...You, the other 6 billion people on this planet, and the countless billions of animals on this planet pollute every time you exhale.
The point is we don't have a choice but to exhale. But we do have a choice to consume gasoline or not. What you stated only adds to the need for alternative power sources.
Secondly:
If oil is not to be drilled as much, then prepare to take some money out of your retirement fund in order to pay for simple daily things.
Sure, that's what could happen if it's not done in a concerted manner. But that's what governments are for. Laws, international treaties and economic dispositions are everyday thought of and put in action. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of what could be done. On that subject, please read: this. You'll notice that the Americans have a history of selfish spoiled-child-like attitude of not wanting to let go of their bad habits.
Do you think people as a whole don't have any sort of control over the economy? You think money is a concept that lives by itself? That it's a machine that can't be controlled nor tuned for the good of humanity?
There are ways to compensate for the shift in the economic balance without putting everyone into poverty, but it would require everyone's little contribution.
That makes me think: What is President Bush's family wealth built on? Isn't it oil? Hmm no wonder he's so quiet on the matter.
Whenever I am done drinking my beer, I take the bottles back to the store for refund.
Whenever the bottle of propane for my BBQ is empty, I take it back and exchange it for a full one (of course, I pay for the propane).
Now, how about designing EV's with removable fuel cells (or batteries or whatever device the energy is stored in), so that we could simply take the empty battery back to a specialized retailer (analog to gas stations), so that we could in a few seconds get a fully charged vehicle?
There are probably many ways that have nothing to the with the EV technology itself that could make it a viable and realistic solution.
If the technology is deliberately held back by the lobbying of oil companies and others who would lose because of the shift towards EV's, then make them part of the solution, and have them maintain their level of profit. Let's grant them a monopoly on EV energy production and sale.
BUT PLEASE, PLEASE let's stop ruining the environment so that we can give our children and grandchildren the same comfort and environment that we've had so far.
I'm no engineer or scientist, but common sense has always served me well.
Ok, suppose they do that. Imagine the hardware required to implement this. Think of Sympatico, ATT or AOL-Canada and then think what it means in terms of hardware.
Now, if I were a big hardware company CEO, and had a few friends in politics, somewhere in the Department of Justice, or Industry Canada, then I would suggest that idea to those friends, along with some reward $$$ once it's put in place. It seems only another way to fill the pockets of a few.
Worse, they will probably introduce the software to do all that monitoring, and make it the only legally allowable software to be used by ISP's (to fill the pockets of a few others in the process).
When such technologically absurd ideas take shape somewhere in the head of a moron government offical, then you can only wonder who's pockets they're trying to fill that time. I mean, THERE HAS to be another reason than the one they're feeding us, no?
PS: No no, I do not suffer from schizophrenic paranoia. But there *has* to be something behind that idea.
There's nothing wrong with RedHat making money and protecting what is theirs.
I don't mind paying for software (especially at the OS-Level), as long as I have the opportunity to make a choice. Up until maybe a year ago, there was simply no alternative to Windows on my desktop. Now, I have a choice to boot up Linux and accomplish pretty much the same tasks with it as I do in Windows.
And it comes at a price, which is to have RedHat establish some kind of mainstream dominance over the Linux market and pay for their efforts.
2 Microsoft is better than 1. And 3 would be even better.
Anyways, those of you complaining are pointless. Just switch to Mandrake or other distros. The choice is yours.
What about having commercials on the bottom 1/5 or 1/3 of the screen, without sound, that play during the show? Similar to an internet banner-ad? Or just a logo somewhere on-screen?
If that becomes the general method to force commercials, then give it a few years (months?) and someone will design a real-time video capture device that will screen out the part of the frames used for commercials and display re-formatted images fullscreen that do not contain the ad banners.
I know that's what I would come up with.
For every system, there's always at least one way to defeat it.
Suppose it will be feasable in year 30000. Then people would already have travelled back in time, to today, yesterday or 45,000,000 years ago. therefore, we would know about it already...Don't tell me it's because those humans from year 30000 are indeed observing us right now, but are wise enough not to interfere with us. Humans will just never be reasonable enough for that.
Just another thought:
If you travel through time, wouldn't it require that you become the energy/matter pattern you were at that point in time?
Let's say you travel back to 1 minute after your parents conceived you. At that moment, you did exist, only in another form, which was a few million molecules and the small amount of potential energy that would eventually be required to slowly duplicate the cells into a foetus.
Now, if you travel to just 1 year after your death, then you're a decomposed body at that moment. You still exist (nothing is created, nothing is lost, said Lavoisier) but as a bunch of molecules and some energy that serve other purposes than being assembled into a living being. Visiting a point in time occuring after your death would mean you could not experience it, because you're past your death.
Just because you find a way to twist the time/space continuum does not mean you can magically make a snapshot or a copy of yourself, let alone send that copy and let it experience other time periods.
I just hook the cable input to a video capture card on my computer and I extract the pixels from the 3/4 of the screen that contain the actual program, then shoot it back on the TV set in real-time.
Of course I'm kidding, but as technology evolves for TV networks, it does for us too! With digital TV knocking at our doors, it shouldn't be difficult to design boxes that manipulate the input and scramble/remove any form of ads.
Indeed, we're a million years away from seeing such cars on mainstream market.
GM only wants to look like they're good guys: 1 billion $ (if it's really what's being spent) isn't that much to gain positive public opinion. It's money as well spent as doing those stupid TV adds that have all been the same for the last 30 years.
With Coward superstar's comment (entitled Hydro-Quebec, above), we have a perfect example of what is at stake here. An oil company bought their electrical car prototype. Not to pursue development, but to keep it from going mainstream!(it makes me think of the business practices of a software giant I know...hmm...what's the name of that company again?).
Capitalism rests on the shoulders of oil consumption. Everything we buy is directly or indirectly related to consumption of oil. There has to be a lot of people who do not want a shift towards another source of energy for transportation. So it'll be a sloooowwww shift...
I think that's the biggest drawback to capitalism. People lose sight of what they're really accomplishing, caring only about the profit margins they generate. Social values, everyday kindness, simplicity, self-pride amd most importantly consequences of their acts all get blown away by our need to make more money.
Slashdot Mirror
They should have given it a domain name at least. A name would give a little bit of pity for the thing...But just an IP address makes it worthless...
They should mirror elgooG...Would make it esier to use.
Don't you give them the idea to require us to purchase digital certificates in order to ensure our identity when we register a domain name!!!
The point is we don't have a choice but to exhale. But we do have a choice to consume gasoline or not. What you stated only adds to the need for alternative power sources.
Secondly:Sure, that's what could happen if it's not done in a concerted manner. But that's what governments are for. Laws, international treaties and economic dispositions are everyday thought of and put in action. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of what could be done. On that subject, please read: this . You'll notice that the Americans have a history of selfish spoiled-child-like attitude of not wanting to let go of their bad habits.
Do you think people as a whole don't have any sort of control over the economy? You think money is a concept that lives by itself? That it's a machine that can't be controlled nor tuned for the good of humanity?
There are ways to compensate for the shift in the economic balance without putting everyone into poverty, but it would require everyone's little contribution.
That makes me think: What is President Bush's family wealth built on? Isn't it oil? Hmm no wonder he's so quiet on the matter.
Whenever I am done drinking my beer, I take the bottles back to the store for refund.
Whenever the bottle of propane for my BBQ is empty, I take it back and exchange it for a full one (of course, I pay for the propane).
Now, how about designing EV's with removable fuel cells (or batteries or whatever device the energy is stored in), so that we could simply take the empty battery back to a specialized retailer (analog to gas stations), so that we could in a few seconds get a fully charged vehicle?
There are probably many ways that have nothing to the with the EV technology itself that could make it a viable and realistic solution.
If the technology is deliberately held back by the lobbying of oil companies and others who would lose because of the shift towards EV's, then make them part of the solution, and have them maintain their level of profit. Let's grant them a monopoly on EV energy production and sale.
BUT PLEASE, PLEASE let's stop ruining the environment so that we can give our children and grandchildren the same comfort and environment that we've had so far.
I'm no engineer or scientist, but common sense has always served me well.
Now, if I were a big hardware company CEO, and had a few friends in politics, somewhere in the Department of Justice, or Industry Canada, then I would suggest that idea to those friends, along with some reward $$$ once it's put in place. It seems only another way to fill the pockets of a few.
Worse, they will probably introduce the software to do all that monitoring, and make it the only legally allowable software to be used by ISP's (to fill the pockets of a few others in the process).
When such technologically absurd ideas take shape somewhere in the head of a moron government offical, then you can only wonder who's pockets they're trying to fill that time. I mean, THERE HAS to be another reason than the one they're feeding us, no?
PS: No no, I do not suffer from schizophrenic paranoia. But there *has* to be something behind that idea.
You don't own it. You paid some money to someone who thought they owned it to gain that (false) ownership.
And now you think it gives you the right to keep it from running away. That's a big difference.
So many people think that it all comes down to a price tag. Some concepts just never apply to money, whatever the twist you put on them.
It was Sting (and many others) who said: "Free, free, set them free..."
I don't mind paying for software (especially at the OS-Level), as long as I have the opportunity to make a choice. Up until maybe a year ago, there was simply no alternative to Windows on my desktop. Now, I have a choice to boot up Linux and accomplish pretty much the same tasks with it as I do in Windows.
And it comes at a price, which is to have RedHat establish some kind of mainstream dominance over the Linux market and pay for their efforts.
2 Microsoft is better than 1. And 3 would be even better.
Anyways, those of you complaining are pointless. Just switch to Mandrake or other distros. The choice is yours.
If that becomes the general method to force commercials, then give it a few years (months?) and someone will design a real-time video capture device that will screen out the part of the frames used for commercials and display re-formatted images fullscreen that do not contain the ad banners.
I know that's what I would come up with.
For every system, there's always at least one way to defeat it.
Just another thought:
If you travel through time, wouldn't it require that you become the energy/matter pattern you were at that point in time?
Let's say you travel back to 1 minute after your parents conceived you. At that moment, you did exist, only in another form, which was a few million molecules and the small amount of potential energy that would eventually be required to slowly duplicate the cells into a foetus.
Now, if you travel to just 1 year after your death, then you're a decomposed body at that moment. You still exist (nothing is created, nothing is lost, said Lavoisier) but as a bunch of molecules and some energy that serve other purposes than being assembled into a living being. Visiting a point in time occuring after your death would mean you could not experience it, because you're past your death.
Just because you find a way to twist the time/space continuum does not mean you can magically make a snapshot or a copy of yourself, let alone send that copy and let it experience other time periods.
I just hook the cable input to a video capture card on my computer and I extract the pixels from the 3/4 of the screen that contain the actual program, then shoot it back on the TV set in real-time.
Of course I'm kidding, but as technology evolves for TV networks, it does for us too! With digital TV knocking at our doors, it shouldn't be difficult to design boxes that manipulate the input and scramble/remove any form of ads.
Indeed, we're a million years away from seeing such cars on mainstream market.
GM only wants to look like they're good guys: 1 billion $ (if it's really what's being spent) isn't that much to gain positive public opinion. It's money as well spent as doing those stupid TV adds that have all been the same for the last 30 years.
With Coward superstar's comment (entitled Hydro-Quebec, above), we have a perfect example of what is at stake here. An oil company bought their electrical car prototype. Not to pursue development, but to keep it from going mainstream!(it makes me think of the business practices of a software giant I know...hmm...what's the name of that company again?).
Capitalism rests on the shoulders of oil consumption. Everything we buy is directly or indirectly related to consumption of oil. There has to be a lot of people who do not want a shift towards another source of energy for transportation. So it'll be a sloooowwww shift...
I think that's the biggest drawback to capitalism. People lose sight of what they're really accomplishing, caring only about the profit margins they generate. Social values, everyday kindness, simplicity, self-pride amd most importantly consequences of their acts all get blown away by our need to make more money.
Let's put the whole Slashdot message archive on that DVD. After all, it's the stuff that matters.