> Have they added the ability to disable N-gons yet?
Haha, this is wildly ironic considering that many have been waiting a loooooonnnng time for N-gon support and it was only added in 2.63. Moreover, N-gons are needed to actually "create proper Geometry" in many cases, so I'm going to have to figure you're trolling:).
Anyways, I'd be quite surprised if you can't convert N-gons to tris/quads using the usual tools (Mesh->Faces->???, or Alt+J, IIRC). Odds are it'll happen automatically when you export to a tri-only format like STL. If your 3D printer 'supports' a format that allows N-gons (OBJ is one) but it chokes on them, that's a stupid bug on the printer's part; triangulating N-gons is trivial. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried Blender's N-gons yet.)
27 people will die in the time I take to type this comment. Twice as many will be killed by lightning this year (a mere 10% of those who are stuck). Four to Eight times as many will die of arson
This is tragic and unnecessary, but to imply that is pervasive or even, for that matter, statistically relevant is ridiculous. The numbers are already tiny. Yes, I understand completely that the numbers don't matter when you're the one affected, but if you're taking about sweeping policy reform, them you're not talking about those affected.
Is this not the site I read when I see how people decrying the latest TSA or "counter-terrorism" attack on our rights? Well guess what: The terrorists killed over 100x as many as this did, and probably more than 10x of what school shootings have done over the history of the US. I guess people here are much, much more worried about privacy than guns when to comes to loss of rights, because 9/11 is far better grounds for action than this is.
> make their scenes look more realistic at a more realistic frame rate
Whilst I do generally like higher frame rates, the above is actually the trouble... It looks _too_ realistic. For a high fantasy movie like The Hobbit sometimes putting a little 24Hz vaseline on the lens helps let your brain fill in the gaps with fantasy. That 48Hz the project fills in the gaps with reality.
It's a lot like the transition to high def... Things that are real look better easily, while things that aren't supposed to need to rework their bag of tricks in order to make the new tech a benefit rather than a hindrance. I'm definitely glad Jackson is pushing this, but it does sound like there's a ways to go yet before production really hits its stride. I'm really quite surprised that we didn't see, say, James Bond try 48fps instead, but ah well. We'll see how Cameron does with his Avatar sequels.
> The US is already the dominate military power on the planet, bar none, so I am sure they could trim the military budget by a tiny percentage
I'm not really disagreeing, but I do think there's an important point people overlook when discussing things like this: Military dominance is all about spending. It's quite like a bleeding edge computer. You spend thousands on the best of the best, and in a year's time anyone could have the same setup from a quarter the price. You're then either with the Joes or spending more to stay on top. You can't really step back and say 'okay, we spent enough'; it's literally an arms race and staying ahead is expensive.
> Its nice to think that private enterprise will provide the means to get there (for whatever values of "there") but although its happening, its not happening overnight.
I'd point out that NASA isn't exactly doing anything overnight either. As long as it's taking for private enterprise to enter the game, they seem to be moving faster once they're in it. Honestly, I wouldn't be too surprised if the next exploration mission is privately funded at this point.
No, no, you misunderstand. Remember that adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, all Facebook has is privacy intrusion so of course the only way to enhance privacy is to intrude on it. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.
> Now if any state had the testicular fortitude to challenge them over their utterly unconstitutional use of the threat > of withholding federal highway funds from states that failed to raise the drinking age to 21,
As another poster pointed out: it already happened and they lost.
The problem is simple: The federal government has the power to levy an income tax all citizens without any real accountability. Thus, they can just 'steal' tax money from a state by raising taxes and keeping the increased revenue (unless you behave). Sure, the state _could_ levy its own transportation taxes and eschew the federal money, but now its people are getting double taxed and not seeing the benefits of half of it. As a result people leave, protest, etc. The only real ability to allow states the ability to control the drinking age it to change the federal law, unfortunately. (Or maybe an amendment prohibiting redistribution of money to the states?)
Anyways, another challenge would almost certainly go down in flames: SCOTUS already hinted (IIRC) that they're okay with the 'Obamacare' no-health-insurance penalty if it's constructed as a tax, so they're probably okay with the general idea of the federal government coercing behavior with taxation. I'm looking forward to our free speech tax.
I was curious so I ran the numbers and, unless I messed something up, "a whole lot less" is an epic understatement... Figure 1100kWh/m^2 per yr with 20% efficient panels (current market is 12-18%):
Area needed for 16GW: 16e9 / 25 640km^2 = 247mi^2 = 0.17% Germany = 71.8% Berlin = 23.6% Rhode Island (land)
And mind that's just solar flux... Realistically you'd need roads, substations, storage, bezels, etc, so figure another 10%+. Mind also that doesn't include losses for conversion to AC for transmission, so you'd probably need another 15% for that. Finally, unless you can store a crap ton of energy effectively for about 9 months (and supplement winter generation with summer), you'll probably need to increase that by another 50% to account for the decreased power during the winder months. (You still wouldn't get 16GW, but you could argue that you wont need it all in the winter due to people not using AC.)
So, yeah: that 16GW photovoltaic array would occupy more land area than Berlin
(In fairness though, 16GW of nukes wouldn't be one installation. It would probably be about 6 with 2 or 3 1GW reactors each. That would probably come to around a square mile (100acre each?) so the solar panels would only be about 300 or so times the area.)
For 2011, the max monthly average output in the US was 165kWh / kW rated. That means the average power of 2 kW of photovoltaic would not exceed 500W. So photovoltaics are still over twice as much by your estimate... I would be curious what a PV 'plant' would come to, once you factored in storage and over-capacity for winter, etc.
The estimated base cost of a new AP1000 reactor is about $5000/kW on the high side (though finance and other costs can add to that). So $100 billion would buy about 20GW of nuclear capacity. (A bit less if you pile on taxes, high interest rates, side projects, etc... 16GW seems to be about the standard in the US).
I'm having trouble pinning down what the German grid capacity is, but the average consumption in 2009 appears to have been about 63GW. The cited "hundreds of billions" is specifically 446, so even with the non-aggressive real world numbers they could install about 71GW of nuclear capacity. I'd guess that would be able to replace about half of their current generators. Not bad at all.
Of course. To anyone that actually cares about this metals are fantastic. They are plentiful, they're durable enough to last as long as you want them to (and through additional applications, i.e. reuse), and when you're done, they're some of the most easily sorted and recycled materials around. (They even decay, to an extent, as pointed out by another.)
But remember that's not what 'green' is about these days. It's not _really_ about doing things in, shall we say, a responsible manner. Instead, it's really a back-to-basics/nature movement where people feel that humans are pushing too hard, lost their connection with nature, etc and it's time to use that tech to bring us full circle (if you can excuse the hyperbolic trope reference). It's why you see things like "biodegradable" spec'ed over things like 'durable and reusable'... they want to see servers that they can mulch and grow a flower on rather than ones that will last decades only to be returned to industry and not nature.
No one was pretending that polls are some kind of random guess by someone. The thing is that polls and elections are different circumstances. When you vote, you need to travel and you can do it in secret. It also counts so maybe you change sides when push comes to shove. There's also fraud, which isn't exactly polled for either.
The ultimate question isn't whether the polls were "wrong", but whether they could accurately predict the outcome of an election, which is not the same as a poll. In a computer context, this is like using synthetic benchmarks to predict real-world performance. Sometimes with good data and a good model you can nail it. Sometimes you overlook something and are fairly off.
In reality, I'd say it's damn remarkable that the outcome was so close to the predicted value. From the perspective of fraud _alone_ this is a striking result: either the statisticians can predict fraud quite well or it's not as much of an issue as expected. (Or, maybe the shadow organization controlling the outcome of elections got lazy and decided to just follow the predictions this time around:p.)
So, yes, I do think that no one can sell spherical magnets. (Or won't be allowed to, once this has passed.)
Technically, the proposal as is only applies to sets marketed by the manufacturer primarily as a manipulative or construction desk toy for general entertainment, and they are seeking comment on what to do about magnets included in science/craft/hobby kits or sold individually. So as it stands this technically wouldn't prohibit them from being sold as industrial parts or maybe even science kits. However, mind that government 'suggestion' is all powerful... See how amazon delisted them, and ebay said they would, before this policy is even finalized. You may technically be allowed to sell these in some context, but you'll need a lot of luck to actually do so.
> These sort of laws are stupid, because they can NOT stop anyone from doing it, unless they decide to start searching everyone...
I don't like excessive laws, but there much worse things than laws that are philosophically sound but just aren't backed by heavy handed enforcement.
And even still this law is helpful: If you aren't selling your vote and are instead being coerced, you can just make a huge fanfare of taking the picture to the point that the poll worker calls you on it. "Sorry, I tried to get your proof but they saw me and threw me out." Or you can just say that they were watching you and so you didn't want to risk it but you totally voted the way you were supposed to. And so the law did its job.
> Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?
Yes. To elaborate: It's difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug that is easy to administer and will result in guaranteed, peaceful death without little to no chance of (partial) survival. Sure you can drink bleach or try to OD on alcohol or acetaminophen/paracetamol or any number of things. But they can be quite unpleasant and/or leave you alive but even worse off.
> Or is this aiming to legally protect doctors who are assisting patients?
Less so, I'd wager. Realistically, people rarely ask questions if someone suffering and wishing to die dies in their sleep. Doctor: "They died in their sleep last night". Family: "Ah, well their suffering is over at least". Pretty much never: "I bet you turned their morphine up you bastard!". Of course, that really requires the patient to be literally on their death bed, but either way I think the point of this is entirely a way to reduce suffering of the terminally ill and not really about doctor liability.
> Forget law. The physical reality of the thing is that...
The physical reality of the thing is that the government can break into your house, murder your pets and family, torture you for all your passwords, download your data, and then shoot you in the head and torch the place.
The law (and associated notions of civility, etc) is _everything_. Without it, every notion is just fantasy.
At least luck is a factor. Obama has already proven he's more then willing to run with this crap, and that was in the first term when he'd theoretically be trying to stay enough on the good side of the populace to get reelected.
> It's like leaving a guy that doesn't worship you enough for one that beats you black and blue every night.
No, it's like leaving a guy that beats you black and blue every night for a guy that hung out with someone that used to beat you black and blue every night. I'm not going to pretend that Romney would be any better, but realistically given how willing Obama has been picking up where Bush left off, I can hardly consider 'Romney's going to be like Bush because he's from the same faction as Bush' as much of a reason to consider Obama over Romney.
I had a big post but my browser crashed. So I'll post an abbreviated version:
First: MTP on the system partition is a good thing; the partitioning was stupid. However, that is totally orthogonal to having an SD Card with mass storage.
For me, the big thing is that I personally use my phone as a thumb drive that doesn't take up space in my pocket and can view the files on it. SD Card means easily upgraded storage for cheap. Mass storage means not MTP idiosyncrasies like dropping a file it doesn't like or a.svn directory, etc. Support for MTP is also pretty spotty and generally a pain vs mass storage. MTP costs a lot in terms of flexibility and compatibility.
But this: > If I *really* wanted to go gung-ho with music for some reason I had a perfectly capable MP3 player that was even better than my phone (battery life, etc) for that purpose
Yeah, well I don't. I don't and I don't want to have to buy one and I don't want to have to carry one and charge one and sync one.
> Once I shifted my expectations to match my reality, it ceased to bother me.
This is a total non-point. Why not shift your expectations to be okay with a cheap 2GB music player and a feature phone with a EDGE connection? Or to a string and a carrier pigeon? An SD slot isn't just possible, but present on many devices. Many cheaper devices, even. The fact that people would need to adjust their expectations when their expectations for a several-hundred dollar device are so easy and regularly met elsewhere is ridiculous. It might be a trade-off they are will to make, or a deal breaker that sends them elsewhere, but to pretend that it's their fault for wanting a fairly ubiquitous feature? Outrageous.
With new emphasis: Only when it needed to be publicly voted on by elected individuals could the outcry actually do anything, and it did.
That's what I'm on about, and have been this whole time. The people voting in the the EU parliament and US Congress are directly accountable to their people. The people voting in the ITU are not. Since I have been focusing on precisely that and the potential issues it creates throughout these posts, that you would talk about publicness of the vote (which I never expressed doubt or concern about) baffles me.
HSPA+ is just as 4G as LTE is, according to Wikipedia (which is to say, it was decided that while they weren't technically 4G they advanced 3G enough to be called 4G).
What advantages does LTE have over HSPA+ that would make the latter "lame" by comparison?
While I'm not going to say "never ever", the future you propose is not going to happen. Efficiency drops off _drastically_ with distance; the notion that you would have some power transmitter somewhere that would power a light somewhere else is so purely sci-fi that it's pointless to even speculate on efficiency of a setup. Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it. Ditto with lights.
Wireless power isn't about wireless in the WiFi sense that it grands mobility, it's wireless in the NFC sense that it doesn't require a wire to be plugged in. That means less cycles on a fragile connecter, no plug/unplug time, etc. Maybe even allowing hermetically sealed devices. Realistically the most this might be used for is a laptop, but even then I think it would usually make more sense to just plug it in (e.g. at home... this might make sense for a cafe table).
> If the people can convince their government to drop SOPA, they can convince them to veto any bad ITU legislation.
But the people didn't, you see. They merely convinced them that they knew about SOPA and would make their politicians pay come election time if they passed it. The politicians still want it though, at least in so far as they don't care that much and the media conglomerates tell them they want it. They just don't want it enough to risk reelection.
So riddle me this, if the person voting for SOPA was some appointee at the behest of 'the government', do you think that outrage would have worked? After all, you aren't voting for them, they're appointed. You're elected officials can say "not me; I don't like SOPA just like you my friends" and then turn around and tell the representative to not veto the ITU NeoSOPA. There's no paper tail linking names of representatives to the ITU vote like there would be linking them to SOPA. You could only make some vague threat to vote against every incumbent if it passed, that that's a weak threat.
The point is simple. This isn't about one country vs many countries, it's about one country's people vs the world's governments. You have much more confidence than I do that some country is going to take a principled stand over some issue and not grandstand until they get something they want in return for their vote. I've see a hell of a lot of the later and precious little of the former. Especially once talk of embargos are being thrown about because the country isn't doing enough to protect whatever.
You point to the downfall of ACTA as the system working, and indeed it is. But that's not this system. This system is like the negotiations ACTA: too far abstracted from the people for them to do anything about it. Only when it needed to be publicly voted on by elected individuals could the outcry actually do anything, and it did. But it went through years of negotiations unimpeded because it was done under the table and with no names attached. I see the ITU as offering that same forum, but without the final check of a public vote, and that's why I think it's bad.
> Spending five minutes getting a Christian to deny his/her own holy book is about all the time I have for them these days.
lol, yep. That's why you have time to read the whole thing, as you advocated in your original post? Or time for this discussion, where you assume me to be a Christian and are trying to get me to 'deny my own holy book'? That's interesting because that's what I did right off the bat with no input on your part.
Or maybe you mean Orthodox Churches? "Scriptures are understood to contain historical fact, poetry, idiom, metaphor, simile, moral fable, parable, prophecy, and wisdom literature. Thus, the Scriptures are never used for personal interpretation, but always seen within the context of Holy Tradition, which gave birth to the Scripture. Orthodoxy maintains that belief in a doctrine of sola scriptura would lead most to error since the truth of Scripture cannot be separated from the traditions from which it arose." Hrm... I'm guessing not since one of their founding beliefs is that Scripture only has meaning with context and cannot be taken literally.
If you do happen to be talking about sola scriptura (and therefore, generally, protestant movements), then I'd advise you educate yourself on that. The doctrine is not that the bible is a literal and final system of belief but rather that it contains the entire basis of belief. Basically, a church cannot base their faith on bible - some things + other things but rather the bible and interpretations of just that. Understanding still requires thought, interpretation, and to an extent clarification (i.e. teaching). Even that notion constitutes a catechism, and so even sect's with hard-line sola scriptura beliefs (like Baptists) have catechisms.
> The whole point of Christianity is to get into Heaven.... The Bible is only your Guide for doing so.
lol, way to read through. Remember this: "Catholics believe that sacred scripture and sacred tradition preserved and interpreted by the Magisterium are both necessary for attaining to the fullest understanding of all of God's revelation" Funny how that's distinctly not 'only the Bible'. I guess you should write the pope and tell him he's Christianing wrong.
> Either The Bible the literal word of god or it isn't.
Nice dichotomy you created there. Well, lets suppose it is. "You shall not murder." - literal word of God there. Don't murder. Got it... er... murder means... hrm... not appendix. Well, let's figure it means "killing people not for self defense". And people means men and self defense means getting what I need and need means want. So God is saying that I shall not kill men unless it gets me something I want. Got it.
The point is, just because it's the literal word of God doesn't mean it's 100% clear and complete. That's where interpretation is needed.
> He was there to guide the hand of the writers and translators.
Nice straw man you created there. I'm not going to bother with batting it down.
> You've got to be kidding me. It's full of moral lessons and commandments.
In the same way that Aesop is. Or maybe Asimov. I Robot doesn't say 'you should use these laws implementing robots', it says 'here are the rules and stories about them'. Part of those stories are how those 'commandments' should/can be interpreted. Hell, even if _were_ a concrete legal system (which the Quran is closer to, but still a good distance from) you _still_ couldn't just apply it. Look at our legal system: it has long documents written to be as clear as possible and yet has an entire system built up to interpret it.
> Uh huh. So what makes the dogma of Catholic catechism any better than the story book? It's all authoritarian bullshit.
So is any legal/moral system in practical application. What's your point? I point to the catechism as being the actual system of belief that people like to pretend the bible is; the official authoritarian bullshit interpretation of the bible. If you're going to criticize it, then criticize it right. Picking a passage out of the bible is like picking some US law drafted pre-1800 without even the common law surrounding it.
> Also, you mention Catholics, but the parent was talking about Christians in general.
Read the rest of the link then. It covers the branches, as well as a bit of the concept as applied to other religions. Even if there isn't a formal catechism the point is that people need to realize that religion comes with a canonical set of interpretations much like our law comes with precedents.
Slashdot Mirror
> Have they added the ability to disable N-gons yet?
Haha, this is wildly ironic considering that many have been waiting a loooooonnnng time for N-gon support and it was only added in 2.63. Moreover, N-gons are needed to actually "create proper Geometry" in many cases, so I'm going to have to figure you're trolling :).
Anyways, I'd be quite surprised if you can't convert N-gons to tris/quads using the usual tools (Mesh->Faces->???, or Alt+J, IIRC). Odds are it'll happen automatically when you export to a tri-only format like STL. If your 3D printer 'supports' a format that allows N-gons (OBJ is one) but it chokes on them, that's a stupid bug on the printer's part; triangulating N-gons is trivial.
(Disclaimer: I haven't tried Blender's N-gons yet.)
> In much smaller numbers.
Smaller numbers?
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
27 people will die in the time I take to type this comment.
Twice as many will be killed by lightning this year (a mere 10% of those who are stuck).
Four to Eight times as many will die of arson
This is tragic and unnecessary, but to imply that is pervasive or even, for that matter, statistically relevant is ridiculous. The numbers are already tiny. Yes, I understand completely that the numbers don't matter when you're the one affected, but if you're taking about sweeping policy reform, them you're not talking about those affected.
Is this not the site I read when I see how people decrying the latest TSA or "counter-terrorism" attack on our rights? Well guess what: The terrorists killed over 100x as many as this did, and probably more than 10x of what school shootings have done over the history of the US. I guess people here are much, much more worried about privacy than guns when to comes to loss of rights, because 9/11 is far better grounds for action than this is.
> make their scenes look more realistic at a more realistic frame rate
Whilst I do generally like higher frame rates, the above is actually the trouble... It looks _too_ realistic. For a high fantasy movie like The Hobbit sometimes putting a little 24Hz vaseline on the lens helps let your brain fill in the gaps with fantasy. That 48Hz the project fills in the gaps with reality.
It's a lot like the transition to high def... Things that are real look better easily, while things that aren't supposed to need to rework their bag of tricks in order to make the new tech a benefit rather than a hindrance. I'm definitely glad Jackson is pushing this, but it does sound like there's a ways to go yet before production really hits its stride. I'm really quite surprised that we didn't see, say, James Bond try 48fps instead, but ah well. We'll see how Cameron does with his Avatar sequels.
> The US is already the dominate military power on the planet, bar none, so I am sure they could trim the military budget by a tiny percentage
I'm not really disagreeing, but I do think there's an important point people overlook when discussing things like this: Military dominance is all about spending. It's quite like a bleeding edge computer. You spend thousands on the best of the best, and in a year's time anyone could have the same setup from a quarter the price. You're then either with the Joes or spending more to stay on top. You can't really step back and say 'okay, we spent enough'; it's literally an arms race and staying ahead is expensive.
> Its nice to think that private enterprise will provide the means to get there (for whatever values of "there") but although its happening, its not happening overnight.
I'd point out that NASA isn't exactly doing anything overnight either. As long as it's taking for private enterprise to enter the game, they seem to be moving faster once they're in it. Honestly, I wouldn't be too surprised if the next exploration mission is privately funded at this point.
No, no, you misunderstand. Remember that adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, all Facebook has is privacy intrusion so of course the only way to enhance privacy is to intrude on it. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.
> Now if any state had the testicular fortitude to challenge them over their utterly unconstitutional use of the threat
> of withholding federal highway funds from states that failed to raise the drinking age to 21,
As another poster pointed out: it already happened and they lost.
The problem is simple: The federal government has the power to levy an income tax all citizens without any real accountability. Thus, they can just 'steal' tax money from a state by raising taxes and keeping the increased revenue (unless you behave). Sure, the state _could_ levy its own transportation taxes and eschew the federal money, but now its people are getting double taxed and not seeing the benefits of half of it. As a result people leave, protest, etc. The only real ability to allow states the ability to control the drinking age it to change the federal law, unfortunately. (Or maybe an amendment prohibiting redistribution of money to the states?)
Anyways, another challenge would almost certainly go down in flames: SCOTUS already hinted (IIRC) that they're okay with the 'Obamacare' no-health-insurance penalty if it's constructed as a tax, so they're probably okay with the general idea of the federal government coercing behavior with taxation. I'm looking forward to our free speech tax.
I was curious so I ran the numbers and, unless I messed something up, "a whole lot less" is an epic understatement...
Figure 1100kWh/m^2 per yr with 20% efficient panels (current market is 12-18%):
Average power/area: .2 * 1100e3 / 365 / 24
25 W/m^2
(really?!)
Area needed for 16GW:
16e9 / 25
640km^2
= 247mi^2
= 0.17% Germany
= 71.8% Berlin
= 23.6% Rhode Island (land)
And mind that's just solar flux... Realistically you'd need roads, substations, storage, bezels, etc, so figure another 10%+. Mind also that doesn't include losses for conversion to AC for transmission, so you'd probably need another 15% for that. Finally, unless you can store a crap ton of energy effectively for about 9 months (and supplement winter generation with summer), you'll probably need to increase that by another 50% to account for the decreased power during the winder months. (You still wouldn't get 16GW, but you could argue that you wont need it all in the winter due to people not using AC.)
So, yeah: that 16GW photovoltaic array would occupy more land area than Berlin
(In fairness though, 16GW of nukes wouldn't be one installation. It would probably be about 6 with 2 or 3 1GW reactors each. That would probably come to around a square mile (100acre each?) so the solar panels would only be about 300 or so times the area.)
Indeed, though mind that 5000 is high end for actual cost, but a little fairer when you factor in red tape, taxes, fuel, etc.
Most importantly, though:
http://www.ases.org/2012/07/pv-generation-potential-for-april/
For 2011, the max monthly average output in the US was 165kWh / kW rated. That means the average power of 2 kW of photovoltaic would not exceed 500W. So photovoltaics are still over twice as much by your estimate... I would be curious what a PV 'plant' would come to, once you factored in storage and over-capacity for winter, etc.
Nope.
The estimated base cost of a new AP1000 reactor is about $5000/kW on the high side (though finance and other costs can add to that). So $100 billion would buy about 20GW of nuclear capacity. (A bit less if you pile on taxes, high interest rates, side projects, etc... 16GW seems to be about the standard in the US).
I'm having trouble pinning down what the German grid capacity is, but the average consumption in 2009 appears to have been about 63GW. The cited "hundreds of billions" is specifically 446, so even with the non-aggressive real world numbers they could install about 71GW of nuclear capacity. I'd guess that would be able to replace about half of their current generators. Not bad at all.
Of course. To anyone that actually cares about this metals are fantastic. They are plentiful, they're durable enough to last as long as you want them to (and through additional applications, i.e. reuse), and when you're done, they're some of the most easily sorted and recycled materials around. (They even decay, to an extent, as pointed out by another.)
But remember that's not what 'green' is about these days. It's not _really_ about doing things in, shall we say, a responsible manner. Instead, it's really a back-to-basics/nature movement where people feel that humans are pushing too hard, lost their connection with nature, etc and it's time to use that tech to bring us full circle (if you can excuse the hyperbolic trope reference). It's why you see things like "biodegradable" spec'ed over things like 'durable and reusable'... they want to see servers that they can mulch and grow a flower on rather than ones that will last decades only to be returned to industry and not nature.
Not this.
No one was pretending that polls are some kind of random guess by someone. The thing is that polls and elections are different circumstances. When you vote, you need to travel and you can do it in secret. It also counts so maybe you change sides when push comes to shove. There's also fraud, which isn't exactly polled for either.
The ultimate question isn't whether the polls were "wrong", but whether they could accurately predict the outcome of an election, which is not the same as a poll. In a computer context, this is like using synthetic benchmarks to predict real-world performance. Sometimes with good data and a good model you can nail it. Sometimes you overlook something and are fairly off.
In reality, I'd say it's damn remarkable that the outcome was so close to the predicted value. From the perspective of fraud _alone_ this is a striking result: either the statisticians can predict fraud quite well or it's not as much of an issue as expected. (Or, maybe the shadow organization controlling the outcome of elections got lazy and decided to just follow the predictions this time around :p.)
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/09/04/2012-21608/safety-standard-for-magnet-sets
"Under the proposal, if a magnet set contains a magnet that fits within the CPSC's small parts cylinder, magnets from that set would be required to have a flux index of 50 or less, or they would be prohibited."
So, yes, I do think that no one can sell spherical magnets. (Or won't be allowed to, once this has passed.)
Technically, the proposal as is only applies to sets marketed by the manufacturer primarily as a manipulative or construction desk toy for general entertainment, and they are seeking comment on what to do about magnets included in science/craft/hobby kits or sold individually. So as it stands this technically wouldn't prohibit them from being sold as industrial parts or maybe even science kits. However, mind that government 'suggestion' is all powerful... See how amazon delisted them, and ebay said they would, before this policy is even finalized. You may technically be allowed to sell these in some context, but you'll need a lot of luck to actually do so.
> These sort of laws are stupid, because they can NOT stop anyone from doing it, unless they decide to start searching everyone...
I don't like excessive laws, but there much worse things than laws that are philosophically sound but just aren't backed by heavy handed enforcement.
And even still this law is helpful: If you aren't selling your vote and are instead being coerced, you can just make a huge fanfare of taking the picture to the point that the poll worker calls you on it. "Sorry, I tried to get your proof but they saw me and threw me out." Or you can just say that they were watching you and so you didn't want to risk it but you totally voted the way you were supposed to. And so the law did its job.
> Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?
Yes.
To elaborate: It's difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug that is easy to administer and will result in guaranteed, peaceful death without little to no chance of (partial) survival. Sure you can drink bleach or try to OD on alcohol or acetaminophen/paracetamol or any number of things. But they can be quite unpleasant and/or leave you alive but even worse off.
> Or is this aiming to legally protect doctors who are assisting patients?
Less so, I'd wager. Realistically, people rarely ask questions if someone suffering and wishing to die dies in their sleep. Doctor: "They died in their sleep last night". Family: "Ah, well their suffering is over at least". Pretty much never: "I bet you turned their morphine up you bastard!". Of course, that really requires the patient to be literally on their death bed, but either way I think the point of this is entirely a way to reduce suffering of the terminally ill and not really about doctor liability.
> Forget law. The physical reality of the thing is that...
The physical reality of the thing is that the government can break into your house, murder your pets and family, torture you for all your passwords, download your data, and then shoot you in the head and torch the place.
The law (and associated notions of civility, etc) is _everything_. Without it, every notion is just fantasy.
> That would be Romney... good luck there.
At least luck is a factor. Obama has already proven he's more then willing to run with this crap, and that was in the first term when he'd theoretically be trying to stay enough on the good side of the populace to get reelected.
> It's like leaving a guy that doesn't worship you enough for one that beats you black and blue every night.
No, it's like leaving a guy that beats you black and blue every night for a guy that hung out with someone that used to beat you black and blue every night. I'm not going to pretend that Romney would be any better, but realistically given how willing Obama has been picking up where Bush left off, I can hardly consider 'Romney's going to be like Bush because he's from the same faction as Bush' as much of a reason to consider Obama over Romney.
I had a big post but my browser crashed. So I'll post an abbreviated version:
First: MTP on the system partition is a good thing; the partitioning was stupid. However, that is totally orthogonal to having an SD Card with mass storage.
For me, the big thing is that I personally use my phone as a thumb drive that doesn't take up space in my pocket and can view the files on it. SD Card means easily upgraded storage for cheap. Mass storage means not MTP idiosyncrasies like dropping a file it doesn't like or a .svn directory, etc. Support for MTP is also pretty spotty and generally a pain vs mass storage. MTP costs a lot in terms of flexibility and compatibility.
But this:
> If I *really* wanted to go gung-ho with music for some reason I had a perfectly capable MP3 player that was even better than my phone (battery life, etc) for that purpose
Yeah, well I don't. I don't and I don't want to have to buy one and I don't want to have to carry one and charge one and sync one.
> Once I shifted my expectations to match my reality, it ceased to bother me.
This is a total non-point. Why not shift your expectations to be okay with a cheap 2GB music player and a feature phone with a EDGE connection? Or to a string and a carrier pigeon? An SD slot isn't just possible, but present on many devices. Many cheaper devices, even. The fact that people would need to adjust their expectations when their expectations for a several-hundred dollar device are so easy and regularly met elsewhere is ridiculous. It might be a trade-off they are will to make, or a deal breaker that sends them elsewhere, but to pretend that it's their fault for wanting a fairly ubiquitous feature? Outrageous.
Old discussion, but:
With new emphasis: Only when it needed to be publicly voted on by elected individuals could the outcry actually do anything, and it did.
That's what I'm on about, and have been this whole time. The people voting in the the EU parliament and US Congress are directly accountable to their people. The people voting in the ITU are not. Since I have been focusing on precisely that and the potential issues it creates throughout these posts, that you would talk about publicness of the vote (which I never expressed doubt or concern about) baffles me.
HSPA+ is just as 4G as LTE is, according to Wikipedia (which is to say, it was decided that while they weren't technically 4G they advanced 3G enough to be called 4G).
What advantages does LTE have over HSPA+ that would make the latter "lame" by comparison?
While I'm not going to say "never ever", the future you propose is not going to happen. Efficiency drops off _drastically_ with distance; the notion that you would have some power transmitter somewhere that would power a light somewhere else is so purely sci-fi that it's pointless to even speculate on efficiency of a setup. Sure, you could put a wireless power unit behind the wall where your TV is mounted, but why not just run a wire through the wall at that point? The hole isn't even an argument because you'll have already added some to mount it. Ditto with lights.
Wireless power isn't about wireless in the WiFi sense that it grands mobility, it's wireless in the NFC sense that it doesn't require a wire to be plugged in. That means less cycles on a fragile connecter, no plug/unplug time, etc. Maybe even allowing hermetically sealed devices. Realistically the most this might be used for is a laptop, but even then I think it would usually make more sense to just plug it in (e.g. at home... this might make sense for a cafe table).
> If the people can convince their government to drop SOPA, they can convince them to veto any bad ITU legislation.
But the people didn't, you see. They merely convinced them that they knew about SOPA and would make their politicians pay come election time if they passed it. The politicians still want it though, at least in so far as they don't care that much and the media conglomerates tell them they want it. They just don't want it enough to risk reelection.
So riddle me this, if the person voting for SOPA was some appointee at the behest of 'the government', do you think that outrage would have worked? After all, you aren't voting for them, they're appointed. You're elected officials can say "not me; I don't like SOPA just like you my friends" and then turn around and tell the representative to not veto the ITU NeoSOPA. There's no paper tail linking names of representatives to the ITU vote like there would be linking them to SOPA. You could only make some vague threat to vote against every incumbent if it passed, that that's a weak threat.
The point is simple. This isn't about one country vs many countries, it's about one country's people vs the world's governments. You have much more confidence than I do that some country is going to take a principled stand over some issue and not grandstand until they get something they want in return for their vote. I've see a hell of a lot of the later and precious little of the former. Especially once talk of embargos are being thrown about because the country isn't doing enough to protect whatever.
You point to the downfall of ACTA as the system working, and indeed it is. But that's not this system. This system is like the negotiations ACTA: too far abstracted from the people for them to do anything about it. Only when it needed to be publicly voted on by elected individuals could the outcry actually do anything, and it did. But it went through years of negotiations unimpeded because it was done under the table and with no names attached. I see the ITU as offering that same forum, but without the final check of a public vote, and that's why I think it's bad.
> Spending five minutes getting a Christian to deny his/her own holy book is about all the time I have for them these days.
lol, yep. That's why you have time to read the whole thing, as you advocated in your original post? Or time for this discussion, where you assume me to be a Christian and are trying to get me to 'deny my own holy book'? That's interesting because that's what I did right off the bat with no input on your part.
Trolls are funny...
Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware that Catholics were _true_ Christians.
So who are true Christians, then? Protestants, maybe? I mean, because Matain Luther certainly only took stuff literally from the bible and didn't have any additional interpretations or traditions or anything.
Or maybe you mean Orthodox Churches? "Scriptures are understood to contain historical fact, poetry, idiom, metaphor, simile, moral fable, parable, prophecy, and wisdom literature. Thus, the Scriptures are never used for personal interpretation, but always seen within the context of Holy Tradition, which gave birth to the Scripture. Orthodoxy maintains that belief in a doctrine of sola scriptura would lead most to error since the truth of Scripture cannot be separated from the traditions from which it arose."
Hrm... I'm guessing not since one of their founding beliefs is that Scripture only has meaning with context and cannot be taken literally.
If you do happen to be talking about sola scriptura (and therefore, generally, protestant movements), then I'd advise you educate yourself on that. The doctrine is not that the bible is a literal and final system of belief but rather that it contains the entire basis of belief. Basically, a church cannot base their faith on bible - some things + other things but rather the bible and interpretations of just that. Understanding still requires thought, interpretation, and to an extent clarification (i.e. teaching). Even that notion constitutes a catechism, and so even sect's with hard-line sola scriptura beliefs (like Baptists) have catechisms.
> The whole point of Christianity is to get into Heaven. ... The Bible is only your Guide for doing so.
lol, way to read through. Remember this:
"Catholics believe that sacred scripture and sacred tradition preserved and interpreted by the Magisterium are both necessary for attaining to the fullest understanding of all of God's revelation"
Funny how that's distinctly not 'only the Bible'. I guess you should write the pope and tell him he's Christianing wrong.
> Either The Bible the literal word of god or it isn't.
Nice dichotomy you created there. Well, lets suppose it is. "You shall not murder." - literal word of God there. Don't murder. Got it... er... murder means... hrm... not appendix. Well, let's figure it means "killing people not for self defense". And people means men and self defense means getting what I need and need means want. So God is saying that I shall not kill men unless it gets me something I want. Got it.
The point is, just because it's the literal word of God doesn't mean it's 100% clear and complete. That's where interpretation is needed.
> He was there to guide the hand of the writers and translators.
Nice straw man you created there. I'm not going to bother with batting it down.
> You've got to be kidding me. It's full of moral lessons and commandments.
In the same way that Aesop is. Or maybe Asimov. I Robot doesn't say 'you should use these laws implementing robots', it says 'here are the rules and stories about them'. Part of those stories are how those 'commandments' should/can be interpreted. Hell, even if _were_ a concrete legal system (which the Quran is closer to, but still a good distance from) you _still_ couldn't just apply it. Look at our legal system: it has long documents written to be as clear as possible and yet has an entire system built up to interpret it.
> Uh huh. So what makes the dogma of Catholic catechism any better than the story book? It's all authoritarian bullshit.
So is any legal/moral system in practical application. What's your point? I point to the catechism as being the actual system of belief that people like to pretend the bible is; the official authoritarian bullshit interpretation of the bible. If you're going to criticize it, then criticize it right. Picking a passage out of the bible is like picking some US law drafted pre-1800 without even the common law surrounding it.
> Also, you mention Catholics, but the parent was talking about Christians in general.
Read the rest of the link then. It covers the branches, as well as a bit of the concept as applied to other religions. Even if there isn't a formal catechism the point is that people need to realize that religion comes with a canonical set of interpretations much like our law comes with precedents.