You seem rather intelligent, try offering a solution rather then bitching
Solution? Do nothing. It's the same 'solution' offered by the head of NASA and other seemingly intelligent people. I mean, what's the hurry? Where is there any evidence that warming is bad?
Ten years ago, the cult was threatening us with the infamous hockey stick. Computer models were predicting "runaway" global warming. According to the IPCC we were on the cusp of exponential warming. "Oh noes!!11one1! We's all gonna DIES!one1!!"
Then something funny happened... Someone noticed that if you took the model and entered random data, it produced the same hockey stick graph. Gee, do tell... of course, they denied, denied, denied that it was a complete fraud. Yet the most damning evidence is that now, almost ten years later, their predictions simply didn't materialize. 1998 was anomalously hot and temps have not rocketed out of control since then.
Frankly, the only problem I see is global warming cultists preaching fire and brimstone, despite having their alarmist predictions disproven by observation repeatedly.
[And yes, before some global warming cultist chimes in... Griffin did later cede to peer pressure and apologize for making those statement, but to my knowledge he has never rescinded those statements.]
I'm not trying to argue, because I really can't take exception with much of your post, but...
Generally, you can only no till a corn crop for 4 or 5 years before the ground it too compacted and effects root growth.
Just so nobody reading gets the wrong idea.... Compaction is generally a result of tillage, not so much the lack of it. Earthworms and root systems tend to leave the ground pretty well aerated if you leave them alone. Especially in soils with heavy clays, you're generally better off with minimal or no tillage. With tillage, you can get a hard, impenetrable plate just below the plow line. That's particularly detrimental to corn because the root system goes so deep.
At least, that's what I've observed and was taught. But I can see how you could be getting different results with different soils, especially those deep heavily organic loamy soil profiles out there in corn country.
Just a note, the switch grass, one it is established, doesn't need tilled or anything. It just needs harvested so any Co2 production from it would be a one time thing for the most part.
Corn can be grown no-till as well with little or no detrimental effect on yield, but in practice, it generally is not. If you can do it without plowing, then you might have a shot at producing fuel without producing more CO2 than you save, but you are still displacing farmland previously devoted to food, resulting in starvation.
I am assuming you have done this because it's a popular US pastime to bash environmentalists
Global warming cultists are *not* environmentalist. They're easily led rubes that have bought into a self flagellating religion born out of politics.
most of whom would agree with your stance that corn for fuel is an exceptionally bad idea.
Again, I don't think you get it... It isn't just corn that's a bad idea. Any plan that includes putting lots of new farmland into production is probably a very bad idea if your goal is to reduce CO2. And *any* crop serving as a substitute for fossil fuels is going to require a LOT of farmland. I've explained this before. Numerous times, to people who obviously don't know what they are talking about. Yet they are insistent that their beliefs are correct without being able to produce a shred of relevant evidence to support their position.
So all substitutes and methods of reducing emissions are futile, eh?
Reducing CO2 emissions futile? No, I'd say pointless and costly.
they just might be effective with a global cap-and-trade system?
Aside from the fact that you are now heralding an unproven, imaginary system as a solution to a problem you and the other members of Heaven's Gate created.... You aren't listening.
It's quite likely you are creating more CO2 by plowing new land than you would have created by burning the fossil fuels you "replaced." Soil oxidation/erosion contributes an order of magnitude more CO2 to the atmosphere each year than the burning of *all fossil fuels*combined. Don't let any inconvenient truth stand in your way though.
And FYI, switchgrass and other cellulose feedstocks are being developed in order to address the land use and runoff problems.
Oh, well wonderful. You're going to solve a problem you created yourselves and it will only cost us millions in taxes, REAL environmental damage in the Gulf of Mexico, and thousands of human lives snuffed out by starvation because you thought it'd be a good idea to burn food in your God damned SUV. Great job, Jim Jones!
Plowing up new land creates *lots* of CO2 via soil oxidation too, and quite possibly at a faster rate than the fossil fuels they are "replacing." And since oil is a fungible commodity, the oil you "replaced" will simply be sold off and burned by someone else... Biofuels just make oil a little cheaper than it would otherwise be by decreasing demand ever so slightly. So, it's quite likely that the biofuel initiative is actually make the problem a lot worse. The biofuel initiative is also creating a giant dead zone in the gulf of Mexico due to fertilizer runoff. But don't try to tell any of this to the cult of global warming. They don't like facts interfering in their religion.
WebObjects is server technology not a client side application technology.
Actually, it's both.
For networking on the iPhone and OS X you can use BSD sockets or there are some objective-c wrappers around them if you don't want to do the raw C code yourself.
And if you're doing something really simple, I'm sure that will work just fine for you.
How are developers getting raped by the 30% figure
Developers are not given an option. 30% is highway robbery. Credit card fees with my merchant account are between 2% and 3% depending on the card.
(one central store, publicity/advertising handled by Apple, all credit card fees included, hosting infrastructure handled by Apple)
Yes, I heard the BS sales pitch the first time. It's still a BS sales pitch. I do not need that as I already have it, and if I didn't it certainly wouldn't cost 30% of my revenue to implement. If they're so confident that it's such a fine deal, why aren't they giving developers a choice?
Hmm, how can I explain this to someone who is obviously not self-employed... How would you like it if the government decided to raise your income tax by about 30%? Sound good to you??
How are people getting raped with ringtones (it's cheaper than most I've seen)?
Aside from the fact that the band never sees a penny? Gee, I don't know... Show of hands, who doesn't like paying for the same song twice?
Why is app signing such a big deal?
I'm sorry, I thought this was slashdot. Wow... really? You have to ask??
How about not breaking it so you don't need a repair?
No, I think I have a better idea. I'll buy a phone that isn't defective by design.
Because today's programmers don't learn programming or engineering, but instead a language.
Perhaps you should go into education since you seem to have all the answers.
A real programmer should be able to program regardless of a language.
Yeah! Real programmers never re-use old, battle tested code. They reinvent the wheel EVERY time no matter how tedious and time consuming that process is... Also, there is no chin behind RMS's beard, only another fist!
Code re-use issues aside, most of us can do it, but that doesn't mean that learning an API happens instantaneously either. Learning Obj-C may be simple enough, but learning the Cocoa API and the dev tools, on the other hand, is not. Any monkey can turn the knob. Turning the knob is no problem... but you have to know which knob to turn, and *exactly* how far to turn it. Otherwise, you won't be whipping out much of an app.
In fact they should be able to pick a language based on the problem at hand and not the other way around.
They do: Problem-Need an income, now. Solution-Language and libraries I know, now.
You're also overlooking another pretty major issue. If you want to develop for the iPhone, you MUST have an intel based Mac. So if you aren't already a Mac developer, you need to buy a new computer and learn a new OS in the midst of all that as well.
Plus, if you want that app to do anything moderately complex with an internet connection... you're probably going to want to use Apple's WebObjects. Which means you're going to need to know Obj-C, Cocoa, Java, EOF, and it's likely you'll want to use Project Wonder too. That's two languages, and three large frameworks. And that isn't even considering the requirements for server administration of a WebObjects deployment. If you are a Windows/Linux developer, you're going to need new hardware and face quite a learning curve.
So, I think maybe you're oversimplifying just a wee bit.
most serious developers have lost interest in the iPhone What are you, on meth AND crack?
So... what Adobe app will we be seeing on the iPhone? What about Microsoft? Didn't see any showcase apps from them today. You know what I did see? A couple of web apps and a few games. Wow, I can get eBay on my iPhone?? Wicked sweet!:-/
perhaps you should stop treating your phone like a horseshoe and more like the expensive electronic gadget
I bought the phone to use it, not to stick on a pedestal behind a velvet rope to admire its beauty. It's a phone. If you use it, you're going to drop it. Fact of life. Plan on it.
The glass is superior to a scratched up crappy looking piece of plastic
This really isn't a logical argument. Plastic, scratch resistant screen protectors are about $2 on the high end and they work beautifully. If you did somehow manage to scratch it, just peel it off and stick another one on in its place. I've had the same one for 14 months. There isn't a scratch on my plastic screen.
If you're finding yourself breaking a lot of glass iphone displays... well, I can't imagine how you treat your phone, but I'm sure that you'd be breaking plastic ones twice as often.
I've dropped my phone hard at least once a month for the past 14 months. It set me back about $800 so I try to take good care of it, but sh!t happens, and when it does, plastic bounces. It doesn't shatter like glass. Go ahead, read the comments at the flickr page. They illustrate the point nicely:
All you iPhone fans are just alike. You brag about how durable your glass phone is until you break it. Then you're crying because of the $200 repair bill... Funny how the 3G iPhone casing is no longer aluminum and now made out of this "inferior" material as well. Perhaps they should have replaced it with glass since glass is SOOO durable.
Multitasking is something Apple is intentionally not allowing.... App signing is a similar decision..... Of course I would like to have much better Bluetooth, copy/paste etc.
That's pretty much my main point. You don't have those apps/features because of those decisions. You're left waiting for Apple to implement them, because no one else is allowed. Do you seriously think a graphing calculator would still be unavailable a year later on this device if Apple allowed third party development? Their excuses for locking out developers are ridiculous, and based on the showcase apps in their "big" announcement, it's pretty clear that most serious developers have lost interest in the iPhone.
It's too bad, they could have revolutionized an industry, but their policies are making them a bit player.
Still no battery door (Which wouldn't bother me all that much if they didn't fall back to "bad battery life" as an excuse for several major failings)
Still no multitasking for third party apps
Still no copy/paste
Still no file manager
Still no bluetooth: keyboard driver, a2dp, file transfer, iSync
Still raping users with ringtones
Still raping developers for 30% of revenue
Still forcing app signing on end users/developers
Frankly, some of the announcements were just lame. Scientific calc? Oh wow, that took what... maybe five minutes in XCode... Why haven't they ported Grapher.app yet? Announcements for VoIP apps were conspicuously missing. So were P2P apps. Gee, I wonder why? </ sarcasm> Yet they can still manage to lob an "ActiveStink" joke... Hmm, maybe people with glass phones shouldn't throw rocks...
I believe The Simpsons tackled this very subject in They Saved Lisa's Brain [wikipedia.org]--an episode in which Mensa gains control of Springfield. Horrible legislation ensues.
Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but basing your opinion on a cartoon portrayal of what "might" happen is extreme even for/.
I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.
Exactly, how does extinction / loss of a food supply / mutating desease which have earlier almost killed a whole industry become small news?
This "news" has been around for a long time. Even the summary says so. It's an old story: monoculture -> disease -> no more bananas. Unless you have zero knowledge of bananas, you heard about this years ago. Hmm, I wonder why they'd be raising the alarm now, even when the banana companies like Dole and Chiquita don't care?
Right now, regulations have prevented even publicly funded research organizations from testing more than a handful of transformed bananas in the field.
Oh, I see. Somebody wants to skirt regulations regarding transgenic crops. "Won't somebody think of the bananas!!"... Suckers.
stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition. In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation Yep. Partly.
Yet, mostly not. FTFA:
is often asserted as a weapon to try to persuade corporate managers and directors that they should take actions that benefit particular shareholders of a given corporation, regardless of whether those actions may impose high costs on creditors, employees, the communities where corporations have their operations, or other stakeholders
Should Sony skip free with a few vouchers after committing half a million instances of felony computer trespass? GGP sure thinks so...
(Yeah, that last part's a straw man, but so is GGP... honestly, how does total crap like that get modded insightful?)
he's criticizing the article by saying it's fascism.
Nowhere in that article does the author advocate fascist corporatism. A straw man is when you create a new position that your opponent is not advocating, and then attack that new position. The position of the article is quite clear, although it isn't sound byte short like GGP's post.
I want to speak to you today on a question about the fiduciary obligations that corporate directors have, by law, in this country. In particular, I want to address a claim often made in the financial press, and by members of what a Delaware Court judge has recently called the âoecorporate governance industry.â This is the claim that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize share value.
What I hope you will take from my testimony today is that this claim is, at best, a misleading overstatement. At worst, this claim is simply false, but is often asserted as a weapon to try to persuade corporate managers and directors that they should take actions that benefit particular shareholders of a given corporation, regardless of whether those actions may impose high costs on creditors, employees, the communities where corporations have their operations, or other stakeholders, or sometimes even on the long run ability of the corporation itself to compete effectively for market share, or to develop the next technology
That position is clearly very different from fascism, thus making GGP's post a straw man argument.
Human hair does a great job of adsorbing oil, is renewable, and reusable. It can also be burned as fuel when you're done with it. 200,000 pounds of it goes into landfills every day. You could have enough to adsorb the entirety of Exxon Valdez by collecting what is produced in this country in a week.... and it would be essentially free.
Ahh, a global warming flunky. Have any evidence to back your claims? It appears that, as usual, you are lobbing insults to make up for the fact that you are empty handed.
Here's a link for you. It's not an opinion column. It's the law in question. I'm no lawyer, but reading that seems to indicate that federal employees soliciting campaign contributions for a specific partisan candidate is illegal. Period. Location and/or mode of solicitation aren't even mentioned. Section 7323 (a)(2)(C).
So it really doesn't matter where this government employee did it, he broke the law. He did it at work, on a government server/network. Other than indicating that's how they nailed him, it's beside the point. It's mandatory to fire him or give him a minimum 30 day probation. He got 90 days. Apparently, he should have known better.
Blogging about politics at work falls into the don't-do category, but blogging from home may also get a federal employee in trouble.
Don't agree with what they say? Take it up with them.
What am I supposed to take from this? That you're easily swayed by meaningless speculation?
I don't know... If I use the work file server to serve up my blog or work email account to spam for campaign funding, my employer might still have a thing or two to say about how I use those resources, even if I'm doing it from home. You sound pretty confident though, so you feel free to give it a shot, 'k sport?
Wow, this was news in like... April? It's almost June. Get with it Slashdot. All I see are stupid Digg stories and "featured" Yahoo stories here, and a day late to boot. Oh well, I suppose it's better than the global warming drivel... Anyway, according to that link:
government employees could be fined, suspended, or even fired for blogging at home
but dammit you fools, don't think some scientist in a lab didn't work their ass off to create this amazing thing. And dammit, they better make some money
So now that some scientist worked his ass off, farmers that don't want or buy their GM product are no longer allowed to save and replant seed exactly the same way they've done for all of human history?
That scientist's work is based on the intellectual property of the farmers. Have you ever seen natural maize? It's not all the same color like that corn you by at your grocery. Just because they aren't in the lab splitting genes doesn't mean their crops aren't GM'ed already.
Need a more recent example? When the US Govt started dropping Roundup in Central and South America to wipe out cocaine crops, guess what happened? Farmers bred roundup ready coke faster than Monsanto's scientists could have in the lab.
The implication is that the farmers' decentralized system of disseminating coca cuttings has been amazingly effective - more so than genetic engineering could hope to be.
All Monsanto has done is step into an open source project and close it. Monsanto is the one trying to change the rules. Fuck Monsanto and fuck their scientists. Farmers will do just fine without them.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution? Do nothing. It's the same 'solution' offered by the head of NASA and other seemingly intelligent people. I mean, what's the hurry? Where is there any evidence that warming is bad?
Ten years ago, the cult was threatening us with the infamous hockey stick. Computer models were predicting "runaway" global warming. According to the IPCC we were on the cusp of exponential warming. "Oh noes!!11one1! We's all gonna DIES!one1!!"
Then something funny happened... Someone noticed that if you took the model and entered random data, it produced the same hockey stick graph. Gee, do tell... of course, they denied, denied, denied that it was a complete fraud. Yet the most damning evidence is that now, almost ten years later, their predictions simply didn't materialize. 1998 was anomalously hot and temps have not rocketed out of control since then.
Frankly, the only problem I see is global warming cultists preaching fire and brimstone, despite having their alarmist predictions disproven by observation repeatedly.
[And yes, before some global warming cultist chimes in... Griffin did later cede to peer pressure and apologize for making those statement, but to my knowledge he has never rescinded those statements.]
I'm not trying to argue, because I really can't take exception with much of your post, but...
Generally, you can only no till a corn crop for 4 or 5 years before the ground it too compacted and effects root growth.Just so nobody reading gets the wrong idea.... Compaction is generally a result of tillage, not so much the lack of it. Earthworms and root systems tend to leave the ground pretty well aerated if you leave them alone. Especially in soils with heavy clays, you're generally better off with minimal or no tillage. With tillage, you can get a hard, impenetrable plate just below the plow line. That's particularly detrimental to corn because the root system goes so deep.
At least, that's what I've observed and was taught. But I can see how you could be getting different results with different soils, especially those deep heavily organic loamy soil profiles out there in corn country.
Corn can be grown no-till as well with little or no detrimental effect on yield, but in practice, it generally is not. If you can do it without plowing, then you might have a shot at producing fuel without producing more CO2 than you save, but you are still displacing farmland previously devoted to food, resulting in starvation.
Global warming cultists are *not* environmentalist. They're easily led rubes that have bought into a self flagellating religion born out of politics.
most of whom would agree with your stance that corn for fuel is an exceptionally bad idea.Again, I don't think you get it... It isn't just corn that's a bad idea. Any plan that includes putting lots of new farmland into production is probably a very bad idea if your goal is to reduce CO2. And *any* crop serving as a substitute for fossil fuels is going to require a LOT of farmland. I've explained this before. Numerous times, to people who obviously don't know what they are talking about. Yet they are insistent that their beliefs are correct without being able to produce a shred of relevant evidence to support their position.
If that isn't religion, what would you call it?
Reducing CO2 emissions futile? No, I'd say pointless and costly.
they just might be effective with a global cap-and-trade system?Aside from the fact that you are now heralding an unproven, imaginary system as a solution to a problem you and the other members of Heaven's Gate created.... You aren't listening.
It's quite likely you are creating more CO2 by plowing new land than you would have created by burning the fossil fuels you "replaced." Soil oxidation/erosion contributes an order of magnitude more CO2 to the atmosphere each year than the burning of *all fossil fuels* combined. Don't let any inconvenient truth stand in your way though.
And FYI, switchgrass and other cellulose feedstocks are being developed in order to address the land use and runoff problems.Oh, well wonderful. You're going to solve a problem you created yourselves and it will only cost us millions in taxes, REAL environmental damage in the Gulf of Mexico, and thousands of human lives snuffed out by starvation because you thought it'd be a good idea to burn food in your God damned SUV. Great job, Jim Jones!
Plowing up new land creates *lots* of CO2 via soil oxidation too, and quite possibly at a faster rate than the fossil fuels they are "replacing." And since oil is a fungible commodity, the oil you "replaced" will simply be sold off and burned by someone else... Biofuels just make oil a little cheaper than it would otherwise be by decreasing demand ever so slightly. So, it's quite likely that the biofuel initiative is actually make the problem a lot worse. The biofuel initiative is also creating a giant dead zone in the gulf of Mexico due to fertilizer runoff. But don't try to tell any of this to the cult of global warming. They don't like facts interfering in their religion.
Actually, it's both.
For networking on the iPhone and OS X you can use BSD sockets or there are some objective-c wrappers around them if you don't want to do the raw C code yourself.And if you're doing something really simple, I'm sure that will work just fine for you.
Developers are not given an option. 30% is highway robbery. Credit card fees with my merchant account are between 2% and 3% depending on the card.
(one central store, publicity/advertising handled by Apple, all credit card fees included, hosting infrastructure handled by Apple)Yes, I heard the BS sales pitch the first time. It's still a BS sales pitch. I do not need that as I already have it, and if I didn't it certainly wouldn't cost 30% of my revenue to implement. If they're so confident that it's such a fine deal, why aren't they giving developers a choice?
Hmm, how can I explain this to someone who is obviously not self-employed... How would you like it if the government decided to raise your income tax by about 30%? Sound good to you??
How are people getting raped with ringtones (it's cheaper than most I've seen)?Aside from the fact that the band never sees a penny? Gee, I don't know... Show of hands, who doesn't like paying for the same song twice?
Why is app signing such a big deal?I'm sorry, I thought this was slashdot. Wow... really? You have to ask??
How about not breaking it so you don't need a repair?No, I think I have a better idea. I'll buy a phone that isn't defective by design.
Perhaps you should go into education since you seem to have all the answers.
A real programmer should be able to program regardless of a language.Yeah! Real programmers never re-use old, battle tested code. They reinvent the wheel EVERY time no matter how tedious and time consuming that process is... Also, there is no chin behind RMS's beard, only another fist!
Code re-use issues aside, most of us can do it, but that doesn't mean that learning an API happens instantaneously either. Learning Obj-C may be simple enough, but learning the Cocoa API and the dev tools, on the other hand, is not. Any monkey can turn the knob. Turning the knob is no problem... but you have to know which knob to turn, and *exactly* how far to turn it. Otherwise, you won't be whipping out much of an app.
In fact they should be able to pick a language based on the problem at hand and not the other way around.They do: Problem-Need an income, now. Solution-Language and libraries I know, now.
You're also overlooking another pretty major issue. If you want to develop for the iPhone, you MUST have an intel based Mac. So if you aren't already a Mac developer, you need to buy a new computer and learn a new OS in the midst of all that as well.
Plus, if you want that app to do anything moderately complex with an internet connection... you're probably going to want to use Apple's WebObjects. Which means you're going to need to know Obj-C, Cocoa, Java, EOF, and it's likely you'll want to use Project Wonder too. That's two languages, and three large frameworks. And that isn't even considering the requirements for server administration of a WebObjects deployment. If you are a Windows/Linux developer, you're going to need new hardware and face quite a learning curve.
So, I think maybe you're oversimplifying just a wee bit.
So... what Adobe app will we be seeing on the iPhone? What about Microsoft? Didn't see any showcase apps from them today. You know what I did see? A couple of web apps and a few games. Wow, I can get eBay on my iPhone?? Wicked sweet! :-/
I bought the phone to use it, not to stick on a pedestal behind a velvet rope to admire its beauty. It's a phone. If you use it, you're going to drop it. Fact of life. Plan on it.
The glass is superior to a scratched up crappy looking piece of plasticThis really isn't a logical argument. Plastic, scratch resistant screen protectors are about $2 on the high end and they work beautifully. If you did somehow manage to scratch it, just peel it off and stick another one on in its place. I've had the same one for 14 months. There isn't a scratch on my plastic screen.
I've dropped my phone hard at least once a month for the past 14 months. It set me back about $800 so I try to take good care of it, but sh!t happens, and when it does, plastic bounces. It doesn't shatter like glass. Go ahead, read the comments at the flickr page. They illustrate the point nicely:
All you iPhone fans are just alike. You brag about how durable your glass phone is until you break it. Then you're crying because of the $200 repair bill... Funny how the 3G iPhone casing is no longer aluminum and now made out of this "inferior" material as well. Perhaps they should have replaced it with glass since glass is SOOO durable.
That's pretty much my main point. You don't have those apps/features because of those decisions. You're left waiting for Apple to implement them, because no one else is allowed. Do you seriously think a graphing calculator would still be unavailable a year later on this device if Apple allowed third party development? Their excuses for locking out developers are ridiculous, and based on the showcase apps in their "big" announcement, it's pretty clear that most serious developers have lost interest in the iPhone.
It's too bad, they could have revolutionized an industry, but their policies are making them a bit player.
Frankly, some of the announcements were just lame. Scientific calc? Oh wow, that took what... maybe five minutes in XCode... Why haven't they ported Grapher.app yet? Announcements for VoIP apps were conspicuously missing. So were P2P apps. Gee, I wonder why? </ sarcasm> Yet they can still manage to lob an "ActiveStink" joke... Hmm, maybe people with glass phones shouldn't throw rocks...
Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but basing your opinion on a cartoon portrayal of what "might" happen is extreme even for /.
JFK's advisors didn't suggest putting a man on the moon. They were quite resistant to the idea. On the other hand, Iraq was a "slam dunk" according to Bush's advisors...
How can you identify a "well informed" advisor if you have no knowledge on the subject yourself?
This "news" has been around for a long time. Even the summary says so. It's an old story: monoculture -> disease -> no more bananas. Unless you have zero knowledge of bananas, you heard about this years ago. Hmm, I wonder why they'd be raising the alarm now, even when the banana companies like Dole and Chiquita don't care?
Oh, I see. Somebody wants to skirt regulations regarding transgenic crops. "Won't somebody think of the bananas!!" ... Suckers.
Yet, mostly not. FTFA:
Should Sony skip free with a few vouchers after committing half a million instances of felony computer trespass? GGP sure thinks so...
(Yeah, that last part's a straw man, but so is GGP... honestly, how does total crap like that get modded insightful?)
Nowhere in that article does the author advocate fascist corporatism. A straw man is when you create a new position that your opponent is not advocating, and then attack that new position. The position of the article is quite clear, although it isn't sound byte short like GGP's post.
That position is clearly very different from fascism, thus making GGP's post a straw man argument.
Wow, that is a HUGE straw man you have there.
Human hair does a great job of adsorbing oil, is renewable, and reusable. It can also be burned as fuel when you're done with it. 200,000 pounds of it goes into landfills every day. You could have enough to adsorb the entirety of Exxon Valdez by collecting what is produced in this country in a week.... and it would be essentially free.
You kids and your fancy nanowire meshes... ;-)
Ahh, a global warming flunky. Have any evidence to back your claims? It appears that, as usual, you are lobbing insults to make up for the fact that you are empty handed.
Here's a link for you. It's not an opinion column. It's the law in question. I'm no lawyer, but reading that seems to indicate that federal employees soliciting campaign contributions for a specific partisan candidate is illegal. Period. Location and/or mode of solicitation aren't even mentioned. Section 7323 (a)(2)(C).
So it really doesn't matter where this government employee did it, he broke the law. He did it at work, on a government server/network. Other than indicating that's how they nailed him, it's beside the point. It's mandatory to fire him or give him a minimum 30 day probation. He got 90 days. Apparently, he should have known better.
Nothing more than supposition? It's the Washington post.
Don't agree with what they say? Take it up with them.
What am I supposed to take from this? That you're easily swayed by meaningless speculation?I don't know... If I use the work file server to serve up my blog or work email account to spam for campaign funding, my employer might still have a thing or two to say about how I use those resources, even if I'm doing it from home. You sound pretty confident though, so you feel free to give it a shot, 'k sport?
Wow, this was news in like... April? It's almost June. Get with it Slashdot. All I see are stupid Digg stories and "featured" Yahoo stories here, and a day late to boot. Oh well, I suppose it's better than the global warming drivel... Anyway, according to that link:
Actually, they can and they do.
but dammit you fools, don't think some scientist in a lab didn't work their ass off to create this amazing thing. And dammit, they better make some moneySo now that some scientist worked his ass off, farmers that don't want or buy their GM product are no longer allowed to save and replant seed exactly the same way they've done for all of human history?
That scientist's work is based on the intellectual property of the farmers. Have you ever seen natural maize? It's not all the same color like that corn you by at your grocery. Just because they aren't in the lab splitting genes doesn't mean their crops aren't GM'ed already.
Need a more recent example? When the US Govt started dropping Roundup in Central and South America to wipe out cocaine crops, guess what happened? Farmers bred roundup ready coke faster than Monsanto's scientists could have in the lab.
The implication is that the farmers' decentralized system of disseminating coca cuttings has been amazingly effective - more so than genetic engineering could hope to be.All Monsanto has done is step into an open source project and close it. Monsanto is the one trying to change the rules. Fuck Monsanto and fuck their scientists. Farmers will do just fine without them.