Battery powered electric cars will increase CO2 emissions drastically.
Last time I ran the numbers on the Tesla roadster, a Tesla powered by 100% coal-derived electricity would be responsible for half the CO2 of a gasoline-powered car getting 30mpg. So, no, battery powered electric cars won't increase CO2 emissions drastically.
In fact increased heat in the system has several counter intuitive effects.
It might make it snow more, or rain more, or rain less, or get hotter, or get colder, or create more hurricanes, or make them more intense, or.... we'll tell you which after they happen.
Even the researchers that had objected to global warming now acknowledges its happening.
You mean the researchers who claim they were skeptics but were really true believers for decades?
considering that the year 2011 saw unprecedented production of greenhouse gases (far exceeding even the worst case scenarios)
Which just goes to show that climate researchers can't model greenhouse gas production any better than its effects.
High altitude wind power, space based solar power, small thorium base reactors, high performance hydrogen fuel cells and advanced power storage technologies could easily cover our need
So you've solved all the engineering problems associated with these? Not to mention the political and logistic ones? If not, that's a definition of "easily" that doesn't mesh so well with the common meaning.
until we perfect fusion
Ha, ha, ha. Fusion's been right over the horizon for longer than I've been alive. It's right up there with practical flying cars.
The fundamental impediment has been fighting a fossil fuel corporate monolith which has hijacked our government.
The fundamental impediment has been that fossil fuels work like nothing else does. The lesser impediments are that the alternatives tend to be just as unacceptable to those who oppose fossil fuels on environmental grounds, and much more expensive. High altitude wind? There's fewer good sites than you might think, and the problems with building there and the necessary infrastucture are not small. Space based solar? Forget it, our space capabilities aren't up to it. Small thorium reactors? No, nuclear is not going anywhere. High performance hydrogen fuel cells? First you've got to invent some practical ones, then solve the problems associated with hydrogen -- where are you going to get it, how do you transport and store ite, etc. Advanced power storage technologies... yeah, want to get rich? Invent an electrical power storage technology with the power and energy density of gasoline. Or even a third of that.
So the author is not doing the prior art search, and the USPTO is not doing the prior art search. So it's finally up to the accused infringer and the courts to do all the work.
At which point it's too late, because the courts give great deference to the USPTO. So the bad patents often stand.
People want procedures that they can just give to anyone and assume that the outcome will be the same, and then they want metrics that they can use to measure the outcome without knowing anything about the situation.
That's what modern (from 1911) "scientific" management is all about. That's "best practices". That's ISO 9000, TQM, and all the rest of the alphabet soup. You break the work down into a number of tasks. You measure alternatives and find out the best way to do that task. You document that best way, and have all your workers on that task do it that way. When you've done that with every task, you have an efficiently-running widget factory.
Sounds great and scientific and objective and all. There's only one slight issue with it when it comes to software development, which is that it doesn't work.
There has yet to be a single EULA tossed out of court in the US, so precedent shows that no matter how Draconian they are, they are binding...
Try Softman v. Adobe.
Anyway, EULAs totally fail as contracts. There's no real offer; what the EULA purports to offer is what you already have, the right to use your own property.
There's no real acceptance, since the user typically just presses whatever buttons get him past the EULA to get to use his software... and defenders of the EULA like to argue that the EULA holds even if the user indicates his NON-acceptance by hacking around the "agree" screen. It's as if the company put a guard on my computer room door demanding I agree to their terms before they allow me to pass, and somehow I'm bound even if I sneak past him or shove him out of the way.
And, there's no consideration on the part of the perpetrator of the EULA, again because the copy of the software already belongs to the user; he doesn't need the copyright owner's permission to use it.
Now if Carl wants to eavesdrop on the conversation by hijacking (or owning) an intermediary network node, he would get corrupted audio data when trying to decode the packets with the (fake) advertised codec. Wouldn't this be a strong indication that covert communication is taking place?
It would seem so. I would think that a better way of doing steganography would be to hide data in the audio itself, or in details of the encoding.
You own a shiny disk, congratulations you still can't sell it.
This interpretation, popular among copyright absolutists, does not hold up to the plain language of 17 USC 101. That shiny disk is either a "copy" or a "phonorecord" by the language of 17 USC 101. Which puts it under 17 USC 109, meaning that if you own the shiny disk, you can sell the shiny disk. Ownership of the shiny disk cannot be separated from ownership of a copy or phonorecord. If you merely hold a license, the shiny disk still belongs to the copyright holder.
Wrong. "Phonorecords" are different in copyright. For example, you don't need any special licence to rent out DVDs, but you do for CDs.
Various copyrightable items are different in various ways, but copyright law does not grant the copyright holder the exclusive right to control private use of a copy by its owner, for any copyrightable item.
If you cannot consume the media without a copy of it being made (e.g., in the memory of the player), there's plenty of room for weasels in copyright law.
There's a circuit court case which knocked this one down -- it was the Cablevision DVR case.
As it turns out, according to the IRS and ABC News,1,470 American millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009.
From your own source: "It's not like those almost 1,500 millionaires didn't pay any taxes, they just didn't pay any to our government because they likely wrote checks to foreign governments from their overseas investments." You'd like overseas income to be double-taxed, I suppose?
Not nearly enough. For one thing, tha Glass-Stegal act's repeal was one of the causes of the economic meltdown.
Glass-Stegal's repeal is what allowed the commercial banks to take over the failed investment banks as the meltdown got into high gear.
A huge earthquake and a tsunami both well above the level the plant was designed to withstand and it took it, with just some slight explosions and making great swathes of land uninhabitable for generations.
With radiation levels of 8 times the safe level for farming, it'll take 3 half-lives for them to decline to the safe level. Or, about 90 years, as Cs-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and it decays to the stable barium-137.
Those Entrenched Interests never went away however, and they try to chip away at those rights at every opportunity. We are very close to the point, if not past it, where copyright infringement becomes civil disobedience -- if not a civil duty.
Civil disobedience is defeated. First of all, if you want to commit civil disobedience, you've got to be able to show your situation is at least as bad as Jim Crow, or you'll be sneered at rather than sympathized with. Since no one in the mainstream will believe DRM is as bad as Jim Crow (even if they believe it is bad at all, which is unlikely), you're done there.
Second, civil disobedience won't work when the result of disobedience is that you are quietly punished. You need to be _noisily_ punished without being portrayed as a mere criminal, which means you need the support of the media... who are your opponents.
Third, most mainstream people agree with the RIAA's position, when push comes to shove. Oh, they'll violate it left and right, but if you put it to them, they'd agree it's wrong to do so. And they'd see anyone trying to fight about it as merely trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. Authority bias is rampant today; if you can be seen as an authority (as the RIAA is), anyone opposing you is automatically wrong.
Interesting point, and I challenge on the basis that "aptitude" is not being tested properly. (The Army tested me in 1964 and I ended up in the Signal Corps where I learned telephony, radio, computer programming and cryptology. I think it is interesting that 47 years later I am still working in related fields.)
Which doesn't provide evidence either way; either the Army got the aptitude testing right, or their training was what mattered.
I have seen people who were lousy artists take 8-week courses in drawing (someties modelled after "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards) and go on to be terrific artists.
And this doesn't show anything either way either; almost every good artist was a lousy artist at some point in their lives. I'm not claiming that aptitude is sufficient, only that it is necessary.
On the other hand, according to this, US and then several other countries view it as fatherland. Why?
The US does not view the country as "fatherland". Germany does, which is the why "Department of Fatherland Security" was proposed. Yes, it's a Nazi reference.
Now that we've gotten Godwin out of the way, I always though "Homeland Security" was a perfectly good name; we just need to get them a modified version of the "SS" patches with an extra line, so it's "HS" instead.
If we were to redesign the course curriculum from scratch; if we were to design a program that turned out talented engineers or scientists and the program we designed had to work in 97% of the cases, how would we do it?
Step one: Start with people with talent. That's the politically incorrect truth.
There are some people getting weeded out for dumb reasons, e.g. by "artificially hard" weed-out classes which sort by irrelevant measures, or by terrible instructors. But most of the ones being weeded out just don't have what it takes to become a talented engineer or scientist.
For some reason this is considered uncontroversial in art school; someone who has no aptitude for the creative arts is not expected to succeed in art school, and they'll rarely try. Why should it be different for engineering?
Headline: Google's Patent Lawyer On Why the Patent System Is Broken Quote: "there are a large number of software patents out there fueling litigation that resulted from a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax" Proper headline: "Google's Patent Lawyer On Why the Patent System Was Broken, and How to Manage the Aftermath"
Longer quote: "But I think what many people can agree on is the current system is broken and there are a large number of software patents out there fueling litigation that resulted from a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax." Proper headline: As the original.
Emphasis mine. My interpretation is that Porter believes the system remains broken, but was more broken before 2007.
It's just like I said before: sometimes a movie will briefly show some engineers doing something really useful for the main characters, but that's it.
Ironman and Batman are both superhero engineers. Tony Stark's engineering skills especially are played up in the Ironman movie. Well, that and his winning personality.
Public education offers a LOT of opportunities and challenges for students.
Remember this is the US. We don't have a single public education system; we have over ten thousand of them. Your high school may have had all those opportunities, many don't.
True, but a major cause of that was the US deciding that end of course testing should be used to measure a school's quality, and hence class room instructing becomes aimed at ensuring students do well on the tests.
No, it isn't. Before NCLB and similar initiatives, public school was still a hidebound, bureaucratic, union-strangled monstrosity producing many students who didn't know anythng. NCLB was an attempt to solve the problem of poor schools. While predictably, all it did is prove the adage that any metric can be gamed, it's not a major cause of public school failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I ran the numbers on the Tesla roadster, a Tesla powered by 100% coal-derived electricity would be responsible for half the CO2 of a gasoline-powered car getting 30mpg. So, no, battery powered electric cars won't increase CO2 emissions drastically.
It might make it snow more, or rain more, or rain less, or get hotter, or get colder, or create more hurricanes, or make them more intense, or.... we'll tell you which after they happen.
You mean the researchers who claim they were skeptics but were really true believers for decades?
Which just goes to show that climate researchers can't model greenhouse gas production any better than its effects.
So you've solved all the engineering problems associated with these? Not to mention the political and logistic ones? If not, that's a definition of "easily" that doesn't mesh so well with the common meaning.
Ha, ha, ha. Fusion's been right over the horizon for longer than I've been alive. It's right up there with practical flying cars.
The fundamental impediment has been that fossil fuels work like nothing else does. The lesser impediments are that the alternatives tend to be just as unacceptable to those who oppose fossil fuels on environmental grounds, and much more expensive. High altitude wind? There's fewer good sites than you might think, and the problems with building there and the necessary infrastucture are not small. Space based solar? Forget it, our space capabilities aren't up to it. Small thorium reactors? No, nuclear is not going anywhere. High performance hydrogen fuel cells? First you've got to invent some practical ones, then solve the problems associated with hydrogen -- where are you going to get it, how do you transport and store ite, etc. Advanced power storage technologies... yeah, want to get rich? Invent an electrical power storage technology with the power and energy density of gasoline. Or even a third of that.
Fill the drive with all the malware you can find.
At which point it's too late, because the courts give great deference to the USPTO. So the bad patents often stand.
That's what modern (from 1911) "scientific" management is all about. That's "best practices". That's ISO 9000, TQM, and all the rest of the alphabet soup. You break the work down into a number of tasks. You measure alternatives and find out the best way to do that task. You document that best way, and have all your workers on that task do it that way. When you've done that with every task, you have an efficiently-running widget factory.
Sounds great and scientific and objective and all. There's only one slight issue with it when it comes to software development, which is that it doesn't work.
Try Softman v. Adobe.
Anyway, EULAs totally fail as contracts. There's no real offer; what the EULA purports to offer is what you already have, the right to use your own property.
There's no real acceptance, since the user typically just presses whatever buttons get him past the EULA to get to use his software... and defenders of the EULA like to argue that the EULA holds even if the user indicates his NON-acceptance by hacking around the "agree" screen. It's as if the company put a guard on my computer room door demanding I agree to their terms before they allow me to pass, and somehow I'm bound even if I sneak past him or shove him out of the way.
And, there's no consideration on the part of the perpetrator of the EULA, again because the copy of the software already belongs to the user; he doesn't need the copyright owner's permission to use it.
It would seem so. I would think that a better way of doing steganography would be to hide data in the audio itself, or in details of the encoding.
[T]he AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'
He's quite right. It has fuck all to do with SOPA and its associated discussions, but he's right.
Evidentally he missed the Ted Stevens memo, where the late Senator pointed out, correctly, that the Internet is not a big truck.
This interpretation, popular among copyright absolutists, does not hold up to the plain language of 17 USC 101. That shiny disk is either a "copy" or a "phonorecord" by the language of 17 USC 101. Which puts it under 17 USC 109, meaning that if you own the shiny disk, you can sell the shiny disk. Ownership of the shiny disk cannot be separated from ownership of a copy or phonorecord. If you merely hold a license, the shiny disk still belongs to the copyright holder.
Various copyrightable items are different in various ways, but copyright law does not grant the copyright holder the exclusive right to control private use of a copy by its owner, for any copyrightable item.
There's a circuit court case which knocked this one down -- it was the Cablevision DVR case.
I think by "sane people" the OP meant "people who would use attractive naked people to make their point".
You don't. Illinois allows you to subtract tax paid to Missouri from tax owed to Illinois. Line 17 on the Illinois IL-1040, and Illinois Schedule CR.
It looks like they took it from Yahoo finance, which does that with the Y-axis automatically.
If you look on a linear chart (e.g. at Google Finance), it's just as dramatic, though it has a longer lead-in.
Except that, as the disclaimer says, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Not that I'm buying any MSFT.
An oldie but goodie: The Ballmer Stagnation
From your own source: "It's not like those almost 1,500 millionaires didn't pay any taxes, they just didn't pay any to our government because they likely wrote checks to foreign governments from their overseas investments." You'd like overseas income to be double-taxed, I suppose?
Glass-Stegal's repeal is what allowed the commercial banks to take over the failed investment banks as the meltdown got into high gear.
With radiation levels of 8 times the safe level for farming, it'll take 3 half-lives for them to decline to the safe level. Or, about 90 years, as Cs-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and it decays to the stable barium-137.
Civil disobedience is defeated. First of all, if you want to commit civil disobedience, you've got to be able to show your situation is at least as bad as Jim Crow, or you'll be sneered at rather than sympathized with. Since no one in the mainstream will believe DRM is as bad as Jim Crow (even if they believe it is bad at all, which is unlikely), you're done there.
Second, civil disobedience won't work when the result of disobedience is that you are quietly punished. You need to be _noisily_ punished without being portrayed as a mere criminal, which means you need the support of the media... who are your opponents.
Third, most mainstream people agree with the RIAA's position, when push comes to shove. Oh, they'll violate it left and right, but if you put it to them, they'd agree it's wrong to do so. And they'd see anyone trying to fight about it as merely trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. Authority bias is rampant today; if you can be seen as an authority (as the RIAA is), anyone opposing you is automatically wrong.
0 results found. Did you mean "zynga crimes"?
Which doesn't provide evidence either way; either the Army got the aptitude testing right, or their training was what mattered.
And this doesn't show anything either way either; almost every good artist was a lousy artist at some point in their lives. I'm not claiming that aptitude is sufficient, only that it is necessary.
The US does not view the country as "fatherland". Germany does, which is the why "Department of Fatherland Security" was proposed. Yes, it's a Nazi reference.
Now that we've gotten Godwin out of the way, I always though "Homeland Security" was a perfectly good name; we just need to get them a modified version of the "SS" patches with an extra line, so it's "HS" instead.
Step one: Start with people with talent. That's the politically incorrect truth.
There are some people getting weeded out for dumb reasons, e.g. by "artificially hard" weed-out classes which sort by irrelevant measures, or by terrible instructors. But most of the ones being weeded out just don't have what it takes to become a talented engineer or scientist.
For some reason this is considered uncontroversial in art school; someone who has no aptitude for the creative arts is not expected to succeed in art school, and they'll rarely try. Why should it be different for engineering?
Longer quote: "But I think what many people can agree on is the current system is broken and there are a large number of software patents out there fueling litigation that resulted from a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax."
Proper headline: As the original.
Emphasis mine. My interpretation is that Porter believes the system remains broken, but was more broken before 2007.
Ironman and Batman are both superhero engineers. Tony Stark's engineering skills especially are played up in the Ironman movie. Well, that and his winning personality.
Remember this is the US. We don't have a single public education system; we have over ten thousand of them. Your high school may have had all those opportunities, many don't.
No, it isn't. Before NCLB and similar initiatives, public school was still a hidebound, bureaucratic, union-strangled monstrosity producing many students who didn't know anythng. NCLB was an attempt to solve the problem of poor schools. While predictably, all it did is prove the adage that any metric can be gamed, it's not a major cause of public school failure.