The currently theories are that the Neandertal genes did not persist in H. sapien sapien. They died out, and there wasn't any interbreeding (at least none that had significant historic effect).
I agree with you... as long as this discussion is kept within the confines of the USA (and I mean relative left/right). What Republicans call "liberal", "left-wing", or "activist" is ridiculous. And what Democrats call.. wait nevermind. I am really at a lack of comparison. Explained at the end (people will hate me for it). I have traveled and lived in many other countries. For anyone to consider a person that deviates SO LITTLE from the accepted norm to be "activist" is a fucking joke. End of story. The neo-conservative powers are further from traditional GOP Republicans than anything you'll find between this so-called "liberal" group and traditional Democrat.
I am very sick of this moronic name-calling in the United States. We were once a great country that cherished debate. This is no more. Bush and Kerry argued over the tenth of a degree in their debate room. How many pages was the contract? Seventy-two?
Please, our country needs to collectively pull our heads out of our asses and start to ask real, fundamental questions about what is going on. We all love our country. Some of us would just like to see some things happen a different way. Thats the bottom line. Remove the name calling and the bullshit (theres the quick summary of that rant).
In conclusion, com'on. Lets not pretend that NPR deviates too far from what it considered the standardized position of the American person. And in this context I mean the American that will sit there, in their car, and listen to someone talk about politics and the historical context of whatever is happening that day. Yes, it is more "liberal" than CNN or Fox but its largely because they're not reporting about that kitten in Kansas that jumped down three stories from a burning house. The major privately-funded media corporations watch their own asses too much. Just look at the BBC. It would be considered "liberal" here as well.
Anyway, I'll stop drinking. Don't mean to offend anyone.
Honestly, I believe, for various reasons, that this would not work either. But please, don't limit your scope to the dominant species of corn grown for consumption. There are hundreds, if not thousands, varieties of corns that grow throughout the Americas. It is also possible to create alcohols from other plant sources including sorghum, grown in areas such as Honduras as a supplimental crop due to its low water requirements (originally from Africa), that could be equally as useful. In the United States the research has predominantly been on yellow corn (waste corn because of government subsidies) used to create ethanol. Although it is often argued that this does NOT yield a net positive energy output it is usually because petro-based machinery has been utilitzed throughout the test times. Replace those with solar powered vehicles and other alternative renewable fuel types (bio-diesel, etc.) and there is often a gain of energy.
I apologize for not knowing more details: its been a year or so since my quick dive into sustainable transport. But there is a lot of research done on it, and it is often a result of no one knowing what to do with all that corn being thrown out in North America because of US corn subsidies (varies over time which country this occurs in.. Mexico, USA,..).
There is also the issue of ease of storage (ya, hydrogen doesnt have this), energy required to bottle/store in a stable state (hydrogen requires a LOT of energy to be put in tanks and thats often done with natural gas), processing and transport of raw materials (hydrogen comes from more common places but requires significant energy for extraction), the list goes one. One of the major hurdles for corn to ethanol production is convincing large-scale agrobusinesses that it is in their interest to use their corn to create ethanol, something they have no infrastructure in place to handle.
AND, as something humorous a professor told me once as a personal story, there are often people that DO use alcohol to fuel their gas powered vehicles (usually cheap or old mopeds/scooters). In the professor's case it was in Greece. He had some friends that made a local moonshine kind of nasty and he paid them to make lower grade stuff not for consumption. Doesn't take much technology to check it out either. To see if it works just put a small amount in a bowl and throw a match at it. If its high enough proof then it burns. If not then it needs more distilling.
Disclaimer: I haven't studied this in a while; I don't have any backup sources off-hand; I did no research first hand; don't try this at home.
Im also from North Carolina (Watauga Country for university) but I'm less surprised by this than when the election officials actually REFUSED to hand out paper ballots at the polling places (at early election time). They were 'testing' electronic machines but if you wanted to vote early, like most of us college students (since they moved the polling location far off campus for all on-campus students) they were attempting to force the use of their experimental voting machines.
Eventually we had intervention from up high. But it was a serious problem (well, with the liberal-types at least). The machines were also hideously confusing with iPod-like turn wheels (but unfortunately lacked Apple innovation).
I go to Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina.
Quick answer: the printed paper is shown to the voter before final casting for a visual confirmation check (make sure it says who they really voted for). After the voter confirms the paper receipt is cut off and falls into a big box of identical pieces of paper. No one can count backwards to see who voted for who.
The debate isnt over whether it exists or not: it is whether it should exist in a SCIENCE CLASSROOM due to it being science. And your own statement answered that question: no, it isn't science.
But feel free to believe it exists. Maybe teach it in a university Mythology course and debate it's pros and cons.
If the logical base for ID is a metaphor of a watchmaker it most DEFINATELY does not qualify as Science. Do you even understand science? No, it is not safe to assume the watch has a Maker if watches in this world reproduce and change over time. It is safe to assume the watch has an origin, but only because of other scientific laws stating that matter is never created nor destroyed.
None of these things qualify the watch to have an Intelligent Maker. Your use of metaphor is one based on religious fables and not scientific logic.
You're right (and now a great deal more than I about Christian history), but most scientists argue against ID teaching because it inherently is NOT science, and therefore should not be taught as a valid, viable alternative scientific theory to evolution. It does not ascribe to basic scientific notions. It is a creation myth utilizing the fact that our human civilization TODAY can't explain how we came to be. There is no other empirical evidence used to base this belief on -- hence, not a scientific theory.
As a side note, not all folks are bashing the people who believe in ID. Keep reading the posts. But the parent of your post does have a valid point -- which version of ID would be taught in a classroom? And who certifies the curriculum? Where would the church and state fall and how would the students be protected from biased material?
There are serious questions that deserve serious answers within the context of this debate. I don't have the answers, I'm willing to admit, but I do have a good number of reasons why ID isn't science. For one: it doesn't ascribe to the fundamental notions of science; that is it doesn't allow for "through science we can fully understand all aspect of nature, either now or in the future." Instead it uses our lack of total explanation as basis for a Higher Power.
But this debate shall always fall to a question of ones morals or basic beliefs. I'm Christian but I whole-heartedly disbelieve ID, but you said yourself all Christians must believe in ID. Why is that? And why do you have the higher position to decide if I qualify as a Christian?
No, Intelligent Design is not science because it doesn't use observer or recorder to prove theories. Instead it uses statements like "it cannot be recreated in a lab" to mean "it will never has been and never will be recreated in a lab -- you don't know, I don't know we don't know... so God did it!"
The basis of science is that collectively we can one day understand Nature. Intelligent Design says that because a Higher Power did it there is no way we can understand it. Hence, ID doesn't qualify as science.
That is as "academic" as this debate will ever come from the science side -- don't ask for more. For something to qualify as "science" and therefore be taught in a "science" class it has to adhere to the rules of "science". Weird how that works.
Verified Voting has a Voter Information Sheet on the machine.
Disinfopedia has an article about Unilect Corporation. From this article:
The President of UniLect Corporation is Jack Gerbel, who has been actively involved in the election equipment industry since 1965. His career began in elections with IBM Corporation and then as a founder, Vice-President and Board of Directors member of Computer Election Systems (CES).
Mr. Gerbel had the distinction of personally selling and installing more election systems than any other person in the U.S.
Two major accounts that he sold and successfully installed were Cook County, Illinois and the City of Chicago.
Mr. Gerbel became Vice-President of Sales for Business Records Corporation (BRC).
So, there you have it. Background info. Side note: I live in NC and this is not the same machines that were being (these are the literal words of the poll workers) "tested" in Watauga County. And although they officially said these machines were only experimental and being tested, paper ballots were often withheld upon request and their availability was NOT posted. The Republic Party in Watauga County also refused to move polling locations onto Appalachian State University's campus, proposed by the Dem Party, although 22,000 of the 25,000 residents are students.
>Just because it's viable now, doesn't mean it'll be viable for the entire country. Nor does present-day viability imply that it'll scale up to the rest of the country's energy needs.
All of our electricty is redistributed anyway. But using it can't hurt. I say diversify the energy supply across the country: nothing like mixing up energy sources to reinfornce Homeland Security when it comes to electricty, etc. Fossil fuels have a long line of attack points.
>Similarly, hydroelectric power isn't renewable: there are only so many rivers that can be dammed, and a finite amount of rain falling into the water systems that feed them.
You have confused "renewable" with "infinite." It IS, by definition, renewable because of the water-cycle: there is always rain to feed that river. Please note I am not saying hydro power is perfect because that is far from the truth (although small-scale feeder stream damming is much better all around than large-scale implementation).
>Solving the problem means finding a high-energy-density portable power source (for cars), and/or an extremely high-density electrical generation source (which you then use to power everything but cars, and/or to synthesize hydrocarbons from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen).
Solving the problem also includes re-thinking our transportation needs. Rampant suburbia without viable mass-transit is a problem. Poorly designed urban areas are hurting us. We can't just look at energy needs from the supply-side; we must also must take a legit crack at lower our needs.
But I applaude you at recognizing we need to move the auto industry from many units with ICE to, at a minimum, many units with electric engines. THEN we can begin using many different energy sources to solve our most urgent upcoming problem. Right now the Bush administration's back-up energy supply after fossil fuels is coal, but that doesn't logically solve the problem of petro needs. We can't burn coal in our cars.
P.S. Ya, I know that no one really knows if we'll run out of fossil fuels soon. But I think everyone can agree that over time our methods of supplying it will have to change, and in our system change means increased costs, etc.
----- Where is the administration on this? Pro-consumption, pro-petro, pro-coal.
I'm actually trying to get started in homebrewing; maybe you can give me some tips, ie. what's a good book? What do I need to start off with but I'll be able to expand to accomodate 6 college students in a house?
And if you want to know why I'd like to start it's because I:
1.) Am a poor college student. 2.) Love beer but hate most domestic beer.
If you help me out I'll get all of my equipment from you (Slashdot discount? heh just kidding).
Yes, the Foxfire books (and the original magazines) talk about moonshine among many things. This past year I entered college as a freshman and I started studying Appalachian trades, folklore/art, tradition, etc.
For Christmas my parents gave me their Foxfire book that they've had for 20 years (and never read). I'm reading it now. I'm in the Watauga College Interdisciplinary Studies program at Appalachian State.
Actually I have a Transmeta Crusoe chip in my Sony Picturebook running FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE and it performs amazingly well (neglecting the very slow hdd's used by Sony). I installed using only a USB floppy drive (thanks my Mac friends) and everything else has been done via 16-bit PCMCIA network adapters.
I believe everything compiles as regular ole x86 and the code-morphing is done at a very low software layer. If you'll read more about the Transmeta chips you'll see that several megabytes of memory are consumed on booting.
FreeBSD even has builtin sysctl settings for the LongRun processor/power management;)
Unless there was a MOTD that stated who can and can not access what and where. I'm pretty sure there has been legislation passed stating that. But I am not a lawyer, I've just seen mnay, many servers citing it in the past.
> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.
How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this...
1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given. 2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government) 3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war. 4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations.
By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would.
Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should.
And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that.
At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?
> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.
How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this...
1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given.
2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government)
3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war.
4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations.
By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would.
Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should.
And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that.
At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?
Please keep in mind that capitalism REQUIRES manufacturers to build a surplus of their product. Not only do they have to have enough to supply the demand, they have to have the ability to cover an surge in sales. With MS losing money with the XBox, as previously mentioned in the news, they may be willing to sell a few just to get them off the shelves.
Just a thought...
While you're at it check out Furthurnet.com... All the music there is free (each artist has either a public policy or has given written permission). There are more bands there than you think (and no, its not just Grateful Dead and Phish).
The competition listed in the review is the Apple iMac and the Gateway Profile 4S, but I don't see how this comparison can hold any leverage at all. Honestly, the Sony PCV-W10 captures a specific demographic and truly is a unique and innovative product. Both the iMac and the Profile are both "economy" machines: stripped down (hardware-wise) versions of the PC made to save space (I assume).
The only real content in this review is contained in the hardware specs and images, but those can be found here.
But instead of bombing innocent civilians (ie. terrorism) why not get to the root of terrorism? The US needs to not kill more people or attempt to control more lives, they must stop doing what makes terrorists mad.
And if anyone thinks that the bombs are the only thing thats killing Middle Eastern individuals take a look at the foreign aid being sent over to feed the starving. Approx. $34 million in food is being sent over to feed 7 million people. Subtract the expenses of airplane fuel, employees and other misc. things and you have about 1 out of every 100 people NOT RECEIVING FOOD while the US is blocking UN aid from entering the country (they dont want to be plowed over by war-hungry presidents).
I love the United States but I hate politicians who use war as a way to raise moral and get their votes up.
Slashdot Mirror
The currently theories are that the Neandertal genes did not persist in H. sapien sapien. They died out, and there wasn't any interbreeding (at least none that had significant historic effect).
I agree with you... as long as this discussion is kept within the confines of the USA (and I mean relative left/right). What Republicans call "liberal", "left-wing", or "activist" is ridiculous. And what Democrats call.. wait nevermind. I am really at a lack of comparison. Explained at the end (people will hate me for it). I have traveled and lived in many other countries. For anyone to consider a person that deviates SO LITTLE from the accepted norm to be "activist" is a fucking joke. End of story. The neo-conservative powers are further from traditional GOP Republicans than anything you'll find between this so-called "liberal" group and traditional Democrat.
I am very sick of this moronic name-calling in the United States. We were once a great country that cherished debate. This is no more. Bush and Kerry argued over the tenth of a degree in their debate room. How many pages was the contract? Seventy-two?
Please, our country needs to collectively pull our heads out of our asses and start to ask real, fundamental questions about what is going on. We all love our country. Some of us would just like to see some things happen a different way. Thats the bottom line. Remove the name calling and the bullshit (theres the quick summary of that rant).
In conclusion, com'on. Lets not pretend that NPR deviates too far from what it considered the standardized position of the American person. And in this context I mean the American that will sit there, in their car, and listen to someone talk about politics and the historical context of whatever is happening that day. Yes, it is more "liberal" than CNN or Fox but its largely because they're not reporting about that kitten in Kansas that jumped down three stories from a burning house. The major privately-funded media corporations watch their own asses too much. Just look at the BBC. It would be considered "liberal" here as well.
Anyway, I'll stop drinking. Don't mean to offend anyone.
OS:
97.2% Windows hits
2.3% Unknown
0.5% Linux
Browser:
90.2% MS IE
7.1% Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox
2.3% Other
0.4% Konqueror
Honestly, I believe, for various reasons, that this would not work either. But please, don't limit your scope to the dominant species of corn grown for consumption. There are hundreds, if not thousands, varieties of corns that grow throughout the Americas. It is also possible to create alcohols from other plant sources including sorghum, grown in areas such as Honduras as a supplimental crop due to its low water requirements (originally from Africa), that could be equally as useful. In the United States the research has predominantly been on yellow corn (waste corn because of government subsidies) used to create ethanol. Although it is often argued that this does NOT yield a net positive energy output it is usually because petro-based machinery has been utilitzed throughout the test times. Replace those with solar powered vehicles and other alternative renewable fuel types (bio-diesel, etc.) and there is often a gain of energy.
I apologize for not knowing more details: its been a year or so since my quick dive into sustainable transport. But there is a lot of research done on it, and it is often a result of no one knowing what to do with all that corn being thrown out in North America because of US corn subsidies (varies over time which country this occurs in.. Mexico, USA,..).
There is also the issue of ease of storage (ya, hydrogen doesnt have this), energy required to bottle/store in a stable state (hydrogen requires a LOT of energy to be put in tanks and thats often done with natural gas), processing and transport of raw materials (hydrogen comes from more common places but requires significant energy for extraction), the list goes one. One of the major hurdles for corn to ethanol production is convincing large-scale agrobusinesses that it is in their interest to use their corn to create ethanol, something they have no infrastructure in place to handle.
AND, as something humorous a professor told me once as a personal story, there are often people that DO use alcohol to fuel their gas powered vehicles (usually cheap or old mopeds/scooters). In the professor's case it was in Greece. He had some friends that made a local moonshine kind of nasty and he paid them to make lower grade stuff not for consumption. Doesn't take much technology to check it out either. To see if it works just put a small amount in a bowl and throw a match at it. If its high enough proof then it burns. If not then it needs more distilling.
Disclaimer: I haven't studied this in a while; I don't have any backup sources off-hand; I did no research first hand; don't try this at home.
Im also from North Carolina (Watauga Country for university) but I'm less surprised by this than when the election officials actually REFUSED to hand out paper ballots at the polling places (at early election time). They were 'testing' electronic machines but if you wanted to vote early, like most of us college students (since they moved the polling location far off campus for all on-campus students) they were attempting to force the use of their experimental voting machines.
Eventually we had intervention from up high. But it was a serious problem (well, with the liberal-types at least). The machines were also hideously confusing with iPod-like turn wheels (but unfortunately lacked Apple innovation).
I go to Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina.
Quick answer: the printed paper is shown to the voter before final casting for a visual confirmation check (make sure it says who they really voted for). After the voter confirms the paper receipt is cut off and falls into a big box of identical pieces of paper. No one can count backwards to see who voted for who.
The debate isnt over whether it exists or not: it is whether it should exist in a SCIENCE CLASSROOM due to it being science. And your own statement answered that question: no, it isn't science.
But feel free to believe it exists. Maybe teach it in a university Mythology course and debate it's pros and cons.
If the logical base for ID is a metaphor of a watchmaker it most DEFINATELY does not qualify as Science. Do you even understand science? No, it is not safe to assume the watch has a Maker if watches in this world reproduce and change over time. It is safe to assume the watch has an origin, but only because of other scientific laws stating that matter is never created nor destroyed. None of these things qualify the watch to have an Intelligent Maker. Your use of metaphor is one based on religious fables and not scientific logic.
Please forgive spelling errors in parent post -- I've been up since 4am writing anthropology term papers ;)
You're right (and now a great deal more than I about Christian history), but most scientists argue against ID teaching because it inherently is NOT science, and therefore should not be taught as a valid, viable alternative scientific theory to evolution. It does not ascribe to basic scientific notions. It is a creation myth utilizing the fact that our human civilization TODAY can't explain how we came to be. There is no other empirical evidence used to base this belief on -- hence, not a scientific theory.
As a side note, not all folks are bashing the people who believe in ID. Keep reading the posts. But the parent of your post does have a valid point -- which version of ID would be taught in a classroom? And who certifies the curriculum? Where would the church and state fall and how would the students be protected from biased material?
There are serious questions that deserve serious answers within the context of this debate. I don't have the answers, I'm willing to admit, but I do have a good number of reasons why ID isn't science. For one: it doesn't ascribe to the fundamental notions of science; that is it doesn't allow for "through science we can fully understand all aspect of nature, either now or in the future." Instead it uses our lack of total explanation as basis for a Higher Power.
But this debate shall always fall to a question of ones morals or basic beliefs. I'm Christian but I whole-heartedly disbelieve ID, but you said yourself all Christians must believe in ID. Why is that? And why do you have the higher position to decide if I qualify as a Christian?
Good Monday to ya.
No, Intelligent Design is not science because it doesn't use observer or recorder to prove theories. Instead it uses statements like "it cannot be recreated in a lab" to mean "it will never has been and never will be recreated in a lab -- you don't know, I don't know we don't know... so God did it!"
The basis of science is that collectively we can one day understand Nature. Intelligent Design says that because a Higher Power did it there is no way we can understand it. Hence, ID doesn't qualify as science.
That is as "academic" as this debate will ever come from the science side -- don't ask for more. For something to qualify as "science" and therefore be taught in a "science" class it has to adhere to the rules of "science". Weird how that works.
Here is some info on the voting machines used in the county.
Unilect Corportation is the manufactorer of the "Patriot Voting System" (because losing votes = being patriotic).
Interactive demo of their voting system!
Verified Voting has a Voter Information Sheet on the machine.
Disinfopedia has an article about Unilect Corporation. From this article:
The President of UniLect Corporation is Jack Gerbel, who has been actively involved in the election equipment industry since 1965. His career began in elections with IBM Corporation and then as a founder, Vice-President and Board of Directors member of Computer Election Systems (CES).
Mr. Gerbel had the distinction of personally selling and installing more election systems than any other person in the U.S.
Two major accounts that he sold and successfully installed were Cook County, Illinois and the City of Chicago.
Mr. Gerbel became Vice-President of Sales for Business Records Corporation (BRC).
So, there you have it. Background info. Side note: I live in NC and this is not the same machines that were being (these are the literal words of the poll workers) "tested" in Watauga County. And although they officially said these machines were only experimental and being tested, paper ballots were often withheld upon request and their availability was NOT posted. The Republic Party in Watauga County also refused to move polling locations onto Appalachian State University's campus, proposed by the Dem Party, although 22,000 of the 25,000 residents are students.
>Just because it's viable now, doesn't mean it'll be viable for the entire country. Nor does present-day viability imply that it'll scale up to the rest of the country's energy needs.
All of our electricty is redistributed anyway. But using it can't hurt. I say diversify the energy supply across the country: nothing like mixing up energy sources to reinfornce Homeland Security when it comes to electricty, etc. Fossil fuels have a long line of attack points.
>Similarly, hydroelectric power isn't renewable: there are only so many rivers that can be dammed, and a finite amount of rain falling into the water systems that feed them.
You have confused "renewable" with "infinite." It IS, by definition, renewable because of the water-cycle: there is always rain to feed that river. Please note I am not saying hydro power is perfect because that is far from the truth (although small-scale feeder stream damming is much better all around than large-scale implementation).
>Solving the problem means finding a high-energy-density portable power source (for cars), and/or an extremely high-density electrical generation source (which you then use to power everything but cars, and/or to synthesize hydrocarbons from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen).
Solving the problem also includes re-thinking our transportation needs. Rampant suburbia without viable mass-transit is a problem. Poorly designed urban areas are hurting us. We can't just look at energy needs from the supply-side; we must also must take a legit crack at lower our needs.
But I applaude you at recognizing we need to move the auto industry from many units with ICE to, at a minimum, many units with electric engines. THEN we can begin using many different energy sources to solve our most urgent upcoming problem. Right now the Bush administration's back-up energy supply after fossil fuels is coal, but that doesn't logically solve the problem of petro needs. We can't burn coal in our cars.
P.S. Ya, I know that no one really knows if we'll run out of fossil fuels soon. But I think everyone can agree that over time our methods of supplying it will have to change, and in our system change means increased costs, etc.
-----
Where is the administration on this? Pro-consumption, pro-petro, pro-coal.
I'm actually trying to get started in homebrewing; maybe you can give me some tips, ie. what's a good book? What do I need to start off with but I'll be able to expand to accomodate 6 college students in a house?
And if you want to know why I'd like to start it's because I:
1.) Am a poor college student.
2.) Love beer but hate most domestic beer.
If you help me out I'll get all of my equipment from you (Slashdot discount? heh just kidding).
Yes, the Foxfire books (and the original magazines) talk about moonshine among many things. This past year I entered college as a freshman and I started studying Appalachian trades, folklore/art, tradition, etc.
For Christmas my parents gave me their Foxfire book that they've had for 20 years (and never read). I'm reading it now. I'm in the Watauga College Interdisciplinary Studies program at Appalachian State.
God save the liberals (no one else will).
Actually I have a Transmeta Crusoe chip in my Sony Picturebook running FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE and it performs amazingly well (neglecting the very slow hdd's used by Sony). I installed using only a USB floppy drive (thanks my Mac friends) and everything else has been done via 16-bit PCMCIA network adapters.
;)
I believe everything compiles as regular ole x86 and the code-morphing is done at a very low software layer. If you'll read more about the Transmeta chips you'll see that several megabytes of memory are consumed on booting.
FreeBSD even has builtin sysctl settings for the LongRun processor/power management
Rock on FreeBSD.
Unless there was a MOTD that stated who can and can not access what and where. I'm pretty sure there has been legislation passed stating that. But I am not a lawyer, I've just seen mnay, many servers citing it in the past.
[ugh... sorry. last post was HTML formatted]
> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.
How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this...
1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given.
2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government)
3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war.
4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations.
By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would.
Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should.
And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that.
At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?
> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle. How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this... 1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given. 2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government) 3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war. 4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations. By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would. Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should. And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that. At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?
Please keep in mind that capitalism REQUIRES manufacturers to build a surplus of their product. Not only do they have to have enough to supply the demand, they have to have the ability to cover an surge in sales. With MS losing money with the XBox, as previously mentioned in the news, they may be willing to sell a few just to get them off the shelves. Just a thought...
While you're at it check out Furthurnet.com ... All the music there is free (each artist has either a public policy or has given written permission). There are more bands there than you think (and no, its not just Grateful Dead and Phish).
Check out moe! And The Jazz Mandolin Project!
The competition listed in the review is the Apple iMac and the Gateway Profile 4S, but I don't see how this comparison can hold any leverage at all. Honestly, the Sony PCV-W10 captures a specific demographic and truly is a unique and innovative product. Both the iMac and the Profile are both "economy" machines: stripped down (hardware-wise) versions of the PC made to save space (I assume).
The only real content in this review is contained in the hardware specs and images, but those can be found here.
Um, ya, in a lot of places that's against the law, especially places other than urban areas. [In the United States that is]
But instead of bombing innocent civilians (ie. terrorism) why not get to the root of terrorism? The US needs to not kill more people or attempt to control more lives, they must stop doing what makes terrorists mad.
And if anyone thinks that the bombs are the only thing thats killing Middle Eastern individuals take a look at the foreign aid being sent over to feed the starving. Approx. $34 million in food is being sent over to feed 7 million people. Subtract the expenses of airplane fuel, employees and other misc. things and you have about 1 out of every 100 people NOT RECEIVING FOOD while the US is blocking UN aid from entering the country (they dont want to be plowed over by war-hungry presidents).
I love the United States but I hate politicians who use war as a way to raise moral and get their votes up.