"in a country with no constitutionally-protected civil rights,"
I'm not quite sure what to make of that phrase. I live in a country where, in theory, I do have constitutionally-protected rights of privacy. In practice it is a completely different matter.
The idea of mining the asteroids actually makes sense, even for iron rather than gold. The mistake would be returning the metals to earth. They are much more valuable in orbit, considering how much it costs to get each pound into orbit. Leave whatever you get in orbit, use it in micro-gravity fabrication, with most of the products reinvested towards exploration (and capitalization) of space,
Look at all those used cars that get sold. Taking money away from our American Automobile industry. That is just as bad, and should be outlawed. No one should be allowed to buy used cars, they should have to support the industry that created the cars by buying new cars. I'm sure that is just as likely to bring down car costs and improve quality as banning or preventing used game sales will clean up the game industry.
Lets be honest here. They designed a test to prove or disprove the existence of life on Mars. The ran the test. When the results were not to someone's liking, they came up with an excuse why the results of this multimillion dollar test were not valid. I completely expect that they will do that again.
I really don't care what Neil deGrasse Tyson advocates. Is this really about saving the Earth or just about getting him more publicity? He is the only "astronomer" to be credited with the discovery of negative one planets. Join the campaign to get deGrasse Tyson demoted from "astronomer" to "dwarf astronomer".
You seem to think that the teacher would do things that are to the benefit of the student, and are willing to create a public record of what they are doing. While this could clearly be done, without requiring teachers to be extremely knowledgeable computer users, it will be fought by the teachers and their unios who do not welcome the openness that your request would bring about.
What I want to know is, if you win a trip into space, how you are going to pay the taxes on it, and if you really feel that you can justify spending the money on taxes rather than something else.
That's actually not an awful solution. It would require some extra feedback from the car so that the generator could start and stop (as well as instrumentation coming from the generator and some way to display it for a current all-electric vehicle), but it isn't out of the question. The problems that I see include most people being uncomfortable driving (and more importantly parking) a car with a trailer. It might present some interesting legal issues as well, particularly in states with mandated inspections, as the trailer would not have been inspected with the car. Of course, there is the issue of needing a license for the trailer, and that this precludes the option of attaching any other kind of trailer. But it very well might be an acceptable option for anyone considering an all-electric vehicle for a one vehicle household.
Yea, two cars would be a good solution for anyone wanting an all-electric vehicle, if only they were not forced to pay twice for liability insurance. They could be the only person driving either car, and can't drive both at once, yet the states allow the insurance companies to charge the driver for liability insurance on each car. At current insurance rates that is a very significant amount of money, and makes owning a second car for that rare extended trip an out of the question option for someone wanting to buy an all-electric vehicle. Add another driver to one car's insurance and the rates go up. Get a ticket and "points" and the rates go up. So clearly it is the driver who is being insured. But if you want to do what you suggest, even a single driver household will see a big and unjustified insurance hit. Mandated by the same states that claim that they want to clean up the air and reduce our use of foreign oil.
There is a problem with the all electric car, but it isn't really a technical problem, it is a poorly artificial legal problem created by our governments for the benefit of the insurance companies. The problem is that eventually everyone sees the need for a car with more range than the all electric car. So even if you want to save the earth and have clean air to breath, you don't buy an all electric car unless you are part of a multi-car household. I personally would buy one if I could, but the rare extended range trip kills that option for me. I would even consider buying a new all electric car and keep my current gasoline car for the couple of trips a year that i would make in it, but there is one big problem with that: Insurance. Even though I'm the only driver in my household, and I could only be driving one car at a time, I'm required to have liability insurance on both cars if I own two licensed cars. And the cost of insuring two cars is simply prohibitive.
I'm talking about simple liability insurance here, not comprehensive insurance (insurance that protects the car itself). I can see some weak arguments why that might be more expensive if you own two cars, or more cars than drivers in the household. But for liability insurance it is really the driver that is being insured, not the car. You see that proven as soon as you add a teenage drive to a car's insurance policy. You see it proven if you get a ticket and get "points" added to your license. Yet our government actually discourages driving choices that would be good for the environment by allowing the insurance companies to double bill you for liability insurance if you own a second vehicle.
Even before the all-electrics came out, I would have bought a much smaller car than I currently have if I could have had a second vehicle for the few times that I wanted to take a passenger somewhere and/or carry around some cargo. The car would have been much more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly and decreased our imaginary demand on foreign oil. But I couldn't justify the double insurance hit, it just made more sense to buy a larger four seat hatchback.
So the government is continuing to mandate better mileage (not that I believe the coming mandates will ever really be imposed), and give out absurd amounts of tax dollars for absurd ethanol subsidies and electric car research, while they simply refuse to tell the insurance companies to stop scamming the consumer and double billing then if the consumer wants to own multiple vehicles. Until that happens the market for all-electric cars like the Volt is artificially restricted.
Yes, changing out the battery pack for a motor does seem to be an attempt to address this, but I'm not clear on why it should convert the car to a rear-wheel drive non-electric car. That just seems like a crappy solution that is going to introduce plenty more problems. It would seem better to just swap out the large battery pack with a smaller battery and engine and fuel tank and retain the basic electric car. But it is really an artificial problem that is being created by letting the insurance industry bill you for both the number of cars you have as well as the number of drivers and the experience and driving record of those drivers, and if that problem were not there a free market could resolve the problem with current options.
let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues
Wow, it's a good thing that interest rates are so high now that they will greatly outpace inflation and make the a reality. Time for the power companies to give themselves another round of bonuses for coming up with this one and making it someone else's problem. Oh, wait....
weren't you here for the Startrek reboot? That what reboot means, take something that people like and totally screw it up for your own ego trip. That way you can make a totally mediocre movie and still expect good box office take from the fanboys that go just because of the name.
India wants to impose a 30% tax on these charity investments. We should just read that as they don't want us trying to help anyone in India and butt out of that country's affairs. They will likely consider any form of charity in similar ways, so just to be safe, avoid any form of charity that might go to India.
It is nice to see what the thumb-size card reader looks like, and I assure you that if I ever see one I'll refuse to let that seller scan my card. Paypal is one of the most absurd abuses to ever come out of the Electronic Bay of thieves. and I'll never do business with them. This even concerns me that some retailer might trying processing your info through Paypal without your knowledge or consent.
1. Years ago when i bought my copies of the Hobbit and the Ring series, there was a message on the back from J.R.R.T. himself, saying in effect that he had let the books slip out of copyright, but he thought it would be a nice thing if you bought the version that he had negotiated with the publishers rather than an "unauthorized" version. So what happened to change this?
My understanding of copyright law was that you could absolutely not copyright a title. So if the pub is only using the name "The Hobbit" and isn't displaying pictures of Hobbits from any source tied to the books or movies, just what is their legal claim?
The story says that he claims he was let got "for promoting" that belief. Yea, it is bad enough that someone has that poor of a scientific understanding, but is is far worse if he (as implied) was wasting any of the time he was being paid for to promote his superstitions. One can at least try to argue that someone should have a right to their silly religious beliefs, but they certainly don't have the right to be paid by NASA to promote that foolishness to others.
It's always nice to hear about an arcade, and this is the first one I've heard of that actually gets tax payer money rather than having absurd tax stamps on each machine (as well as the operators paying normal income taxes). Too bad they did that by calling it an "art". Might as well call it a sport and get Seattle to build you a stadium. But more than 30 games just isn't all that impressive, I've been in larger arcades, and there are some truly fantastic and much larger collections out there.
I'm also rather disappointed by the $10 bucks to get in, play all you can approach. Doing that takes away from one of the key concepts of pinball, trying to win a free game. It would be like having slot machines on free play but with no payout, would get boring fast. OK, not quite that bad, but I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to see this the next time I'm in Seattle.
While you are completely right, there are people who will hate you for saying that. And they will persecute (and maybe prosecute) you for thinking you have the freedom of speech to even say it. And their actions will not be called hate crimes.
Of course, there are things that people have no control of that get lumped into the hate crime category, and I realized that even as I wrote my post. There are many others that people do have control of. And I'm sure that we'll soon see (if it hasn't already happened) people charged with "hate crimes" because they took actions against someone who made the "lifestyle choice" of being a child molester.
If you want an unbiased society you have to have laws that apply equally to everyone. You only continue to breed hate and resentment by having laws and privileges that give one group an advantage over another.
Slashdot Mirror
"in a country with no constitutionally-protected civil rights,"
I'm not quite sure what to make of that phrase. I live in a country where, in theory, I do have constitutionally-protected rights of privacy. In practice it is a completely different matter.
I remember back in the good old days when it was called the $25 ARM-based credit-card sized computer.
Someone who worked at PayPay lied? I'm shocked!
The idea of mining the asteroids actually makes sense, even for iron rather than gold. The mistake would be returning the metals to earth. They are much more valuable in orbit, considering how much it costs to get each pound into orbit. Leave whatever you get in orbit, use it in micro-gravity fabrication, with most of the products reinvested towards exploration (and capitalization) of space,
Look at all those used cars that get sold. Taking money away from our American Automobile industry. That is just as bad, and should be outlawed. No one should be allowed to buy used cars, they should have to support the industry that created the cars by buying new cars. I'm sure that is just as likely to bring down car costs and improve quality as banning or preventing used game sales will clean up the game industry.
There is a finite amount of money You can either spend it on space exploration or on welfare for octomoms and other people who don't want to work.
Lets be honest here. They designed a test to prove or disprove the existence of life on Mars. The ran the test. When the results were not to someone's liking, they came up with an excuse why the results of this multimillion dollar test were not valid. I completely expect that they will do that again.
We MUST do this FOR THE CHILDREN. What could possibly go wrong?
I really don't care what Neil deGrasse Tyson advocates. Is this really about saving the Earth or just about getting him more publicity? He is the only "astronomer" to be credited with the discovery of negative one planets. Join the campaign to get deGrasse Tyson demoted from "astronomer" to "dwarf astronomer".
Wouldn't it be simpler to just outlaw religion, the real cause of this and most other problems in the world?
You seem to think that the teacher would do things that are to the benefit of the student, and are willing to create a public record of what they are doing. While this could clearly be done, without requiring teachers to be extremely knowledgeable computer users, it will be fought by the teachers and their unios who do not welcome the openness that your request would bring about.
If I win this chance to go to space,....
What I want to know is, if you win a trip into space, how you are going to pay the taxes on it, and if you really feel that you can justify spending the money on taxes rather than something else.
That's actually not an awful solution. It would require some extra feedback from the car so that the generator could start and stop (as well as instrumentation coming from the generator and some way to display it for a current all-electric vehicle), but it isn't out of the question. The problems that I see include most people being uncomfortable driving (and more importantly parking) a car with a trailer. It might present some interesting legal issues as well, particularly in states with mandated inspections, as the trailer would not have been inspected with the car. Of course, there is the issue of needing a license for the trailer, and that this precludes the option of attaching any other kind of trailer. But it very well might be an acceptable option for anyone considering an all-electric vehicle for a one vehicle household.
Yea, two cars would be a good solution for anyone wanting an all-electric vehicle, if only they were not forced to pay twice for liability insurance. They could be the only person driving either car, and can't drive both at once, yet the states allow the insurance companies to charge the driver for liability insurance on each car. At current insurance rates that is a very significant amount of money, and makes owning a second car for that rare extended trip an out of the question option for someone wanting to buy an all-electric vehicle. Add another driver to one car's insurance and the rates go up. Get a ticket and "points" and the rates go up. So clearly it is the driver who is being insured. But if you want to do what you suggest, even a single driver household will see a big and unjustified insurance hit. Mandated by the same states that claim that they want to clean up the air and reduce our use of foreign oil.
There is a problem with the all electric car, but it isn't really a technical problem, it is a poorly artificial legal problem created by our governments for the benefit of the insurance companies. The problem is that eventually everyone sees the need for a car with more range than the all electric car. So even if you want to save the earth and have clean air to breath, you don't buy an all electric car unless you are part of a multi-car household. I personally would buy one if I could, but the rare extended range trip kills that option for me. I would even consider buying a new all electric car and keep my current gasoline car for the couple of trips a year that i would make in it, but there is one big problem with that: Insurance. Even though I'm the only driver in my household, and I could only be driving one car at a time, I'm required to have liability insurance on both cars if I own two licensed cars. And the cost of insuring two cars is simply prohibitive.
I'm talking about simple liability insurance here, not comprehensive insurance (insurance that protects the car itself). I can see some weak arguments why that might be more expensive if you own two cars, or more cars than drivers in the household. But for liability insurance it is really the driver that is being insured, not the car. You see that proven as soon as you add a teenage drive to a car's insurance policy. You see it proven if you get a ticket and get "points" added to your license. Yet our government actually discourages driving choices that would be good for the environment by allowing the insurance companies to double bill you for liability insurance if you own a second vehicle.
Even before the all-electrics came out, I would have bought a much smaller car than I currently have if I could have had a second vehicle for the few times that I wanted to take a passenger somewhere and/or carry around some cargo. The car would have been much more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly and decreased our imaginary demand on foreign oil. But I couldn't justify the double insurance hit, it just made more sense to buy a larger four seat hatchback.
So the government is continuing to mandate better mileage (not that I believe the coming mandates will ever really be imposed), and give out absurd amounts of tax dollars for absurd ethanol subsidies and electric car research, while they simply refuse to tell the insurance companies to stop scamming the consumer and double billing then if the consumer wants to own multiple vehicles. Until that happens the market for all-electric cars like the Volt is artificially restricted.
Yes, changing out the battery pack for a motor does seem to be an attempt to address this, but I'm not clear on why it should convert the car to a rear-wheel drive non-electric car. That just seems like a crappy solution that is going to introduce plenty more problems. It would seem better to just swap out the large battery pack with a smaller battery and engine and fuel tank and retain the basic electric car. But it is really an artificial problem that is being created by letting the insurance industry bill you for both the number of cars you have as well as the number of drivers and the experience and driving record of those drivers, and if that problem were not there a free market could resolve the problem with current options.
let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues
Wow, it's a good thing that interest rates are so high now that they will greatly outpace inflation and make the a reality. Time for the power companies to give themselves another round of bonuses for coming up with this one and making it someone else's problem. Oh, wait ....
weren't you here for the Startrek reboot? That what reboot means, take something that people like and totally screw it up for your own ego trip. That way you can make a totally mediocre movie and still expect good box office take from the fanboys that go just because of the name.
India wants to impose a 30% tax on these charity investments. We should just read that as they don't want us trying to help anyone in India and butt out of that country's affairs. They will likely consider any form of charity in similar ways, so just to be safe, avoid any form of charity that might go to India.
It is nice to see what the thumb-size card reader looks like, and I assure you that if I ever see one I'll refuse to let that seller scan my card. Paypal is one of the most absurd abuses to ever come out of the Electronic Bay of thieves. and I'll never do business with them. This even concerns me that some retailer might trying processing your info through Paypal without your knowledge or consent.
I have two problems with this:
1. Years ago when i bought my copies of the Hobbit and the Ring series, there was a message on the back from J.R.R.T. himself, saying in effect that he had let the books slip out of copyright, but he thought it would be a nice thing if you bought the version that he had negotiated with the publishers rather than an "unauthorized" version. So what happened to change this?
My understanding of copyright law was that you could absolutely not copyright a title. So if the pub is only using the name "The Hobbit" and isn't displaying pictures of Hobbits from any source tied to the books or movies, just what is their legal claim?
The story says that he claims he was let got "for promoting" that belief. Yea, it is bad enough that someone has that poor of a scientific understanding, but is is far worse if he (as implied) was wasting any of the time he was being paid for to promote his superstitions. One can at least try to argue that someone should have a right to their silly religious beliefs, but they certainly don't have the right to be paid by NASA to promote that foolishness to others.
the first guinea pig ? What in the world are they talking about? Monsanto has been using the US citizens as guinea pigs for years?
It's always nice to hear about an arcade, and this is the first one I've heard of that actually gets tax payer money rather than having absurd tax stamps on each machine (as well as the operators paying normal income taxes). Too bad they did that by calling it an "art". Might as well call it a sport and get Seattle to build you a stadium. But more than 30 games just isn't all that impressive, I've been in larger arcades, and there are some truly fantastic and much larger collections out there.
I'm also rather disappointed by the $10 bucks to get in, play all you can approach. Doing that takes away from one of the key concepts of pinball, trying to win a free game. It would be like having slot machines on free play but with no payout, would get boring fast. OK, not quite that bad, but I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to see this the next time I'm in Seattle.
While you are completely right, there are people who will hate you for saying that. And they will persecute (and maybe prosecute) you for thinking you have the freedom of speech to even say it. And their actions will not be called hate crimes.
Of course, there are things that people have no control of that get lumped into the hate crime category, and I realized that even as I wrote my post. There are many others that people do have control of. And I'm sure that we'll soon see (if it hasn't already happened) people charged with "hate crimes" because they took actions against someone who made the "lifestyle choice" of being a child molester.
If you want an unbiased society you have to have laws that apply equally to everyone. You only continue to breed hate and resentment by having laws and privileges that give one group an advantage over another.