"The more wood we use the more incentive to plant trees and produce more wood. It is no different than tomatoes, if no one buys tomatoes no one will grow them, if the tomatoes sell out there will be more grown the next year. If no one buys wood the land will be cleared of forest to grow something else. Even in mountainous regions like BC we could clear vast areas of forest for sheep and other livestock, as they did in New Zealand and Scotland. So long as demand for wood remains strong we will continue to reforest land after it is logged."
A backwards way of looking at it, but completely true. How enlightening.
I have to wonder if this is something that we want. He may not want to be cast as someone trying to support Free Software. Really he's trying to do what he think is best for his country, which he believes involves using Open Source software. Giving him such an award may make it look like he's using his position to try and improve the state of Free Software.
His support and the advancement that it has caused is great, but its more of a spin-off benefit caused by him doing what's right for his country.
Can someone explain to me how to reproduce this? Whenever I've used Ask Jeeves it just spits out a list of results like any other search engine, and not in the way that appeared in the article. Maybe I'm just really dense, I dunno.
The fact that Dell specifically stated that Microsoft is making them do this I think shows that this isn't something they're happy about or willing to be doing. Dell is basically giving us that as fuel for the anti-Microsoft fire.
I'm skeptical that a plant would more cleanly burn fossil fuels by any significant margin than the cleanest burning internal combustion engines of today, which typically power the tiny cars that are also the target of these alternative fuel supplies. I wouldn't be surprised if they burn it more efficiently however, by which I mean they actually get more useful energy out of each unit of fuel.
You also have to remember that in converting fossil fuels to electricity and then using that to create hydrogen, and then using that to create motion involves more loss than simply converting fossil fuels into motion.
The real question is, which method with produce more mpg?
I'm still waiting to see Walmart switch their own store office computers from Windows to Linux. For a company that is so well known for running efficiently and cheaply, I would have thought they would have done it by now.
Sorry, but the problem isn't going to be solved by some magic wave of a wand. Hybrids are a step in the right direction. They only use gasoline as fuel but use a lot less of it than a conventional car. With hybrids, there's no hidden costs, financial or environmental, like there is with cars you plug-in.
They aren't doing it for the environment and they sure as hell aren't doing it for the money.
First off, to think that fuel cell based cars are better for the environment is to first assume that CO2 is bad for the environment. There is still a whole world of debate surrounding this. But even if you make this assumption, you can't ignore that fuel cell cars use hydrogen, which requires lots of electricity to create. And where does most electricity in the U.S. come from? Fossil fuel burning plants, of course. So what benefit are you providing to the environment?
As for making money off of them, that's ridiculous. The real reason is that government agencies such as the California Air Resources Board are simply mandating them. CARB is mandating that by 2003(!) 2% of cars sold must be Zero Emission Vehicles. This is despite the pleading of the manufacturers otherwise. Past electrics such as GM's EV1 were sold at HUGE losses. Teh batteries were more expensive than what the whole cars were being sold for. They weren't making money off of servicing them either, since they were only available on lease and came with a full warranty. CARB even estimates that a 4-seat ZEV with a 73 mile range would cost $22,000 more than the cleanest gasoline burning car of the same size.
The automotive industry may not be full of little angels, but they aren't the RIAA either. They're just doing what the government is forcing them to do because of the bad politics involved with the all evil internal combustion engine.
Most of the posts so far seem to ignore the fact that this is being held in Kananaskis, which is a provincial park, i.e. wilderness. This location was specifically chosen because of its isolation. I can't imagine that there will be many people affected by this aside from those participating in the summit in some fashion (including protesters).
Re:Counterfeiting, Dark Taxis, and Natioanl Image
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 2
ATM's these days mostly only spit out 20's anyway, and most of those that do spit out smaller denominations won't be for much longer.
That's exactly what makes declaring Intel the winner so stupid. Sure, they've got the better performing processor, but you'll pay for it if you want that slight advantage. AMD, IMHO, has won the value battle, and that's what matters. Its like declaring Ferrari the horsepower winner over Honda. Well duh, but how many Ferrari's do you see on the road vs. Hondas?
Slashdot Mirror
I found this quote to be fascinating:
"The more wood we use the more incentive to plant trees and produce more wood. It is no different than tomatoes, if no one buys tomatoes no one will grow them, if the tomatoes sell out there will be more grown the next year. If no one buys wood the land will be cleared of forest to grow something else. Even in mountainous regions like BC we could clear vast areas of forest for sheep and other livestock, as they did in New Zealand and Scotland. So long as demand for wood remains strong we will continue to reforest land after it is logged."
A backwards way of looking at it, but completely true. How enlightening.
I have to wonder if this is something that we want. He may not want to be cast as someone trying to support Free Software. Really he's trying to do what he think is best for his country, which he believes involves using Open Source software. Giving him such an award may make it look like he's using his position to try and improve the state of Free Software.
His support and the advancement that it has caused is great, but its more of a spin-off benefit caused by him doing what's right for his country.
Can someone explain to me how to reproduce this? Whenever I've used Ask Jeeves it just spits out a list of results like any other search engine, and not in the way that appeared in the article. Maybe I'm just really dense, I dunno.
My Favourite.
Disappointed, I
Can't make All Your Base haiku
Would have been funny.
Good story. Not sure if that'll catch on in Broadway theatres or not though...
Why go to all that trouble and bad PR to have ISP's block a site when you can just get a story about it posted here and have it slashdotted?
You gotta be careful not to miss the R when reading that title...
It was just a joke man.
"First" being the key word there, I think...
The fact that Dell specifically stated that Microsoft is making them do this I think shows that this isn't something they're happy about or willing to be doing. Dell is basically giving us that as fuel for the anti-Microsoft fire.
It is my understanding that they only have to release the source code if they're planning on distributing their work.
I'm skeptical that a plant would more cleanly burn fossil fuels by any significant margin than the cleanest burning internal combustion engines of today, which typically power the tiny cars that are also the target of these alternative fuel supplies. I wouldn't be surprised if they burn it more efficiently however, by which I mean they actually get more useful energy out of each unit of fuel.
You also have to remember that in converting fossil fuels to electricity and then using that to create hydrogen, and then using that to create motion involves more loss than simply converting fossil fuels into motion.
The real question is, which method with produce more mpg?
I'm still waiting to see Walmart switch their own store office computers from Windows to Linux. For a company that is so well known for running efficiently and cheaply, I would have thought they would have done it by now.
Sorry, but the problem isn't going to be solved by some magic wave of a wand. Hybrids are a step in the right direction. They only use gasoline as fuel but use a lot less of it than a conventional car. With hybrids, there's no hidden costs, financial or environmental, like there is with cars you plug-in.
They aren't doing it for the environment and they sure as hell aren't doing it for the money.
First off, to think that fuel cell based cars are better for the environment is to first assume that CO2 is bad for the environment. There is still a whole world of debate surrounding this. But even if you make this assumption, you can't ignore that fuel cell cars use hydrogen, which requires lots of electricity to create. And where does most electricity in the U.S. come from? Fossil fuel burning plants, of course. So what benefit are you providing to the environment?
As for making money off of them, that's ridiculous. The real reason is that government agencies such as the California Air Resources Board are simply mandating them. CARB is mandating that by 2003(!) 2% of cars sold must be Zero Emission Vehicles. This is despite the pleading of the manufacturers otherwise. Past electrics such as GM's EV1 were sold at HUGE losses. Teh batteries were more expensive than what the whole cars were being sold for. They weren't making money off of servicing them either, since they were only available on lease and came with a full warranty. CARB even estimates that a 4-seat ZEV with a 73 mile range would cost $22,000 more than the cleanest gasoline burning car of the same size.
The automotive industry may not be full of little angels, but they aren't the RIAA either. They're just doing what the government is forcing them to do because of the bad politics involved with the all evil internal combustion engine.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ser iousness
0.002 mpg by my calculations.
Finally someone has figured out how Britney Spears manages to sell as many CDs as she does.
Most of the posts so far seem to ignore the fact that this is being held in Kananaskis, which is a provincial park, i.e. wilderness. This location was specifically chosen because of its isolation. I can't imagine that there will be many people affected by this aside from those participating in the summit in some fashion (including protesters).
ATM's these days mostly only spit out 20's anyway, and most of those that do spit out smaller denominations won't be for much longer.
SNL or 22 Minutes?
Sadly, there's no barelylegalteens.meetup.com... yet...
Except that in your example, B is also a negative, cause the confusion by using a triple negative.
That's exactly what makes declaring Intel the winner so stupid. Sure, they've got the better performing processor, but you'll pay for it if you want that slight advantage. AMD, IMHO, has won the value battle, and that's what matters. Its like declaring Ferrari the horsepower winner over Honda. Well duh, but how many Ferrari's do you see on the road vs. Hondas?