however the situation is different, nobody - including the president im sure - likes how much he's spending - but it's better than the alternative, by far.
(letting those companies collapse and bring down the rest of the economy with them)
Last time we had something like this happen and we just ignored it we ended up in the great depression. So yes it sucks in the short term, but in the longer term all that spending his did will almost certainly net a profit for the government. It did last time, it should this time in theory.
if you had read the previous article on this they're getting Tripple Play of Net, 82 cable, phone for $99/month permanent price, the company isn't losing money, and it's getting no more subsidies than the resident Monopolist Time Warner got.
They're getting better service, for a better price. Try knowing about the company in question before you run your mouth about it.
clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms
also to everyone: nowhere in that entire article did he propose that it be a government taxing to spend that money - sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".
After having tried to be a contributor for a while I can tell you they are not. there are some powerful groups with admins and even ARBCOM members in their pockets that rule game to keep subtle but damaging biases in various articles - via the exclusion of information.
"that source isn't credible." - them "it's a peer reviewed scientific journal!" - us "my statement stands"
AFAIK the US Postal Service technically isn't a government entity.
or so i've been told.... not 100% sure i believe that, but i wouldn't be suprised.
Re:What about MySQL?
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
just because someone doesn't know the feature of one language of dubious quality means they don't know anything about software development?
that's a rather arrogant and stupid assertion. I work with several programmers who wouldn't know the first thing about netbeans (i have heard of them but don't know how to use them as I don't care for Java - i work in C++). These programmers all got their degrees before i was born (im 25) and used to write mainframe code, and have since been transitioned to C++. Sure they might not know some of the more modern concepts (software patterns and antipatterns) by name [they've used factory, singleton, etc without knowing the formal names]: but they wouldn't know about netbeans. Does this make them bad programmers? no they're rather good programmers most of the time, if annoying when you know more about modern computer science than them and have to ask their permission to make a necessary change since you're the "junior developer"
no climate scientist claims that we are the sole instigator. However to claim we're not involved, given that since the industrial revolution the CO2 load in the atmosphere has increased by 50%, is simply dishonest.
don't listen the CATO institute, they're not very trustworthy. i find it extremely doubtful that nuclear reactors are unprofitable. I grew up less than 20 miles from one.
Yucca mountain is no longer a viable storage site if that is what you were talking about. They found a fault ran underneath it that they didn't think did.
The general impression I get from your post is that you think nuclear power is somehow really dirty. It's not, especially not with fuel reprocessing. The "uncleanliness" of nuclear power plants has been immensely exaggerated. All you need for long term storage is a geological stable site that is isolated from the water table. I was not aware of mines on native lands, most of the best mines are in Canada from my understanding.
A CANDU reactor would be a good thing as well. But the impression I get is you vastly exaggerate the risks of nuclear power, and the costs (in USD). As for "government funding" it's just government loans that I've heard of no grants - banks are wary to lend out the kind of money to make a reactor because of the bad PR of nuclear power.
you better go double check your "facts", because they're lacking when it comes to accuracy
I was going to be a climatologist/meteorologist until he learned how to code, and I still know a lot about the subject and have my spotter certification.
with the current prices for diesel and gasoline it is my understanding that it is profitable even at the pilot project stage. the diesel and gas it produce are already proven.
there was a discovery program a while back that showed a small scale viable carbon sequester system using lime - it drew 200% of it's own carbon footprint out of the air when running off a diesel generator. Run it off nuclear or clean power and it has no carbon footprint.
stand in the halls of the US congress for one day.
you just received more radiation from the granite of the building than the total released at TMI-2. TMI-2's containment vessel WORKED. TMI-2 was not an ecological disaster, just a PR one.
From your other posts in this thread you're generally a pretty rational environmentalist, so much so i sent you an email. However I am disappointed to find that you are in the knee-jerk nuclear crowd. Yes nuclear isn't "perfectly clean" but a proper nuclear energy generation system, with spent fuel recylcing (which is not banned in the US - Ford introduced the ban, Carter approved the ban, Reagan in a rare show of intelligence repealed the ban).
Fission power, per gigawatt, is FAR cleaner than coal. Which would you rather have - some radioactive waste we have to find an already ruined, but geological stable, place to store it in and some limited open pit mining. Or the coal industry.
but that's why they build wind farms where the wind is almost always blowing.
in a few years when we get better battery technology or EEStor finally starts selling their product if it's real then we'll be able to store excess generation for slack periods.
what about off shore beyond 100km wind farms? they'd be more productive than land based ones and out of sight.
that being said I live in the 2nd highest wind power producing state (Iowa) and when I drive past our wind farms i don't go "ugh" i go "cool more generators were put up".
the generators are taking a little land out of farm production, but they're being placed in fields - the land was already altered.
and yes hydro dams alter the area, but they're ecological problems tend to come down to needing to build fish stairs for salmon. they're not destroying unique pristine wilderness.
I'm all for protecting the environment, and having large nature preserves, but you cannot act like every single square kilometer of the earths surface should be protected.
nobody is talking about making the earth too hot for all life.
we're talking about melting the ice caps flooding massively populated areas, destroying our economy, and generally ruining the usefulness of the ecosystem to HUMANS.
Slashdot Mirror
learn the meaning of the term socialistic before using it ever again.
bundled programming is not socialistic, it has nothing to do with socialism.
however the situation is different, nobody - including the president im sure - likes how much he's spending - but it's better than the alternative, by far.
(letting those companies collapse and bring down the rest of the economy with them)
Last time we had something like this happen and we just ignored it we ended up in the great depression. So yes it sucks in the short term, but in the longer term all that spending his did will almost certainly net a profit for the government. It did last time, it should this time in theory.
if you had read the previous article on this they're getting Tripple Play of Net, 82 cable, phone for $99/month permanent price, the company isn't losing money, and it's getting no more subsidies than the resident Monopolist Time Warner got.
They're getting better service, for a better price. Try knowing about the company in question before you run your mouth about it.
all five?
clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms
also to everyone: nowhere in that entire article did he propose that it be a government taxing to spend that money - sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".
After having tried to be a contributor for a while I can tell you they are not. there are some powerful groups with admins and even ARBCOM members in their pockets that rule game to keep subtle but damaging biases in various articles - via the exclusion of information.
"that source isn't credible." - them
"it's a peer reviewed scientific journal!" - us
"my statement stands"
you claim to RTFA, then you show you didn't
they're not getting any tax subsidies.
they still have to conform to data privacy regulations
AFAIK the US Postal Service technically isn't a government entity.
or so i've been told.... not 100% sure i believe that, but i wouldn't be suprised.
just because someone doesn't know the feature of one language of dubious quality means they don't know anything about software development?
that's a rather arrogant and stupid assertion. I work with several programmers who wouldn't know the first thing about netbeans (i have heard of them but don't know how to use them as I don't care for Java - i work in C++). These programmers all got their degrees before i was born (im 25) and used to write mainframe code, and have since been transitioned to C++. Sure they might not know some of the more modern concepts (software patterns and antipatterns) by name [they've used factory, singleton, etc without knowing the formal names]: but they wouldn't know about netbeans. Does this make them bad programmers? no they're rather good programmers most of the time, if annoying when you know more about modern computer science than them and have to ask their permission to make a necessary change since you're the "junior developer"
no climate scientist claims that we are the sole instigator. However to claim we're not involved, given that since the industrial revolution the CO2 load in the atmosphere has increased by 50%, is simply dishonest.
are all your computers using your router as their DNS (as a redirector)?
I would be suprised as most routers are VERY unreliable at doing this which means usually it's set at the computer.
are they using an account without privileges to edit the TCP/IP settings?
if not, it's trivial to bypass your openDNS
Shilling much?
don't listen the CATO institute, they're not very trustworthy. i find it extremely doubtful that nuclear reactors are unprofitable. I grew up less than 20 miles from one.
Yucca mountain is no longer a viable storage site if that is what you were talking about. They found a fault ran underneath it that they didn't think did.
The general impression I get from your post is that you think nuclear power is somehow really dirty. It's not, especially not with fuel reprocessing. The "uncleanliness" of nuclear power plants has been immensely exaggerated. All you need for long term storage is a geological stable site that is isolated from the water table. I was not aware of mines on native lands, most of the best mines are in Canada from my understanding.
A CANDU reactor would be a good thing as well. But the impression I get is you vastly exaggerate the risks of nuclear power, and the costs (in USD). As for "government funding" it's just government loans that I've heard of no grants - banks are wary to lend out the kind of money to make a reactor because of the bad PR of nuclear power.
you better go double check your "facts", because they're lacking when it comes to accuracy
I was going to be a climatologist/meteorologist until he learned how to code, and I still know a lot about the subject and have my spotter certification.
with the current prices for diesel and gasoline it is my understanding that it is profitable even at the pilot project stage. the diesel and gas it produce are already proven.
there was a discovery program a while back that showed a small scale viable carbon sequester system using lime - it drew 200% of it's own carbon footprint out of the air when running off a diesel generator. Run it off nuclear or clean power and it has no carbon footprint.
stand in the halls of the US congress for one day.
you just received more radiation from the granite of the building than the total released at TMI-2. TMI-2's containment vessel WORKED. TMI-2 was not an ecological disaster, just a PR one.
From your other posts in this thread you're generally a pretty rational environmentalist, so much so i sent you an email. However I am disappointed to find that you are in the knee-jerk nuclear crowd. Yes nuclear isn't "perfectly clean" but a proper nuclear energy generation system, with spent fuel recylcing (which is not banned in the US - Ford introduced the ban, Carter approved the ban, Reagan in a rare show of intelligence repealed the ban).
Fission power, per gigawatt, is FAR cleaner than coal. Which would you rather have - some radioactive waste we have to find an already ruined, but geological stable, place to store it in and some limited open pit mining. Or the coal industry.
both of those statements are true
but that's why they build wind farms where the wind is almost always blowing.
in a few years when we get better battery technology or EEStor finally starts selling their product if it's real then we'll be able to store excess generation for slack periods.
(disclaimer: i'm a /rational/ environmentalist)
what about off shore beyond 100km wind farms? they'd be more productive than land based ones and out of sight.
that being said I live in the 2nd highest wind power producing state (Iowa) and when I drive past our wind farms i don't go "ugh" i go "cool more generators were put up".
the generators are taking a little land out of farm production, but they're being placed in fields - the land was already altered.
and yes hydro dams alter the area, but they're ecological problems tend to come down to needing to build fish stairs for salmon. they're not destroying unique pristine wilderness.
I'm all for protecting the environment, and having large nature preserves, but you cannot act like every single square kilometer of the earths surface should be protected.
Gasoline was also interesting but unproven once.
there is an active commercial scale algae diesel and gasoline plant operating in texas right now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_algal_fuel_producers#USA
Algae. bred for high cellulose instead of high oil.
pollutant? no .. needs a new classification
excessive green house gas production
there you go
how about a REPUTABLE source?
nobody is talking about making the earth too hot for all life.
we're talking about melting the ice caps flooding massively populated areas, destroying our economy, and generally ruining the usefulness of the ecosystem to HUMANS.
it was in the news just this morning, i'm trying to find it