"Environmental groups have given this plan a lukewarm reception. They feel Australia should sign on to the Kyoto protocol first."
So Australia does something concrete, something difficult, by itself instead of signing on to a flawed international agreement with limited enforceability. And "environmental groups" are upset.
Let's all keep in mind that the US had been changing it's copyright law to match European law for a while - for instance, the insane lengths of time and the "Life +x years" are European "innovations". Of course, the US content providers just used this as cover for their own agenda, but the rest of the world is hardly a shining beacon of copyright justice.
So now it's the US pushing a stupid agenda instead of Europe? Sounds more like the European copyright snowball they launched at the top of the hill is now an an avalanche they can't control. I'm not happy the US is in the thick of it, but it's inevitablity was insured long ago.
You misunderstand - you don't get to upload anything, at least by the colloquial definition.
Joost is basically a locked down Bittorent with some big ass servers to provide data when there are no peers available with the content you want. Content is only placed there by commercial interests, NOT users - that's the bid draw to the Viacoms of the world. Joost is using it's users' bandwidth and disk space; users get free content with 1/100th the advertising as regular TV (so the creators say).
My opinion - it will be a success like Kazaa and Skype - make the originators a shitpot of money, and the buyer will be left with a product of questionable legality/profit potential.
"This was whinge from a controlfreak who couldn't control Wikipedia.
It was cleaned away by people who think that Wikipedia is good the way it is and that other encyclopedia are wrong (and stay wrong) because of bias, not just because of vandalism (which can be easily identified and reverted).
Also: There is a bit of truth in every vandalism.
Deal with it... Nothing to see.. Move along...
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_ is_failing"
Actually, in many cases it DOES work like that. One can, via contract, give up rights one would otherwise have under law. For instance, one can agree to submit to arbitration in lieu of sueing. In order for a law to take specific precedence over contracts, the legislative body must SAY so - basically, stating taht, as a matter of public policy, ones legal rights in a certain matter cannot be waived. For instance, in construction contracting, many contracts have clauses limiting a subcontractor's right to levy a mechanic's lien. However, in some states in the US, this right CANNOT be waived, and it says so right in the legislation. (This applies to English Common Law and it's descendents - I have no idea how you Napoleonic Code folks deal with it.)
Most of the US has "cooling Off" periods as well for certain transactions, typically 3 days. But more to teh point, how does one "return" information? One isn't buying goods from Apple, things that can be physically returned - one is buying information, in the form of ones and zeroes in a certain format. How do those ones and zeros get returned.
I call bullshit. I don't think there is ANY technology which, when implemented on a massive scale, will not have SOME negative environmental impact, at least as defined by the various environmental interest groups.
Deep sea carbon sequestration? Think of the oceans.
Nuclear anything? You're joking, right.
The list could go on. Here's the global warming elephant in the room: lower CO2 levels mean massive changes in human behavior. Period. He should be offering $25M for a device to change human behavior.
"What a culture we (and by we I mean the U.S.) have! With our porn dollars we vote for dehumanization and rape over mutual pleasure. No surprise, I suppose, given the last two presidential elections."
Have you ever seen any Euro or Japanese porn? Some of that stuff makes what you are decrying look like a chaste kiss in "I Love Lucy". But there's the point - "some" porn. The violent stuff is a segment. Personally, I loathe it, and I think the producers are on the wrong side of a legal line - I don't care how many forms she signs or how much she is paid, one of those girls is is going to say she changed her mind and said "No" right before the shoot, and have an hours worth ov video to show a jury. But it's not the whole market - not even close.
So the US sucks because it elected a President who isn't doing a good job and some folks make porn that is distasteful. Tell me, what 1st world country would fit your requirements?
My neighbor raised hogs fro a few years when I was growing up. His day job was as a maintenance supervisor at the Mrs. Smiths pie factory, so the hogs were slopped with 5 gallon buckets of broken pies.
1) Public company - such payments MUST be accounted for and disclosed. 2) Did the payments go to Dell or *individuals* within Dell? Those would be kickbacks, which are definitely illegal.
I concur. I work with a gentleman who was a Colonel in the Special Forces when he retired, and took a position in logistics at a Very Large Non-Profit Organization. He has never really been able to adjust to the fact that there is really no "chain of command" such as he is used to; no one will make a decision, people shown on the TO as under his authority don't report to him, and no one has any compunction about bypassing anyone else and going over their heads. He desperately WANTS his superiors to give him a tangible set of directives and responsibilities, but they won't, as this would make it harder to scapegoat him if his project fails. But they've already announced that they will show up and "cut the ribbon" on opening day, at which point he'll be out of a job.
Complain to building maintenance. Loudly. As much as I bitch about self induced cold calls, new buildings often do have startup problems, especially office buildings which typically have poor QC. The problem is that the building engineers may not even know about a problem in a particular area - their system is saying 72F dead nuts for your particular heating unit, when it is really a dummy value set by the programmers for a diagnostic and then forgotten.
A modern office building should not be uncomfortable, period, unless there is something wrong, either in construction or operation.
I have no problem with aux heating if the building systems are wonkey - done it myself. But this was a Brand.New.Building! The idiots brought the heaters with them and plugged them in on Day 1. Of course, this pumps heat into the space, and the control systems act like they are supposed to, and increase cooling. So now the airflow goes up, and things get a little drafty, and I start getting "cold calls".
Ever try to explain to someone how running a heater can actually make the room seem colder?
I assumed "electric" meant "heat pump" - my bad. That being said, we're using different meanings of "efficient" here.
My use of "efficient" is the conversion rate of one form of energy to another useful form. So in going from fossil fuel to heat, electricity is horribly inefficient: maybe 60% efficient conversion to electricity at the generating station, plus losses during transmission. Compared with a modern (or even obsoloete) oil or gas furnace, at 75-97%, it's no contest.
You seem to be using it 2 different ways: first, my use, when you say "electricity in, heat out is almost equal". That's actually incorrect - it is *exactly* equal. All the electricity used in your house is converted to heat, either through ohmic heating or being converted to light first, which is then converted to heat when it is absorbed by materials. I suppose there is some loss via radiation through windows, but a drawn blinds fix that. Your second use, "heat pump which is about 400% efficient", is wildly incorrect. By definition, efficiency must be = 100%. You are referring to Coefficient of Performance, which is the ratio of the heat pump's BTU heat output to the BTU electrical input. It is related to the mechanical efficiency of the unit, but is not the same.
"So that means all the energy is now useful... So given efficiency is useful work out / work in then for the above usage (which is common) incandescant bulbs provide 100% efficiency. Given the cost to produce and the polutants in the so called high efficiency bulbs is it really a good idea to switch?"
That logic only works if you are comparing apples and apples, i.e. your primary heating source is electric resistance heating. If it is ANYTHING else, you wind up substituting the least efficient form of space heating for something more efficient - fossil fired or heat pump. This is a net waste of resources, not a wash.
Tell that to those pre-menopausal bitches whose feet are always cold. I built a brand spanking new lab facility in Pomona, and within 1 week there were space heaters under the cubicles. I mean, if 72F-75F is too cold in the summer, see a doctor - you have a medical problem.
If I sound cranky it's because my current clients are about to move into another of my buildings, and managements big concern is how to tell the employees not to bring space heaters without pissing the employees off. Quoth the safety officer: "I can set rules, but if they get broken there is nothing I can do."
"Arms" are carried by one person. "Armaments" are crew served, i.e. more than one person.
The founding fathers knew damned well what they were approving - they debated arms vs. armaments. One can certainly argue that the type and nature of arms has changed, but please don't throw that "personal nuclear weapon" bullshit out there - you just look stupid.
PS - "machine guns ARE crew served - one who aims and one who feeds ammo. You're probably thinking of assault rifles, but that's another discourse.
Slashdot Mirror
"Environmental groups have given this plan a lukewarm reception. They feel Australia should sign on to the Kyoto protocol first."
So Australia does something concrete, something difficult, by itself instead of signing on to a flawed international agreement with limited enforceability. And "environmental groups" are upset.
I'm shocked, I say! Shocked!
Let's all keep in mind that the US had been changing it's copyright law to match European law for a while - for instance, the insane lengths of time and the "Life +x years" are European "innovations". Of course, the US content providers just used this as cover for their own agenda, but the rest of the world is hardly a shining beacon of copyright justice.
So now it's the US pushing a stupid agenda instead of Europe? Sounds more like the European copyright snowball they launched at the top of the hill is now an an avalanche they can't control. I'm not happy the US is in the thick of it, but it's inevitablity was insured long ago.
You misunderstand - you don't get to upload anything, at least by the colloquial definition.
Joost is basically a locked down Bittorent with some big ass servers to provide data when there are no peers available with the content you want. Content is only placed there by commercial interests, NOT users - that's the bid draw to the Viacoms of the world. Joost is using it's users' bandwidth and disk space; users get free content with 1/100th the advertising as regular TV (so the creators say).
My opinion - it will be a success like Kazaa and Skype - make the originators a shitpot of money, and the buyer will be left with a product of questionable legality/profit potential.
(Effing /. formatting...)
That was supposed to read:
You forgot the thurl_ravenscroft tags.
You forgot the tags.
"Firstly voip does NOT WORK for data modem calls"
Funny, my ReplayTV dials out every night on my Vonage service. Maybe I'm just special.
"Secondly, alarms are mad so frigging cheap..."
Want to be taken seriously? Research your blanket statements and don't write like a 10 year old skate-rat talks.
Looks like someone took your advise:
_ is_failing"
"This was whinge from a controlfreak who couldn't control Wikipedia.
It was cleaned away by people who think that Wikipedia is good the way it is and that other encyclopedia are wrong (and stay wrong) because of bias, not just because of vandalism (which can be easily identified and reverted).
Also: There is a bit of truth in every vandalism.
Deal with it... Nothing to see.. Move along...
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia
As of 02/14/2007 14:52
When Michael Crichton writes a novel on global warming, he's an ignorant sensationalist.
When Michael Crichton writes an op-ed piece on gene patents, he's insightful and informed.
Just checking.
What the hell are they? It least in terms of a legal document?
Actually, in many cases it DOES work like that. One can, via contract, give up rights one would otherwise have under law. For instance, one can agree to submit to arbitration in lieu of sueing. In order for a law to take specific precedence over contracts, the legislative body must SAY so - basically, stating taht, as a matter of public policy, ones legal rights in a certain matter cannot be waived. For instance, in construction contracting, many contracts have clauses limiting a subcontractor's right to levy a mechanic's lien. However, in some states in the US, this right CANNOT be waived, and it says so right in the legislation. (This applies to English Common Law and it's descendents - I have no idea how you Napoleonic Code folks deal with it.)
Most of the US has "cooling Off" periods as well for certain transactions, typically 3 days. But more to teh point, how does one "return" information? One isn't buying goods from Apple, things that can be physically returned - one is buying information, in the form of ones and zeroes in a certain format. How do those ones and zeros get returned.
I call bullshit. I don't think there is ANY technology which, when implemented on a massive scale, will not have SOME negative environmental impact, at least as defined by the various environmental interest groups.
Deep sea carbon sequestration? Think of the oceans.
Nuclear anything? You're joking, right.
The list could go on. Here's the global warming elephant in the room: lower CO2 levels mean massive changes in human behavior. Period. He should be offering $25M for a device to change human behavior.
"What a culture we (and by we I mean the U.S.) have! With our porn dollars we vote for dehumanization and rape over mutual pleasure. No surprise, I suppose, given the last two presidential elections."
Have you ever seen any Euro or Japanese porn? Some of that stuff makes what you are decrying look like a chaste kiss in "I Love Lucy". But there's the point - "some" porn. The violent stuff is a segment. Personally, I loathe it, and I think the producers are on the wrong side of a legal line - I don't care how many forms she signs or how much she is paid, one of those girls is is going to say she changed her mind and said "No" right before the shoot, and have an hours worth ov video to show a jury. But it's not the whole market - not even close.
So the US sucks because it elected a President who isn't doing a good job and some folks make porn that is distasteful. Tell me, what 1st world country would fit your requirements?
My neighbor raised hogs fro a few years when I was growing up. His day job was as a maintenance supervisor at the Mrs. Smiths pie factory, so the hogs were slopped with 5 gallon buckets of broken pies.
Gooood eatin'!
1) Public company - such payments MUST be accounted for and disclosed.
2) Did the payments go to Dell or *individuals* within Dell? Those would be kickbacks, which are definitely illegal.
CPU's buy Computer Maker.
Apparently in Capitalist US as well.
I concur. I work with a gentleman who was a Colonel in the Special Forces when he retired, and took a position in logistics at a Very Large Non-Profit Organization. He has never really been able to adjust to the fact that there is really no "chain of command" such as he is used to; no one will make a decision, people shown on the TO as under his authority don't report to him, and no one has any compunction about bypassing anyone else and going over their heads. He desperately WANTS his superiors to give him a tangible set of directives and responsibilities, but they won't, as this would make it harder to scapegoat him if his project fails. But they've already announced that they will show up and "cut the ribbon" on opening day, at which point he'll be out of a job.
Complain to building maintenance. Loudly. As much as I bitch about self induced cold calls, new buildings often do have startup problems, especially office buildings which typically have poor QC. The problem is that the building engineers may not even know about a problem in a particular area - their system is saying 72F dead nuts for your particular heating unit, when it is really a dummy value set by the programmers for a diagnostic and then forgotten.
A modern office building should not be uncomfortable, period, unless there is something wrong, either in construction or operation.
I have no problem with aux heating if the building systems are wonkey - done it myself. But this was a Brand.New.Building! The idiots brought the heaters with them and plugged them in on Day 1. Of course, this pumps heat into the space, and the control systems act like they are supposed to, and increase cooling. So now the airflow goes up, and things get a little drafty, and I start getting "cold calls".
Ever try to explain to someone how running a heater can actually make the room seem colder?
I assumed "electric" meant "heat pump" - my bad. That being said, we're using different meanings of "efficient" here.
My use of "efficient" is the conversion rate of one form of energy to another useful form. So in going from fossil fuel to heat, electricity is horribly inefficient: maybe 60% efficient conversion to electricity at the generating station, plus losses during transmission. Compared with a modern (or even obsoloete) oil or gas furnace, at 75-97%, it's no contest.
You seem to be using it 2 different ways: first, my use, when you say "electricity in, heat out is almost equal". That's actually incorrect - it is *exactly* equal. All the electricity used in your house is converted to heat, either through ohmic heating or being converted to light first, which is then converted to heat when it is absorbed by materials. I suppose there is some loss via radiation through windows, but a drawn blinds fix that. Your second use, "heat pump which is about 400% efficient", is wildly incorrect. By definition, efficiency must be = 100%. You are referring to Coefficient of Performance, which is the ratio of the heat pump's BTU heat output to the BTU electrical input. It is related to the mechanical efficiency of the unit, but is not the same.
"So that means all the energy is now useful... So given efficiency is useful work out / work in then for the above usage (which is common) incandescant bulbs provide 100% efficiency. Given the cost to produce and the polutants in the so called high efficiency bulbs is it really a good idea to switch?"
That logic only works if you are comparing apples and apples, i.e. your primary heating source is electric resistance heating. If it is ANYTHING else, you wind up substituting the least efficient form of space heating for something more efficient - fossil fired or heat pump. This is a net waste of resources, not a wash.
Tell that to those pre-menopausal bitches whose feet are always cold. I built a brand spanking new lab facility in Pomona, and within 1 week there were space heaters under the cubicles. I mean, if 72F-75F is too cold in the summer, see a doctor - you have a medical problem.
If I sound cranky it's because my current clients are about to move into another of my buildings, and managements big concern is how to tell the employees not to bring space heaters without pissing the employees off. Quoth the safety officer: "I can set rules, but if they get broken there is nothing I can do."
I found out our snail was dead by the fact that teh goldfich had pulled it out of it's shell and were trying to eat it.
I can't wait for those bastards to take the Toilet Bowl Flume Ride to hell - I liked that snail.
Come on - tell me no one else thought it.
Not this straw man again...
Alright, repeat after me
"Arms" are carried by one person.
"Armaments" are crew served, i.e. more than one person.
The founding fathers knew damned well what they were approving - they debated arms vs. armaments. One can certainly argue that the type and nature of arms has changed, but please don't throw that "personal nuclear weapon" bullshit out there - you just look stupid.
PS - "machine guns ARE crew served - one who aims and one who feeds ammo. You're probably thinking of assault rifles, but that's another discourse.
President Carter, is that you?