IPv6 IP addresses via making the request via DNS, where the IP address is specified as under the ipv6 tld, for instance: 2001.0db8.3c4d.0015.0000.0000.abcd.ef12.ipv6 This would provide an easy migration path to IPv6, would minimise configuration changes and upgrades needed on user systems, and would allow ipv4 hosts to contact ipv6 addresses, for ipv4 and ipv6 networks to be completely inoperable for as long as necessary for migration to occur.
I'm glad to see a state taking an initiative such as this to improve access to the internet given we still have so many areas still without adequate internet access, such as rural areas and so forth. Often there is not enough profit to be made in such areas for the telcos to give them much priority.
If all he did was look, I think 475,000 is a really excessive. I beleive i did read that is pretty much he did, he wasnt interested in creating havoc but just having a look. It doesn't make it right and its not something i condone, but some of these penalties go beyond what seems reasonable. If he actually didnt cause any actual damage to the systems, perhaps community service might be more porportional to the crime it would seem to me.
I should add i don't condone what he did. I am against such sorts of illegal activities. What he did I beleive was still of a look but done touch sort variety, not quite as harmful as someone bent on destruction, but still not something i condon. But nevertheless if you could show proof of these claims he made, that would have significant implications in helping us solve many of our problems such as our fossil fuel dependance. An supply of energy without having to burn up dirty fuels and ruin the environment to extract and process them would be a dream come true. Clean, inexpensive, safe, truly renewable and readily available energy would be a god send.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not mean to say RP voted yes. I should have mentioned that. I was aware he did not vote on the bill. I was not aware as to why he did not vote on it.
No he would not. Kucinich is opposed to warrantless searches, and also does not support confiscation of private property. We would also see a more sound fiscal policy than we do under republicans, without the massive spending on wars, that have driven up $ 2 trillion in costs. A well designed universal health care system as kucinich proposes would increase coverage and quality of health care, and as been shown to reduce the overhead of providing health care. The private insurance system in the US has one of the highest administrative overheads of health care systems in the world.
Kucinich also strongly disagrees with unfair taxation, or taxation that would cut into a persons living wage. Taxes need to be kept affordable and reasonable and we know this. We would roll back the tax cuts on the very wealthy, who do not need them since the taxes do not cut into their living wage, in fact, they have plenty left over to afforda a very luxurious lifestyle. So taxes would be kept affordable to all. We will look into fine tuning as needed to assure affordability and i fully agree that taxes should not be overburdening.
Republicans have spent us into a deep hole of debt, and they will have caused massive economic damage to this country, and a debt our children will pay for dearly. It is they you should be concerned about.
Yes I agree, you have made the points very well. The child is not property of the parents. Just as parents do not have a right to pull out a childs fingernails, or cut off their ears, they dont have a right to circumcise healthy parts of their body. parents have responsibility to protect children from injury. Circumcision actually contradicts that responsibility since it destroys a part of a childs body that is normal and has nothing wrong with it. Parental responsibility has limits, it does not mean a parent can do anything they want with a child. They cannot lock them in a closet for weeks, they cannot injure them, they cannot circumcise (mutilate) a healthy, normal part of their bodies.
My stand against circumcision does actually support the basic rights of the individual to self determination, including their rights to make their own choices about permenant alterations of medically healthy and normal body parts that having nothing wrong with them, for themselves. The problem with circumcision of children is there are going to be people who do not want to be circumcised. If you want to be circumcised, fine, you can always make that choice for yourself for your own body. But it should not be forced on other people who dont want it and who do want an intact body. You can always choose to get circumcised, but you can never choose to get your foreskin which was violently and cruelly stolen from you back, if you do not want to be circumcised. Circumcision should be the choice of the person whose body it is and will be affected by this for the rest of their lives. Circumcision does have significant disadvantages, including loss of the most sensitive parts of the human body, 70% of penile senstivity [1][2][3].
Circumcision is not being done to the bodies of the parents, it is inflicted on the infant. It is not the parents right to take away the bodily integrity rights of the person upon who circumcision is inflicted, to a whole body, for the rest of their lives. Do parents, if they decide they do not like how the babies nose looks, even though it is medically normal, to have plastic surgery to alter the babies nose? Do parents have a right to tattoo things all over the babies body? Do they have a right to cut off other "unnecessary" parts, like the babies nipples or earlobes, because "we dont like how they look"? No, of course they do not, and it is the same with the foreskin, they have no right to cut off normal part of their babies body. This shows that if we take an objective look at circumcision, it can be seen for what it is, a cruel violation of the childs rights.Most People Would see the cutting off a childs nipples as wrong, because it is violating basic standards of humanity and ethics, it is not common, there is no societal pressure to conform to a societal norm so they follow their own inner humane ethical guidance which shows that cutting off healthy parts of a childs body is wrong, so therefore cutting off a childs nipples is wrong. However, often people disregard these basic rights, when it is contradicted by a cultural practice, no matter how contrary that cultural practice is to human rights. They allow culture pressure to reprogram them and override their values of human rights. There is a cultural brainwashing that goes on, where people analyse things not by what the thing does or involves, but how many people support it. Lawrence Kohlberg and Stanley Milgram showed most people, when pressured, break to cultural influence and end up doing things they otherwise would find abhorrent. A minority people have independantly functioning morality, and are able to question the norms when they are violating human rights, and oppose some cruelty no matter how common it is. Just because everything is doing something does not make it right. People, if they followed human rights to bodily integrity the same as they would with the nipples would see circumcision as wrong, but if they are pressured by society, they may override that. We see therefore, how human rights are conveniently and selectively ignored by a society when it contradicts one of its beloved practices of mutilating and disfiguring childrens genitals. But how popular it is, or how long it has been done for is no indicator as to whether it is human, ethical, or respectful of bodily integrity and other human rights for a person to make their own choices about unessential mutilation of their own body.
Cultures over and over again have been shown to support the most abhorrent and vile violations of human rights, en mass, including mass ritual mutilations of children. One example of chinese foot binding. Another example is Female Genital Mutilation. FGM as practiced in many countries is no more severe than the type of Male Genital
We also have the issue of the rights of the infant, who is also a human being. Just because the infant is still in the womb does not mean it is not a sentient, emotional, feeling human being. Abortion of children, especially after the 1 to 2 month period when the neurological system becomes active, is the violent murder of a human being. Even aborting the baby before then is denying and ending a life, that otherwise would develop into a fully aware and conscious being. But to abort the baby after 2 months when it has a neurological system and has become conscious, is appalling and brutal. The late term abortions, are too shocking to fathom, they involve pulling the infants head partly out of the womb and then jabbing a sharp tube through the infants skull and vacuuming out its brains. This violates every notion of kindness, human rights, and a persons right to be treated humanely. That infant, even before it is born is a living aware being and deserves to be respected as a human being. Just because it is inside a human being does not mean it is not sentient, aware, conscious human being. The mothers body ends where the unborn infants body begins. I am not saying this from a religious perspective, im not christian, but from a human rights/secular perspective. I am also a registered democrat, not a hypocritical republican. I am truly pro-life, unlike some republicans, I do not claim to be pro life and anti-abortion, and then cancel programs that are a life line for the poor, providing food and medical care to the poor, i do not want to implement policies that would hurt the poor, malnourish them or deny them healthcare, so we can fatten up the pockets of the very wealthy and reduce their taxes. I do not oppose policies that would assure health care to all americans. And i have not support the war in iraq which is a massive human slaughter, commited by so called "pro-life" republicans.
That i support welfare programs, in other words, that i do not want to see families living on the streets, without enough food to eat, or children who need medical care being denied access to this, does not at all equate to being against any rights or liberties. In fact, I support the right to life and liberty more so than republicans do, who want, basically the working class to be treated like fodder to be used, exploited, and then tossed into the gutter and left to die when they are no longer needed. In the Republican policies, people not needed by the ever so dominate corporate economy are left to die and whither away, so the wealthy elite class can have low taxes and afford their vast fleets of yachts and ceos can enjoy their $200 million dollar salaries. I also support the rights of free speech, the right to privacy, net neutrality, habeus corpus, oppose torture and so on. Liberals are by definition strong on all civil liberties, and also are strong on making sure the people of this country are not living in fear of not having enough food to eat or a roof over their head, terrorised by wealthy corporations who can lay them off at their slightest whim.
Kucinich does support net neutrality:
http://www.freepress.net/news/23995
He has also been one of the strongest supports of civil liberties in the house and has repeatedly voted down legislation that erodes away americans civil liberties.
You are full of it. The democrats have given far more support for the net neutrality laws than republicans have http://www.freepress.net/news/23995 , and in the power grabs after 9-11, the democrats have been far more concerned about the civil rights violations. Overall democrats have tended more to vote against freedom depriving laws like the patriot act and resist power grabs and more erosion of your privacy.
Dennis Kucinich has repeatedly voted against bills that would deprive americans of their freedom and privacy. He voted against the Patriot Act which erodes away key civil liberties, and the "Thought Crime Bill" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/261007_ensnare_activists.htm , which could be, which is so broadly worded and loosely defined it could be used against peaceful activists. Even Ron Paul did not vote against the Thought Crime Bill. Kucinich was one of only 6 representatives to vote against it. If you want freedom, and you want your liberties preserved, the best choice is Kucinich.
It would have been nice to see what the trapped rainbow looks like. It is too bad the article does not contain an actual picture of it. This seems quite common of many articles of some fascinating discovery, heavy on hype, but not providing much data or depictions of it actually in action.
I would say, donate them to charitable causes, give them to people who do not have them, garage sales, or sell to used computer stores, ebay, etc, people who dont have computers etc. Linux is great for older computers since it can still be run with older window managers and such that run well on older hardware. It is terrible to allow perfectly good computers that work fine except they are not the latest and greatest to end up in landfills. There ought to be a law against throwing away useable old electronics and such, both to keep them out of land fills for environmental purposes and for them to be used by others who might gain benefit from them.
Nuclear is not a panacea it seems to be. It is not a sustainable resource as the supply of uranium is finite and limited, so it is not at all unlimited, not at all. The supply of uranium is so small that it could not be counted on for a very long term solution. Nuclear is a best a short term solution. It may not be something, running out of uranium, that we have to deal with in our lifetime, but our children will. I tend to have a longer term outlook on these kinds of things and think about how we can leave a secure world for our future generations rather than heap up problems for them due to our shortsightedness and apathy.
Generating hydrogen from algae, biofuels from breaking down non edible easy to grow non edible plants like cannibus, and other biological processes provide some interesting ideas.
Probably the only kind of energy source that would be very high yield, provide massive amounts of power with very low impact on the planet, and would be totally sustainable would be over unity energy technologies. It should be a priority to, if such technology is possible, to find a way to do it. It has not at all been disproven. It is difficult to prove something is impossible, more so than to show it is possible. There is much we do not know about the universe and it is possible there could be a specific configuration of magnets that utilises an undiscovered property of the universe that perhaps allows some sort of infinite energy potential to be accessed. If such a configuration were precise, that a very precise spatial, velocity, and geometric configuration were needed, it would be easy to see how it could have remained undiscovered until now. We assume the physical laws applying under one circumstance apply to all is assuming much and unverified, as there are millions of possible configurations of magnets that have not been throughly tested for instance. It may not only be magnetic fields but electric fields, gravity, or undiscovered primary forces as well. As the saying goes, if we dont look for it we wont find it if it exists. Given an infinite supply of energy would solve all of our poverty problems, the payoff from finding it would be immense and if it does exist the only barrier to it not being found is our own dogmatic arrogance, scientists who assume they know everything, or our current understandings of the universe are complete, when certainly they could be incomplete and yet undiscovered aspects. There is plenty of room for that, by no means have we excluded the chance that we may have undiscovered effects in nature. Many scientists laugh at the idea OU, yet they cannot prove it is impossible, and the response is unscientific to say the least. Socrates once said to be aware of our own ignorance, and there is much that we do not know about nature and the universe.
Just release the code, and let people decide whether or not to use it or clean it up. Do not be embarrassed about the amatuer code. You can provide it in an as-is condition with a disclaimer that you will not be doing any more work on this code and if people want to improve it, they are free to do so themselves. I would say releasing the code in an imperfect state is better than not releasing it at all. It can't hurt anything, if you provide the proper warnings about its state.
This was looking good until i read about the cadmium. This is somewhat of a concern especially when the panels needs to be disposed of. Cadmium is a rather unfriendly substance.
I do wonder if with the right economy of scales and improvement in manufacturing efficiency if the present common solar panel technology could be made more inexpensive, i have heard that perhaps as production scaled up the price of the present technology would come down some more and become more affordable.
This suggestion of a linux fork is absurd and could be quite destructive if anyone took it seriously. At the kernel level it does not make much sense. Perhaps distros might have their own focus or whatever in regards to what packages you want to install. But usually with the kernel, you dont need to load drivers and such unless they are needed so drivers for server hardware might not need to be loaded on a desktop. I dont really think there is a compelling reason that there should be a seperate server and desktop kernel, they probably have similar needs and benefit from the same improvements to say the scheduler. There was also talk of perhaps including a plugin interface for the scheduler so the user could plugin different schedulers easily. Con suggested this so the staircase could be used in Linux without needing kernel patches, or CFS depending on user preference.
Ive read more into moonlight and its seems good. At least it will be an open source technology which is really the most important part. So I can see if the open source version is 100% compatable it could be a benefit and perhaps at least get an open source alternative to flash implemented.
Well i really ought to correct myself and remind my self to RTFA. The moonlight will be open source so it should run on other OSs, still but I still am concerned that it will be 100% compatable with whatever microsoft does.
It would be neat if perhaps moonlight could interface with the firefox DOM, and for some sort of cross language interface between firefox javascript and moonlight, that would be pretty significant. DOM was always designed to be language nuetral.
I still consider this to be a bad idea, to use a closed source proprietary plugin for creating content on the web. Microsoft says they are supporting Linux, but this assumes Linux is the only operating system besides Windows people use. It leaves those who run FreeBSD and other OSs still pretty much in the same situation and leaves us in a similar predicament as we were before, proprietary closed source plugins that can only be used on paritcular OSs, locking people out of viewing web content on a broad range of other platforms.
Really we ought to be looking to improving the browser html/css/javascript/svg environment itself including SVG and SMIL and adding all the features it needs so it can complete with things like silverlight, and do so in a matter where it can be viewed using an open source software program. SVG and SMIL support has been coming along much too slowly in firefox even though the internet is being ruined by multitudes of proprietary flash content pages.
I like to add, i would much rather see technologies which would provide an open protocol flash replacement implemented in the existing browser platform where they can be used in conjuction with existing technologies, extended and improving upon them, rather than in seperate non integrated plugins. Integrating things like svg into the html/css/javascript environment allows for vastly improved functionality and also for pages of content to gracefully degrade if a browser does not support a new feature. using things like svg together with html, css and javascript can produce an extremely flexible environment and allows all these technologies to be levereged together and for existing technologies to be utilised and improved upon. I really want to see the web browser become a complete full featured applications development environment, where instead of having to use seperate java plugins, everything you need to do can be done right inside of the browser using javascript, css, dom, html, svg, smil and so on. Improving the programming facilities and features available and the amount of fine programming control over the content display is of great importance especially in providing an open source way of acheiving the features and capabilities found in flash without the need for proprietary closed source plugins, and allowing interoperability between new features and existing web technologies.
The last thing we need is another proptietary content format for the web. The open source community really needs to be focusing on implementing SMIL and SVG on Firefox which will turn it more into the high performance graphics environment which can compete with Flash. This would bring it a long way there. The w3c standards are good starting points however in many cases I think they come short of implementing enough control over the browser and features to make interactive applications more doable and eisier to implement. The sad fact is that a large number of indespensable technologies, including xmlhttprequest, designmode, innerhtml, scrolltop, and so on have been originated by microsoft, and the obvious need for these have been completely overlooked by w3c. Often it seems w3c standards are not designed by real users where the need for certain features becomes apparent. In the area of standards it is a good idea to apply the standard as a minimum, but at the same time if there is a feature that would improve the programming environment and add beneficial functionality that would allow for a broader scope of applications to be developed, it should be go ahead and be implemented and then standardisation of the feature can then occur. When we have badly needed features that need to be implemented we should not wait till a standard is realesed for them but implement them and at the same time work to get them integrated into a standard. Not doing so simply holds us back and encourages the implementation of proprietary, closed source technology, due to the shortcomings of the open standards and technologies, so ultimately waiting for something to be standardised before implementing it can do far more harm than good. I do agree standards are very important but they should not hold back progress in technology, so if we have an idea for a good feature, it should be implemented and we can begin a standards process too. But standards processes can take a long time so the feature should go ahead and be made avialable. Its more important to well document a technology and make it open source, which allows it to be used in a non-proprietary manner and with maximum portability without being locked into a certain browser, etc. Browsers should and do pick up features that have been introduced in other browsers. Firefox has implemented many features of IE, because, they were simply good ideas, like xmlhttprequest. Those features should also be integrated into w3c standards.
I think they are similar in their single login goal, but Open ID is far more decentralised, which means you do not rely upon a single provider for your identity, who may vanish along with your identity. I dont see why I or anyone here would want to use a proprietary MS thing that makes people dependant on MS, when we have an open source, open protocol, decentralised system such as Open ID.
The rate of technology advancement indeed has been quite impressive in recent years, with the advancement of computers for instance where yesterdays million dollar computer can be outperformed by todays $200 computer. Computers were once mainly text oriented devices, and now even the cheapest ones can play video and render complex 3D graphics. This information age which has come to pass, is one of the best things that could have happened, especially if it is controlled and utilised by the masses rather than for the few, in a climate of completely free and unbridled free speech and expression. We must hang on to that, and i believe such diversity is critical to our continued development intellectually, its when we have only a few viewpoints and persons which are able to express themselves that we risk stagnation. The internet has opened up anyone to be able to pubish information and anyone to be able to access it easily, so this has allowed for a lot of talent to be developed where it otherwise wouldnt have.
However, if we are going to continue this, we need to look for a renewable source of energy to power our machines and computers, and the only one I can think of is some sort of over unity system. Solar and wind it appears now are too low in power density to make more of a drop in the bucket of difference. Fusion might be too expensive and costly to provide energy on a large scale to provide cheap energy to all of the worlds population. Solar and wind energy do not even produce enough energy density to manufacture these very sorts of devices and fossil fuels are still necessary to manufacture them. Free energy would lift humanity out of the enslavement of poverty, and allow for poverty to be eliminated and first world standards of living to be brought to all areas of the world, all without burning one drop of fossil fuels burning any earth material or any fuels. Completely free, clean, cheap electricity which can be access anywhere without the need for quickly depleated, environmentally destructive and difficult to access and rare forms of energy such as fossil fuels. To not want this would be insane, it would be to want to see the continued suffering and impoverishment of millions of souls.
The over unity energy technology may be quite possible. If so, it is only our arrogance and ignorance, and our self assuredness that the laws of nature as we know know them apply in every single instance, which has not been proven at all. Perhaps there is some yet undiscovered force or effect that only manifests in one configuration of magnets out of millions. Unless you have been actively and carefully looking at all possibilities and testing all possibilites for such varations they would have been completely missed. Since every possible configuration of magnets, mechanical or electrical systems has not been tested that their is not some sort of force that may manifest in some special condition is based on faith. Withj this It is much harder to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive, because there are so many different cases where such a thing may be possible which have not been tested at all.
Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians...Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic \ufffd and this we know it is, for certain then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time]
The need for expanded address space for the internet is quite obvious, and a solution to the address crunch is needed. However, I have been somewhat unimpressed by the migration efforts.
Part of the problem with IPv6 migration is there are so few IPv6 sites there is little incentive for users to make upgrades to IPv6, and since so few users use IPv6, there is little incentive for sites to provide it. Furthermore, the large body of legacy software, equipment and operating systems makes further complicates things and legacy systems cannot be expected to go away. As long as such systems exist it would be impossible to move hosts completely to ipv6 without needing an ipv4 address without cutting off ipv4 users.
The only way i see to ease the migration is to allow for ipv4 and ipv6 hosts to co-exist for some time, including as well ipv4 only software, this means ipv4 sites being able to connect to ipv6 ones and vice versa. Connecting to an ipv4 from ipv6 should be fairly easy. It is going the other way that is difficult. One proposed solution to that is to use the DNS system and a type of NAT together. An ipv4 client, when attempting to connect to an ipv6 resource via a DNS address for instance, would send the DNS request to its DNS server. If the request is for an Ipv6 host, the DNS server would then signal to the gateway a connection request has been recieved for an Ipv6 address from an ipv4 client. The gateway would likely have both connections to Ipv6 and ipv4 networks. The gateway would assign a temporary private ipv4 IP address to the connection from the Ipv4 client to the IPv6 host, and all requests for that IP address coming into the gateway from that client would then be translated to the ipv6 address and routed to the ipv6 networks.
Furthermore, a special ipv6 top level domain would be created, allowing for ipv4 clients to access IPv6 IP addresses via making the request via DNS, where the IP address is specified as under the ipv6 tld, for instance: 2001.0db8.3c4d.0015.0000.0000.abcd.ef12.ipv6 This would provide an easy migration path to IPv6, would minimise configuration changes and upgrades needed on user systems, and would allow ipv4 hosts to contact ipv6 addresses, for ipv4 and ipv6 networks to be completely inoperable for as long as necessary for migration to occur.
I'm glad to see a state taking an initiative such as this to improve access to the internet given we still have so many areas still without adequate internet access, such as rural areas and so forth. Often there is not enough profit to be made in such areas for the telcos to give them much priority.
If all he did was look, I think 475,000 is a really excessive. I beleive i did read that is pretty much he did, he wasnt interested in creating havoc but just having a look. It doesn't make it right and its not something i condone, but some of these penalties go beyond what seems reasonable. If he actually didnt cause any actual damage to the systems, perhaps community service might be more porportional to the crime it would seem to me.
I should add i don't condone what he did. I am against such sorts of illegal activities. What he did I beleive was still of a look but done touch sort variety, not quite as harmful as someone bent on destruction, but still not something i condon. But nevertheless if you could show proof of these claims he made, that would have significant implications in helping us solve many of our problems such as our fossil fuel dependance. An supply of energy without having to burn up dirty fuels and ruin the environment to extract and process them would be a dream come true. Clean, inexpensive, safe, truly renewable and readily available energy would be a god send.