Let's say it took 1,000,000 Joules to produce one gallon of ethanol, which could move my car 30 miles.
Let's say my car could move 35 miles on one gallon of gasoline.
However, the 1,000,000 Joules used to produce the ethanol all came from solar, wind, hydro, and other renewable resources, and my car's tank is big enough to hold many, many gallons of ethanol.
I don't give a shit how inefficient that ethanol production is, because the energy density is close enough for a fuel that has a usable power/weight ratio for mobile devices so as to replace fossil fuels that take long-buried carbon and spew it into the atmosphere.
Carbon neutrality will keep us from killing our planet by the end of the century, if we're lucky enough to not have already gone too far. In order to become carbon neutral, we must have a fuel source that has a usable power/weight ratio so as to be viable in cars and trucks. Once we have that fuel - be it ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, used canola oil, etc., or some combination - we can work to improve the efficiency of the fuel production.
And anyway, YouTube is the publisher in this case, and they work for money.
I think the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA would clarify that the student is the publisher in this case. Yes, even though YouTube's role is almost the definition of publisher in a traditional sense, the DMCA redefines that role differently.
You're essentially saying that no matter how useful and successful your business model is, if it can in any way be used illegally, then the business model doesn't have a right to exist.
No, I'm not. Stop substituting your words for mine, then criticizing your words as mine.
In this case, landlords aren't sneaking in and using the site without the site owner's knowledge. They know landlords use the service - they need that use to keep their income up. Their business model of just servicing roommates is flawed because it isn't profitable, but rather than go out of business they've encouraged this alternative cash flow of questionable legality. So, by collecting this information, and knowing it will be used illegally, they are susceptible to action.
If you have a 1080p tv, i could see a real reason to switch.
You should qualify that with "1080p tv but was not an early adopter of HD television", because those of us that were don't have TVs that support the DRM required in either HD disc format.
I have a beautiful Sony plasma HD TV that cannot play Sony HD videos. Needless to say my next TV won't be a Sony.
But a recent Environment Canada study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol-blended fuel.
No shit. Ethanol releases carbon dioxide while it burns, too. However, its carbon dioxide was already in the atmosphere, absorbed by the plants, then released again when burnt. That makes it carbon neutral*, even though the emissions are the same.
Or, did they mean to take that into account? Who knows, the article is incomplete or misleading.
* I'm talking about the carbon in the plant, not carbon used in production. That's next.
Environmental groups have argued that producing ethanol -- whether from corn, beets, wheat or other crops -- takes more energy than is derived from the product.
No shit. Unless it violates certain laws of thermodynamics, of course the energy derived is less than the energy required to produce. But they don't talk about where that energy comes from. Maybe it's all from the sun, or from other renewal resources. Do they mean that the same amount of net fossil-fuel based carbon is released? Who knows, the article is incomplete or misleading.
Re: Food prices
The US subsidizes farmers who grow corn, because corn prices have been historically too low to support production. Now, corn prices are higher, and we're complaining about what it does to food costs? How about we take away the subsidies - clearly no longer needed - and give the money to food programs. Then, we look into the side effects of corn being the majority of all American's diets. See some of the repercussions in the recent documentary King Corn. Maybe we could find something else that could substitute for corn in some foods. Like, say, sugar, if we'd remove our tariffs. (Hey, if folks from other countries could sell their sugar to the US for food, they'd have more money to buy our more-expensive corn.) Then, maybe we could find something better than corn to use for ethanol. Like, say, hemp or switchgrass. I'm sure if corn gets too expensive, some entrepreneur out there will start looking for alternatives.
But all of that would be constructive work toward making our planet a better place. It's far better to rant and rave and use single points of change as excuses to throw up our hands and give up.
If you are a software developer, the latest release of Perl 7.8 Extreme! might be significant to you. For hardware engineers, this is pretty darn cool.
If you are filing for a patent, you do need to perform searches for prior art. However, you always do so with your company's lawyer present (and maybe even let them work the mouse and give you advice about things on the fly).
No law requires that you explain what you did or said while consulting with your attorney. Thus, you can legally testify that you never searched for the patent, even if you did know about it the whole time. If the truth somehow came out (let's say, because the other side had bugged your office), the record of what you did with your attorney present would be thrown out in any court in the country. You could not even be charged with perjury based on it.
Having a profitable business model is not protected by law. If they need to gather the gender and sexual orientation for every applicant to remain in business, then maybe they shouldn't be in business. Or, at least, they shouldn't both be in business and protected from lawsuits stemming from discrimination mandated by their business model.
The minimum that they need to collect to provide to landlords is that you A) want a room, and B) have credit that indicates you can pay for said room. By forcing you to supply more information they made themselves susceptible to this lawsuit.
If they could restrict their site to only work with people looking for roommates, and not landlords looking for tenants, then what they collect would be perfectly legal. They can't - either that's not profitable enough, or they cannot distinguish between the two. Either way, again we're talking about their "right" to be successful with their business model - a right that doesn't exist.
The zig-zag trajectory thing was theorized from the entry point on Kennedy's coat, compared to the exit point.
The new Kennedy film, the one that was found and released a few months ago, clearly showed the back of Kennedy's coat riding up on his neck. That added video evidence to the original conclusion that the bullet didn't zig-zag at all - it entered much higher than the coat hole would have otherwise indicated.
All the angle analysis done by conspiracy theorists failed to take into account how Kennedy and Connelly were angled in their seats. Of course the bullet paths look funny when you assume they were both sitting face forward, shoulders square. The conspiracies also assume that Connelly was directly in front of Kennedy, and at the same height. The car actually positioned the front seat so that Connelly was lower than Kennedy, and sitting to the "right" (more toward the car center).
Put another way, say I sell screwdrivers. The vast majority of people use my screwdrivers to fix things by driving in screws. But if some people use my screwdrivers to break into cars, should I be insulated from the lawsuits of car owners who were the victims of theft?
If you forced everyone who entered your store to give their name, address, and a list of the valuables they kept in their car, and you passed that info out to anyone who bought a screwdriver from you, then no you shouldn't be insulated from the lawsuits.
I've listened to the music from the CDs I bought this year, together with the music from one bought last year, on continuous repeat at work for the last two months. I don't digest and expel new music fast enough to need a continuous supply, even if that supply can be hand-picked a track at a time.
I agree that creation of a semi-intelligent slave species is wrong.
But, I'm not opposed to the creation of a special intended to be raised to the equivalence of human intelligence.
Why? Because, while there is statistically no doubt that there is other intelligent life in the universe, there is statistically no chance that humanity will contact another extra-terrestrial intelligent species in my lifetime. I see the only method whereby I will live to be able to communicate with a second sapient species to be if we create one. That might be a little selfish, yes. Sorry.
Given the fact that researches are going to work on this, some way or another, I would prefer to put laws in place that channel the research into something good, as opposed to laws that would ban it outright.* This keeps the researchers working in the open in the US, instead of leaving to someplace where there is no oversight.
* There will be law about this, there's no doubt about that. The question is, would you rather have your elected officials debate this point and make the law, or have judges create the law from their own opinions and interpretations of precedent?
...except that they didn't want to spend their time fighting back? That would just be more fun for you, less fun for them?
Seriously, I once saw someone argue that, if you didn't like PKers, you should form squads of anti-PKers to go chase around and kill or capture the PKers. Or, the game could make the PKers like outlaws in the major cities, so they'd have to sneak around in the sewers to get things they need, avoiding guards, etc.
In other words, the PKer was describing things that other paying customers (i.e. the ones that don't like him and wish he'd log off) could do to make the game more fun for him. The same thing you're doing now. Instead all those people just left the game for something more fun for them.
You say: iTunes will not let you mix and match an album worth of tracks for the price of an album. I say: No one else will. Not Amazon. Not Best Buy. Nobody. Starbucks was allowing this, with their music kiosks a year or so ago. My wife made a compilation CD of RHCP greatest hits while waiting for her coffee one morning. However, she says that the kiosk has been removed from her Starbucks now.
Having never set foot in a Starbucks, my details may be hazy.
For the many, many, people who don't spend at least $10 a month on music, what you described is a monthly fee.
(For the record, I've spend $15 so far this year, and that was for a physical two-CD compilation that also came with all the band's music videos on a dual DVD. I also "bought" one free CD download at Magnatune using a gift card they handed out at SXSW.)
Disclaimer: I don't own a 360 and no little about the specifics of the failures that these "multiple 360" owners have experienced.
It's possible, perhaps, that the 360 is very susceptible to noise on the incoming power line, to the point that such noise causes permanent damage to the device. Is that a problem with the power system in many homes? Maybe. Is the power company going to fix it? No. Should Microsoft fix their product to be more durable? Yes. (Well, yes, if it would cost less than replacing units over and over with some customers, losing some of those for life, and the bad press it generates.)
So, that's one example of a source for this problem. It would explain why certain people have to go through many Xboxes to find one more tolerate to a third-party problem, while others are fine from the start.
My house is now seven years old. I replace regular bulbs with CFLs when the regular bulb blows.
In the time I've had my house, I've replaced almost all of the regular bulbs. The first one blew maybe a year after I moved in.
I have only had one CFL die so far. This is for my front porch light; the angle of the nearby street light casts my front porch into complete darkness, so we leave a light on 24/7 so that it's lit when we get home from work after dark. This light I replaced with a CFL the day I moved in, and it burnt out about three years later. It's replacement has been on for four years without a problem. (In general, I only turn it off once a year, on Halloween, so kids don't come knock while we're out somewhere.)
The power an 11W CFL uses 24/7 is about the same as a 40W incandescent burning just in the evenings, but I don't have to worry about forgetting to turn it on. It's also worked through 105+ degree heat and cold down to about 25.
I'm just one statistical point showing that CFLs can be long-lasting and durable, more so than incandescents. So, with your point to the contrary, now we're even.
Certainly, your mileage may vary. My home is powered from solar and wind only; for every consumer who has made such a choice, folding@home is (as I said) silly but harmless. I absolutely agree that many people would rather pay a lot more each month on their utility bill than write one check, once a year, because overall most people are lazy.
The problem is that there is a high correlation between people who don't bother to switch to clean energy, and those who won't bother to write out a check. There are of course exceptions like you.
A $180 check to the Alzheimer's foundation would be $15 a month to cure Alzheimer's, and it has the further benefits of:
A) letting the foundation pay for whatever research it feels is most important, which might include the folding@home project but might not (or, if you specify with your donation, could possibly go to the project of your choice);
B) does not necessarily consume electricity at residential rates using many, many distributed lossy AC->DC conversions, which for most people means additional cost cooling one's house in the summer and an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
C) would be tax deductible, so depending on your tax bracket you could donate $200-$225 to this cause, reducing the amount of money you give the government to pay for whatever it wants, but further increasing the amount of money going to research you want.
Alzheimer's runs in my family, and keeping a computer running at my home all day is a stupid way to cure it. The only possible benefit is that it hides the cost in the electric bill instead of making people write out a check. That would be silly but harmless if that electricity wasn't polluting the atmosphere.
?? Not sure where you got your numbers. They don't match anything in this story or the last one.
February: Nintendo DS: 485,000 Nintendo Wii: 335,000 Sony PlayStation 2: 295,000 Microsoft Xbox 360: 228,000 Sony PlayStation Portable: 176,000 Nintendo Game Boy Advance: 136,000 Sony PlayStation 3: 127,000
The Wii is beating the PS2. It's not dominating it, no, but it's selling 40k more a month.
Two years ago I bought a used HP LaserJet 4M Plus from a discount electronics vendor. It cost $100 and came with a JetDirect card (they didn't all have one; I made sure to grab one that did at the same price) and whatever toner was in the cartridge (no way for me to check).
I'm happy to have a network printer at home, and the cartridge is still going strong.
If this printer were to break, I would buy another from the same line. There's nothing on the consumer market today that's nearly as good as the ones made in the early 1990s.
And if the imperfect cloning process introduced a prion disease? The kind that could be transferred to anyone who ate the meat? The kind that aren't destroyed by cooking (or burning)? Those types of diseases exist.
We'll never have to pay taxes on things we don't own.
If you sell something you don't own, and you pocket the profit, you still owe taxes on it. If you steal car, and then sell that car, you can be convicted of tax evasion unless you pay taxes on the profit, with your "cost basis" correctly set to $0. Yes, this is true even if you are separately convicted of the theft.
If I go to the library and rent a really popular book, and the next person on the waiting list offers me $250 to give the book to him, I would need to pay tax on that income. The book never belonged to either of us; he'll still have to return it to the library when he's finished with it.
In short, it's not "We'll never have to", it's "We already have to".
Which of course makes this "Not real news because existing laws apply".
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say it took 1,000,000 Joules to produce one gallon of ethanol, which could move my car 30 miles.
Let's say my car could move 35 miles on one gallon of gasoline.
However, the 1,000,000 Joules used to produce the ethanol all came from solar, wind, hydro, and other renewable resources, and my car's tank is big enough to hold many, many gallons of ethanol.
I don't give a shit how inefficient that ethanol production is, because the energy density is close enough for a fuel that has a usable power/weight ratio for mobile devices so as to replace fossil fuels that take long-buried carbon and spew it into the atmosphere.
Carbon neutrality will keep us from killing our planet by the end of the century, if we're lucky enough to not have already gone too far. In order to become carbon neutral, we must have a fuel source that has a usable power/weight ratio so as to be viable in cars and trucks. Once we have that fuel - be it ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, used canola oil, etc., or some combination - we can work to improve the efficiency of the fuel production.
And anyway, YouTube is the publisher in this case, and they work for money.
I think the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA would clarify that the student is the publisher in this case. Yes, even though YouTube's role is almost the definition of publisher in a traditional sense, the DMCA redefines that role differently.
You're essentially saying that no matter how useful and successful your business model is, if it can in any way be used illegally, then the business model doesn't have a right to exist.
No, I'm not. Stop substituting your words for mine, then criticizing your words as mine.
In this case, landlords aren't sneaking in and using the site without the site owner's knowledge. They know landlords use the service - they need that use to keep their income up. Their business model of just servicing roommates is flawed because it isn't profitable, but rather than go out of business they've encouraged this alternative cash flow of questionable legality. So, by collecting this information, and knowing it will be used illegally, they are susceptible to action.
If you have a 1080p tv, i could see a real reason to switch.
You should qualify that with "1080p tv but was not an early adopter of HD television", because those of us that were don't have TVs that support the DRM required in either HD disc format.
I have a beautiful Sony plasma HD TV that cannot play Sony HD videos. Needless to say my next TV won't be a Sony.
But a recent Environment Canada study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol-blended fuel.
No shit. Ethanol releases carbon dioxide while it burns, too. However, its carbon dioxide was already in the atmosphere, absorbed by the plants, then released again when burnt. That makes it carbon neutral*, even though the emissions are the same.
Or, did they mean to take that into account? Who knows, the article is incomplete or misleading.
* I'm talking about the carbon in the plant, not carbon used in production. That's next.
Environmental groups have argued that producing ethanol -- whether from corn, beets, wheat or other crops -- takes more energy than is derived from the product.
No shit. Unless it violates certain laws of thermodynamics, of course the energy derived is less than the energy required to produce. But they don't talk about where that energy comes from. Maybe it's all from the sun, or from other renewal resources. Do they mean that the same amount of net fossil-fuel based carbon is released? Who knows, the article is incomplete or misleading.
Re: Food prices
The US subsidizes farmers who grow corn, because corn prices have been historically too low to support production. Now, corn prices are higher, and we're complaining about what it does to food costs? How about we take away the subsidies - clearly no longer needed - and give the money to food programs. Then, we look into the side effects of corn being the majority of all American's diets. See some of the repercussions in the recent documentary King Corn. Maybe we could find something else that could substitute for corn in some foods. Like, say, sugar, if we'd remove our tariffs. (Hey, if folks from other countries could sell their sugar to the US for food, they'd have more money to buy our more-expensive corn.) Then, maybe we could find something better than corn to use for ethanol. Like, say, hemp or switchgrass. I'm sure if corn gets too expensive, some entrepreneur out there will start looking for alternatives.
But all of that would be constructive work toward making our planet a better place. It's far better to rant and rave and use single points of change as excuses to throw up our hands and give up.
If you are a software developer, the latest release of Perl 7.8 Extreme! might be significant to you. For hardware engineers, this is pretty darn cool.
At least the way I've been told it works is this:
If you are filing for a patent, you do need to perform searches for prior art. However, you always do so with your company's lawyer present (and maybe even let them work the mouse and give you advice about things on the fly).
No law requires that you explain what you did or said while consulting with your attorney. Thus, you can legally testify that you never searched for the patent, even if you did know about it the whole time. If the truth somehow came out (let's say, because the other side had bugged your office), the record of what you did with your attorney present would be thrown out in any court in the country. You could not even be charged with perjury based on it.
Having a profitable business model is not protected by law. If they need to gather the gender and sexual orientation for every applicant to remain in business, then maybe they shouldn't be in business. Or, at least, they shouldn't both be in business and protected from lawsuits stemming from discrimination mandated by their business model.
The minimum that they need to collect to provide to landlords is that you A) want a room, and B) have credit that indicates you can pay for said room. By forcing you to supply more information they made themselves susceptible to this lawsuit.
If they could restrict their site to only work with people looking for roommates, and not landlords looking for tenants, then what they collect would be perfectly legal. They can't - either that's not profitable enough, or they cannot distinguish between the two. Either way, again we're talking about their "right" to be successful with their business model - a right that doesn't exist.
The zig-zag trajectory thing was theorized from the entry point on Kennedy's coat, compared to the exit point.
The new Kennedy film, the one that was found and released a few months ago, clearly showed the back of Kennedy's coat riding up on his neck. That added video evidence to the original conclusion that the bullet didn't zig-zag at all - it entered much higher than the coat hole would have otherwise indicated.
All the angle analysis done by conspiracy theorists failed to take into account how Kennedy and Connelly were angled in their seats. Of course the bullet paths look funny when you assume they were both sitting face forward, shoulders square. The conspiracies also assume that Connelly was directly in front of Kennedy, and at the same height. The car actually positioned the front seat so that Connelly was lower than Kennedy, and sitting to the "right" (more toward the car center).
Put another way, say I sell screwdrivers. The vast majority of people use my screwdrivers to fix things by driving in screws. But if some people use my screwdrivers to break into cars, should I be insulated from the lawsuits of car owners who were the victims of theft?
If you forced everyone who entered your store to give their name, address, and a list of the valuables they kept in their car, and you passed that info out to anyone who bought a screwdriver from you, then no you shouldn't be insulated from the lawsuits.
After all, if you found this out, you'd want to either short stock or something first, then leak it out...
Well, if you want to commit a crime, be investigated by the SEC, convicted, and sent to jail, then yes, you'd short or something first.
If you just want to get fired, you'd forward the email on to your outside contact without touching the stock.
I've listened to the music from the CDs I bought this year, together with the music from one bought last year, on continuous repeat at work for the last two months. I don't digest and expel new music fast enough to need a continuous supply, even if that supply can be hand-picked a track at a time.
I agree that creation of a semi-intelligent slave species is wrong.
But, I'm not opposed to the creation of a special intended to be raised to the equivalence of human intelligence.
Why? Because, while there is statistically no doubt that there is other intelligent life in the universe, there is statistically no chance that humanity will contact another extra-terrestrial intelligent species in my lifetime. I see the only method whereby I will live to be able to communicate with a second sapient species to be if we create one. That might be a little selfish, yes. Sorry.
Given the fact that researches are going to work on this, some way or another, I would prefer to put laws in place that channel the research into something good, as opposed to laws that would ban it outright.* This keeps the researchers working in the open in the US, instead of leaving to someplace where there is no oversight.
Obligatory links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uplift_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_apes
* There will be law about this, there's no doubt about that. The question is, would you rather have your elected officials debate this point and make the law, or have judges create the law from their own opinions and interpretations of precedent?
...except that they didn't want to spend their time fighting back? That would just be more fun for you, less fun for them?
Seriously, I once saw someone argue that, if you didn't like PKers, you should form squads of anti-PKers to go chase around and kill or capture the PKers. Or, the game could make the PKers like outlaws in the major cities, so they'd have to sneak around in the sewers to get things they need, avoiding guards, etc.
In other words, the PKer was describing things that other paying customers (i.e. the ones that don't like him and wish he'd log off) could do to make the game more fun for him. The same thing you're doing now. Instead all those people just left the game for something more fun for them.
You say: iTunes will not let you mix and match an album worth of tracks for the price of an album.
I say: No one else will. Not Amazon. Not Best Buy. Nobody.
Starbucks was allowing this, with their music kiosks a year or so ago. My wife made a compilation CD of RHCP greatest hits while waiting for her coffee one morning. However, she says that the kiosk has been removed from her Starbucks now.
Having never set foot in a Starbucks, my details may be hazy.
For the many, many, people who don't spend at least $10 a month on music, what you described is a monthly fee.
(For the record, I've spend $15 so far this year, and that was for a physical two-CD compilation that also came with all the band's music videos on a dual DVD. I also "bought" one free CD download at Magnatune using a gift card they handed out at SXSW.)
Disclaimer: I don't own a 360 and no little about the specifics of the failures that these "multiple 360" owners have experienced.
It's possible, perhaps, that the 360 is very susceptible to noise on the incoming power line, to the point that such noise causes permanent damage to the device. Is that a problem with the power system in many homes? Maybe. Is the power company going to fix it? No. Should Microsoft fix their product to be more durable? Yes. (Well, yes, if it would cost less than replacing units over and over with some customers, losing some of those for life, and the bad press it generates.)
So, that's one example of a source for this problem. It would explain why certain people have to go through many Xboxes to find one more tolerate to a third-party problem, while others are fine from the start.
My house is now seven years old. I replace regular bulbs with CFLs when the regular bulb blows.
In the time I've had my house, I've replaced almost all of the regular bulbs. The first one blew maybe a year after I moved in.
I have only had one CFL die so far. This is for my front porch light; the angle of the nearby street light casts my front porch into complete darkness, so we leave a light on 24/7 so that it's lit when we get home from work after dark. This light I replaced with a CFL the day I moved in, and it burnt out about three years later. It's replacement has been on for four years without a problem. (In general, I only turn it off once a year, on Halloween, so kids don't come knock while we're out somewhere.)
The power an 11W CFL uses 24/7 is about the same as a 40W incandescent burning just in the evenings, but I don't have to worry about forgetting to turn it on. It's also worked through 105+ degree heat and cold down to about 25.
I'm just one statistical point showing that CFLs can be long-lasting and durable, more so than incandescents. So, with your point to the contrary, now we're even.
Certainly, your mileage may vary. My home is powered from solar and wind only; for every consumer who has made such a choice, folding@home is (as I said) silly but harmless. I absolutely agree that many people would rather pay a lot more each month on their utility bill than write one check, once a year, because overall most people are lazy.
The problem is that there is a high correlation between people who don't bother to switch to clean energy, and those who won't bother to write out a check. There are of course exceptions like you.
A $180 check to the Alzheimer's foundation would be $15 a month to cure Alzheimer's, and it has the further benefits of:
A) letting the foundation pay for whatever research it feels is most important, which might include the folding@home project but might not (or, if you specify with your donation, could possibly go to the project of your choice);
B) does not necessarily consume electricity at residential rates using many, many distributed lossy AC->DC conversions, which for most people means additional cost cooling one's house in the summer and an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
C) would be tax deductible, so depending on your tax bracket you could donate $200-$225 to this cause, reducing the amount of money you give the government to pay for whatever it wants, but further increasing the amount of money going to research you want.
Alzheimer's runs in my family, and keeping a computer running at my home all day is a stupid way to cure it. The only possible benefit is that it hides the cost in the electric bill instead of making people write out a check. That would be silly but harmless if that electricity wasn't polluting the atmosphere.
Ok, I see the March numbers now. Fair enough.
?? Not sure where you got your numbers. They don't match anything in this story or the last one.
February:
Nintendo DS: 485,000
Nintendo Wii: 335,000
Sony PlayStation 2: 295,000
Microsoft Xbox 360: 228,000
Sony PlayStation Portable: 176,000
Nintendo Game Boy Advance: 136,000
Sony PlayStation 3: 127,000
The Wii is beating the PS2. It's not dominating it, no, but it's selling 40k more a month.
Two years ago I bought a used HP LaserJet 4M Plus from a discount electronics vendor. It cost $100 and came with a JetDirect card (they didn't all have one; I made sure to grab one that did at the same price) and whatever toner was in the cartridge (no way for me to check).
I'm happy to have a network printer at home, and the cartridge is still going strong.
If this printer were to break, I would buy another from the same line. There's nothing on the consumer market today that's nearly as good as the ones made in the early 1990s.
And if the imperfect cloning process introduced a prion disease? The kind that could be transferred to anyone who ate the meat? The kind that aren't destroyed by cooking (or burning)? Those types of diseases exist.
Regarding real-world sales of in-game items only:
We'll never have to pay taxes on things we don't own.
If you sell something you don't own, and you pocket the profit, you still owe taxes on it. If you steal car, and then sell that car, you can be convicted of tax evasion unless you pay taxes on the profit, with your "cost basis" correctly set to $0. Yes, this is true even if you are separately convicted of the theft.
If I go to the library and rent a really popular book, and the next person on the waiting list offers me $250 to give the book to him, I would need to pay tax on that income. The book never belonged to either of us; he'll still have to return it to the library when he's finished with it.
In short, it's not "We'll never have to", it's "We already have to".
Which of course makes this "Not real news because existing laws apply" .