Electric cars with a practical range approaching 200 miles would suffice for most of the driving needs of most of the populace. If people could buy the cars, then subscribe to a battery service, this would enable fast battery module swaps. But most of the time, people would just charge overnight at home.
Why would my country want something we already have? Of course there will be a trade deficit in widgets.
Assuming I was importing gadgets and exporting widgets to your country, my country will have a trade deficit in the gadget sector because my country is importing more gadgets than I am exporting. Deficits aren't a bad thing they just indicate that my country doesn't want to buy what we already have.
A dollar is a promise for future goods or services, it has to "boomerang" back to the US because unless those future goods and services are redeemed the dollar is just paper.
Comparing rates in exports of consumer goods to imports of consumer goods is disingenuous. Consumers without money will never have need of consumer goods. Consumers without jobs will never have money.
Trade is, by definition, an exchange. Therefore the phrase "trade deficit" is an oxymoron, you can't get more than you receive. Presumably, those that enter into a trade do so because they get a "good deal." In trade, both side obtain something that they desire. Otherwise, they wouldn't enter into the deal. However, the parent is correct in the sense that any economic transaction can be a bad decision. Selling a company involves the risk that the buyer will be a poor steward. However, that risk exists regardless of where the owners are based. Economic incentives encourage good management but a foreign owner may not be as inclined to favor American workers (the fact is management that favors American workers is a dieing breed).
The people at Slashdot could care less whether all IP was released (information wants to be free).
Outsourcing occurs as long as there is another country that does equivalent work for cheaper, thats competition. Competition can be accomplished on two levels quality or cost. Outsourcing will occur until American workers can improve quality or wages equalize. Wages will equalize when the supply of qualified workers begins to under pace the demand.
A rise in wages brings with it a rise in demand for goods and services. A rise in demand for goods and services will first limit exports and will next increase imports. More imports means more American Jobs. Wages have already begun to rise significantly for skilled workers in countries like India and China.
Cheap cameras are not all that we receive from free trade. Competition from free trade has lowered prices for everything ranging from cars to medical equipment. Further, even in markets where we have a surplus, like grain production, costs are lowered by affordable equipment. For example, before the Japanese invasion, it was difficult to afford things like cars and televisions etc. Today even a major portion of those under the Federal poverty line own a television and a car (compare quality of life to the pre global trade 1950s). The salary of a fry cook today goes farther than that of an engineer in the years before global trade was opened.
...we'll end up living in huts made of logs and sod, driving pushcarts full of firewood, and eating soybeans. Seriously, doesn't 'trade' mean an 'exchange' of goods and services? Obviously, the exchange is not happening, just a transfer of currency.
QUESTION: What do the Chinese do with all of that currency?
The majority of posters on this board misunderstand how currency works. A dollar is a promise to provide goods or services in the future. By the understanding of the parent, all our money is going to the Chinese to buy electronics and that is a bad thing (i.e. "the exchange is not happening"). However, all the Chinese have purchased with their electronics is paper. The value of currency only comes when the Chinese purchase something from us with that paper (or digital) currency. If the "exchange is not happening" then we have received free stuff because the Fed and Treasury will simply create more paper.
The reality is that the Chinese are not just sitting on currency. They are buying from us and the exchange is happening. The Chinese just aren't exchanging the same types of things, hence the "deficit." The Chinese are investing in American debt. The housing boom (aka bubble) has been financed by the Chinese, which is a great thing. With the coming burst of the bubble, the Chinese are the ones set to loose on their investment.
The reality is that we basically got free electronics and Slashdotters are whining about job loss. What do you think free (as in beer) software does economically?
Just to add to my earlier comment, the lack of "artistic" value has long been abandoned as a defense to copyright infringement. All that is required for copyrightability is some minutia of creativity. 1 M.Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright 2.01[A],[B] (1990). For example, a phone book is copyrightable to the extent of organization and arrangement but the facts within are not. See Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340 (1991). The holding of Feist actually reflects an improvement in copyright law brought about by the 1909 copyright act. Prior to the 1909 act courts were enforcing copyrights for anything that took an "effort" to create (i.e. the "sweat of the brow" test).
The parent was referring to U.S. Const Art I 8 cl. 8: "The Congress shall have Power * * * To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writing and Discoveries." IAA3YLS (I am a 3rd year law student).
The annotations at Cornell state: "Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts." However, the cases cited in support of this are patent cases that limit patentability using the familiar "new and useful" test and the "snooze you loose" (not a technical term) theory of patenting. So I'm afraid Cornell doesn't have case law on point for that assertion.
Even more sad, only the conservative members of the Supreme Court care what the text of the Constitution says. I'm afraid Original Intent wont get you very far with any one but Thomas and Scalia.
I don't get what makes this story interesting; the fact that they are fighting piracy, how they are, or where they are. The fact that they are fighting piracy is fine, piracy is wrong. To illustrate, imagine how pissed all of us Slashdotters would be to discover companies blatantly using GPLd code without returning it to the community in accordance with that license (remember a copyleft is a copyright). How they have chosen to fight piracy is even less interesting. Finally, the fact that it may drive India to Linux is only moderately interesting because we all know the result of heavy handed enforcement of copyrights already.
Obama's letter shows an understanding of the distinction between waiving copyright and licensing.
The parent makes an excellent point. Also I want to point out that it's not very surprising that Obama knows the distinction between waiving a copyright and licensing, he has a JD from Harvard and taught constitutional law for over ten years See Wikipedia
From a Constitutional perspective, this is good and bad. Constitutional analysis generally hinges on text, history, policy and precedent. Article 1 section 8 clause 8 (IP clause) would definitely support NBC's position. Further, the First Amendment would arguably dictate that NBC cannot be compelled to "speak" through the disclosure of its "expressive" production. The history also supports NBC, news organizations have nearly always charged for their political coverage, so the framers arguably had this in mind.
However, the values or policy behind the First Amendment run up against those of the IP Clause in this instance.
There are two competing policies at issue here.
1. The goal of a fully informed voting public.
2. The goal of incentivising the production and distribution of political information.
The "marketplace of ideas" and "good government" theories are recurrent in First Amendment jurisprudence. Requiring dissemination would add information to the marketplace of ideas and provide for good government through a well informed electorate. Two other policy factors are relevant, political speech is the most protected form under the First Amendment and monopolies on political information should be highly scrutinized. The policy side seems to be weighted in favor of unrestricted distribution.
The precedent would tend to view the copyright act as a facially neutral generally applicable law with only incidental effects and therefore, regardless of the political nature, valid. For example, in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. a Republican campaign worker provided documents relating to criminal charges against a Democratic candidate. Cohen did so under a contract for confidentiality. When the Tribune found out the Democrat's charge was merely for participation in a political protest, the paper published the fact that Cohen provided the information. Cohen sued and won. The Supreme Court upheld the award over a First Amendment challenge because the theory of Minnesota law Cohen won on was generally applicable. The point is, the information at issue was very relevant to the political process but could be regulated regardless. (note that Cohen is a press clause case as opposed to a free speech case). The same is true of copyright law, it is only an incidental regulation and is generally applicable because it does not target political speech.
Ultimately, if the NBC video showed up on YouTube, an argument could be made that it should not be protected by copyright. The argument would boil down to the policy of promoting political news coverage versus the need for disemination of that coverage. Applying copyright law here is both good and bad (don't forget Slashdotters the GPL is a copyright).
ActiveSync is a MUST Birdiesync is a pay for ActiveSync Service Provider (I.E. sync solution) and Finchsync is a free java based solution. Both synchronize with Thunderbird just like you do with Outlook.
As long as money, products, and information are free to traverse national borders but people aren't, tehn as soon as one region wises up and starts demanding what they are worth, the megacorps will simply move on to the next desperate region. They will let the uppity region become poor again before moving back in.
Except knowledge left behind is a type of wealth that is worth far more then the superficial dollars and cents that you are talking about. Further, history does not support your hypothesis. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all are examples of outsourcing's effects. First they made green plastic army men, next they made electronics, then they started doing engineering. By that time the people had enough disposable income to demand a large percentage of what their country was producing.
Certainly change is hard, but if someone else can build something better then I can, then I just have to build it better or quit. If I focus on something I'm better at I can actually obtain more than if I focused on a task that I was only moderately good at. For example, I don't grow the corn in my frosted flakes because I suck at farming. I can actually have more corn flakes by focusing more energy on a job that I'm better at rather than do both. If coders in Vietnam are better (including cheaper) then I have to do it better than them (try quality) or do something else.
Finally, if a region becomes poor again thats their own damn fault. If someone gives you money and then leaves, you still have money. I don't claim that outsourcing isn't taking advantage of poverty, of course it is and thats the point. But obviously its a good deal for those that take it, otherwise they wouldn't. Ask the Japanese if they resent being taken advantage of and ask everyone in the United States if they would rather still pay RCA's prices for TVs rather then Generic-Asian-Co's (not to mention cars).
1: it sticks, your car will smell of chips or whatever
Oh well, its better than sulfer. 2: you have to clean your filter A LOT, lots of impurities in used oil
So pre filter. 3: In most countries, you still have to pay tax on it as it's classed as fuel
US Examples (from people that do it): South Dakota wants a road tax, California requires a grease hauler license
4: If you want to start it in cold weather you have to heat the fuel pipes to ensure the veg oil isn't too thick to be used.
Just start on diesel #1 and switch to veg. Veg isn't too far off from biodiesel, if you get fuel made in summer the filters don't catch all the gell (gells when chilled). The solution is for the bio producers to refilter in the winter or just to dilute it with diesel #1.
And about the people worring about vegetable oil capacity, theres a surplus why not use it? No one claims that veg/bio/ethonol/whatever is the ONLY solution, a solution can consist of many componants and be no less of a soloution.
As to the present case, it appears that the RIAA may have sat on its laurels waiting for the defendant to settle under an assumption that he would, and then were surprised by a motion for summary judgment.
It's also possible the MSJ was filed right after the complaint and so there wasn't time for the RIAA to do discovery (I had this happen during my clerkship this summer). Rule 56 requires that ample time for discovery be given.
Although a typical oil tanker consumes 1 million gallons of fuel to make the trip from the middle east it carries 25 million gallons of oil so, at the end, that makes the trip a net energy gain.
By your logic:
A semi consumes X btus of oil and caries Y btus stored in corn.
Y>X therefore ethonol is a net energy gain.
The point was that the study is using a methodology that is not used when calculating the efficiancy of other energy sources and therefore difficult to compare. The methodology may be correct but the data wont mean anything until you compare with data on other sources generated in the same manner.
Anyone on the internet can throw around meaningless statistics.
For example, 99% of statistics on the internet are misquoted from sources that know nothing about the topic they are writing about.
Statistics on farming are generally unreliable because those formulating them know nothing about the business. The most perverse assume all acres are irrigated and neglect modern practices like no-till.
The actual, unbiased, number is much harder to estimate. It is terribly dependant on soil type, growing location and methodology. A more usefull number would be an average of actual numbers while the majority base their figures on specific "hypothetical" situations.
Not that it will educate anyone by posting this on/. but...
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.
By that methodology we should be measuring how much energy it takes to obtain hydrogen. Or the energy it takes to transport oil from the Mideast by tanker.
The truth is that raw material (corn etc.) was going to be grown regardless of what it is used for. And in the case of bio-diesel, the raw material many times exists as a wasted byproduct of another process (vegetable oil etc.)
I agree, most people involved in the media seem to be what Republicans and libertarians call "liberal." Whether they actually are traditionally liberal, and whether the corporations they work for let them print everything they want to print the way they would want to - those are different issues.
But anyway, what's wrong with being liberal?
Nothing is wrong with being liberal. Actually, the plethora of ideas is what makes this country great.
The problem is having biased media. A fact should not be filtered by anyone's opinion, lest it cease to be a fact.
Macs are great for people who can use them but when you take the general public (idiots in general hence why we have so many virus problems) and start to mix MS things become messy.
Just a few points:
These are teens we are talking about, not senior citizens. They'll figure it out.
Virus problems solved by Windows??
Windows easier to use than Mac?
What kind of stuff do you think they need to do that will be so confusing on a Mac? A web browser and a word processor would be sufficient and those can only vary so much.
Some friends of mine set something like this up for a local ministry useing Linux. Everything is locked down and the internet is filtered. There are always a good number of people using the machines doing homework and webmail. It works pretty well.
It sounds like you are having trouble selling your ideas because you have little respect for those that would implement them.
From my extensive experiance with farmers, I would instead characterize your findings as resistance to change due to distrust of things they don't understand. I don't think that resistance to change means farmers are somehow less intelligent as you would imply. I know plenty of programmers who wont even consider the latest and greatest coding techniques/languages because it isn't how they've always done things.
I'd consider softening your approach from your "fight the man!", elitest rantings and try to discover how farmers think in order to make your case.
Based on primary energy source, coal-fired capacity represented 43 percent (260,990 megawatts) of the Nation's existing capacity (Figure 1). Gas-fired capacity accounted for 19 percent (117,845 megawatts); nuclear, 14 percent (86,163 megawatts); renewable energy sources,2 1 Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the
United States 2000
Heres my quote "the content industry doesn't care if you can't build your own player". Where did I say that the content industry doesn't care about you making your own player??
Uhh, right there in that quote.
Forgive me then if I was not clear. What I ment is that, the content industry does not care if legislation they have lobied for restricts our freedoms. You concluded that the statement: "the content industry doesn't care if you CAN'T build your own player" was equivilent to "the content industry doesn't care about people making their own players".
Nonsense. Your foolish claim suggests the only dissenting opinions are coming out of Slashdot and MIT. The DMCA struck a nerve with all sorts of legal and libertarian groups. The EFF made a big stink over it and the EFF has lawyers and lobbyists. They have already made the directed arguments towards "congress-criters" that you claim have not been made.
Perhaps you are right, maybe the arguments that I have suggested have been made but they certainly were not made in the linked interview. However, I tend to disagree that those arguments have been effectively conveyed to the people in positions of influence. I live in a sparsley populated state with undue political influence, I have incredible access to my representatives and I can tell you now that those "directed arguments" are not sinking in.
My entire position has been that our community's efforts have not been completely effective. With laws as heinous as the DMCA on the books, I can hardly see how anything else can be concluded.
Perhaps not, but you did characterise the Linux guys as "waaah waaah I want you to give me stuff for free"
I'm sorry that you thought I was characterizing our community as freeloaders. I was attempting to show how the greater population views our problems with content restrictions. I would venture to say that 99% of the population (sorry I don't have exact numbers) does not understand why we don't just put Windows on our laptops so we can play DVDs on planes. Never did I mean to imply that the majority of Linux guys want to bypass DRM in order to get stuff for free. On the contrary, Linux guys aren't about getting free stuff, we are about freedom from proprietary software and monopolists.
Do you see the obvious problem with using character assassination to make your argument?
Can you point out where I was practicing charecter assasination?
Slashdot Mirror
Electric cars with a practical range approaching 200 miles would suffice for most of the driving needs of most of the populace. If people could buy the cars, then subscribe to a battery service, this would enable fast battery module swaps. But most of the time, people would just charge overnight at home.
Electricity comes from coal.
Why would my country want something we already have? Of course there will be a trade deficit in widgets.
Assuming I was importing gadgets and exporting widgets to your country, my country will have a trade deficit in the gadget sector because my country is importing more gadgets than I am exporting. Deficits aren't a bad thing they just indicate that my country doesn't want to buy what we already have.
Just a few of points.
A dollar is a promise for future goods or services, it has to "boomerang" back to the US because unless those future goods and services are redeemed the dollar is just paper.
Comparing rates in exports of consumer goods to imports of consumer goods is disingenuous. Consumers without money will never have need of consumer goods. Consumers without jobs will never have money.
Trade is, by definition, an exchange. Therefore the phrase "trade deficit" is an oxymoron, you can't get more than you receive. Presumably, those that enter into a trade do so because they get a "good deal." In trade, both side obtain something that they desire. Otherwise, they wouldn't enter into the deal. However, the parent is correct in the sense that any economic transaction can be a bad decision. Selling a company involves the risk that the buyer will be a poor steward. However, that risk exists regardless of where the owners are based. Economic incentives encourage good management but a foreign owner may not be as inclined to favor American workers (the fact is management that favors American workers is a dieing breed).
The people at Slashdot could care less whether all IP was released (information wants to be free).
Outsourcing occurs as long as there is another country that does equivalent work for cheaper, thats competition. Competition can be accomplished on two levels quality or cost. Outsourcing will occur until American workers can improve quality or wages equalize. Wages will equalize when the supply of qualified workers begins to under pace the demand.
A rise in wages brings with it a rise in demand for goods and services. A rise in demand for goods and services will first limit exports and will next increase imports. More imports means more American Jobs. Wages have already begun to rise significantly for skilled workers in countries like India and China.
Cheap cameras are not all that we receive from free trade. Competition from free trade has lowered prices for everything ranging from cars to medical equipment. Further, even in markets where we have a surplus, like grain production, costs are lowered by affordable equipment. For example, before the Japanese invasion, it was difficult to afford things like cars and televisions etc. Today even a major portion of those under the Federal poverty line own a television and a car (compare quality of life to the pre global trade 1950s). The salary of a fry cook today goes farther than that of an engineer in the years before global trade was opened.
...we'll end up living in huts made of logs and sod, driving pushcarts full of firewood, and eating soybeans. Seriously, doesn't 'trade' mean an 'exchange' of goods and services? Obviously, the exchange is not happening, just a transfer of currency.
QUESTION: What do the Chinese do with all of that currency?
The majority of posters on this board misunderstand how currency works. A dollar is a promise to provide goods or services in the future. By the understanding of the parent, all our money is going to the Chinese to buy electronics and that is a bad thing (i.e. "the exchange is not happening"). However, all the Chinese have purchased with their electronics is paper. The value of currency only comes when the Chinese purchase something from us with that paper (or digital) currency. If the "exchange is not happening" then we have received free stuff because the Fed and Treasury will simply create more paper.
The reality is that the Chinese are not just sitting on currency. They are buying from us and the exchange is happening. The Chinese just aren't exchanging the same types of things, hence the "deficit." The Chinese are investing in American debt. The housing boom (aka bubble) has been financed by the Chinese, which is a great thing. With the coming burst of the bubble, the Chinese are the ones set to loose on their investment.
The reality is that we basically got free electronics and Slashdotters are whining about job loss. What do you think free (as in beer) software does economically?
Just to add to my earlier comment, the lack of "artistic" value has long been abandoned as a defense to copyright infringement. All that is required for copyrightability is some minutia of creativity. 1 M.Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright 2.01[A],[B] (1990). For example, a phone book is copyrightable to the extent of organization and arrangement but the facts within are not. See Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340 (1991). The holding of Feist actually reflects an improvement in copyright law brought about by the 1909 copyright act. Prior to the 1909 act courts were enforcing copyrights for anything that took an "effort" to create (i.e. the "sweat of the brow" test).
The parent was referring to U.S. Const Art I 8 cl. 8: "The Congress shall have Power * * * To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writing and Discoveries." IAA3YLS (I am a 3rd year law student).
The annotations at Cornell state: "Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts." However, the cases cited in support of this are patent cases that limit patentability using the familiar "new and useful" test and the "snooze you loose" (not a technical term) theory of patenting. So I'm afraid Cornell doesn't have case law on point for that assertion.
Even more sad, only the conservative members of the Supreme Court care what the text of the Constitution says. I'm afraid Original Intent wont get you very far with any one but Thomas and Scalia.
IAA3YLS (I am a 3rd year law student)
I don't get what makes this story interesting; the fact that they are fighting piracy, how they are, or where they are. The fact that they are fighting piracy is fine, piracy is wrong. To illustrate, imagine how pissed all of us Slashdotters would be to discover companies blatantly using GPLd code without returning it to the community in accordance with that license (remember a copyleft is a copyright). How they have chosen to fight piracy is even less interesting. Finally, the fact that it may drive India to Linux is only moderately interesting because we all know the result of heavy handed enforcement of copyrights already.
Obama's letter shows an understanding of the distinction between waiving copyright and licensing.
The parent makes an excellent point. Also I want to point out that it's not very surprising that Obama knows the distinction between waiving a copyright and licensing, he has a JD from Harvard and taught constitutional law for over ten years See Wikipedia
That is all.
From a Constitutional perspective, this is good and bad. Constitutional analysis generally hinges on text, history, policy and precedent. Article 1 section 8 clause 8 (IP clause) would definitely support NBC's position. Further, the First Amendment would arguably dictate that NBC cannot be compelled to "speak" through the disclosure of its "expressive" production. The history also supports NBC, news organizations have nearly always charged for their political coverage, so the framers arguably had this in mind.
However, the values or policy behind the First Amendment run up against those of the IP Clause in this instance.
There are two competing policies at issue here.
1. The goal of a fully informed voting public.
2. The goal of incentivising the production and distribution of political information.
The "marketplace of ideas" and "good government" theories are recurrent in First Amendment jurisprudence. Requiring dissemination would add information to the marketplace of ideas and provide for good government through a well informed electorate. Two other policy factors are relevant, political speech is the most protected form under the First Amendment and monopolies on political information should be highly scrutinized. The policy side seems to be weighted in favor of unrestricted distribution.
The precedent would tend to view the copyright act as a facially neutral generally applicable law with only incidental effects and therefore, regardless of the political nature, valid. For example, in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. a Republican campaign worker provided documents relating to criminal charges against a Democratic candidate. Cohen did so under a contract for confidentiality. When the Tribune found out the Democrat's charge was merely for participation in a political protest, the paper published the fact that Cohen provided the information. Cohen sued and won. The Supreme Court upheld the award over a First Amendment challenge because the theory of Minnesota law Cohen won on was generally applicable. The point is, the information at issue was very relevant to the political process but could be regulated regardless. (note that Cohen is a press clause case as opposed to a free speech case). The same is true of copyright law, it is only an incidental regulation and is generally applicable because it does not target political speech.
Ultimately, if the NBC video showed up on YouTube, an argument could be made that it should not be protected by copyright. The argument would boil down to the policy of promoting political news coverage versus the need for disemination of that coverage. Applying copyright law here is both good and bad (don't forget Slashdotters the GPL is a copyright).
That is just not possible and proves that our way of life is NOT sustainable in the long run without drastic reductions in energy use or population.
Then its fortunate that drastic reductions in population growth are a byproduct of higher standards of living.
Glad to see someone has as lame a sense of humor as me. You stole my joke.
As long as money, products, and information are free to traverse national borders but people aren't, tehn as soon as one region wises up and starts demanding what they are worth, the megacorps will simply move on to the next desperate region. They will let the uppity region become poor again before moving back in.
Except knowledge left behind is a type of wealth that is worth far more then the superficial dollars and cents that you are talking about. Further, history does not support your hypothesis. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all are examples of outsourcing's effects. First they made green plastic army men, next they made electronics, then they started doing engineering. By that time the people had enough disposable income to demand a large percentage of what their country was producing.
Certainly change is hard, but if someone else can build something better then I can, then I just have to build it better or quit. If I focus on something I'm better at I can actually obtain more than if I focused on a task that I was only moderately good at. For example, I don't grow the corn in my frosted flakes because I suck at farming. I can actually have more corn flakes by focusing more energy on a job that I'm better at rather than do both. If coders in Vietnam are better (including cheaper) then I have to do it better than them (try quality) or do something else.
Finally, if a region becomes poor again thats their own damn fault. If someone gives you money and then leaves, you still have money. I don't claim that outsourcing isn't taking advantage of poverty, of course it is and thats the point. But obviously its a good deal for those that take it, otherwise they wouldn't. Ask the Japanese if they resent being taken advantage of and ask everyone in the United States if they would rather still pay RCA's prices for TVs rather then Generic-Asian-Co's (not to mention cars).
1: it sticks, your car will smell of chips or whatever
Oh well, its better than sulfer.
2: you have to clean your filter A LOT, lots of impurities in used oil
So pre filter.
3: In most countries, you still have to pay tax on it as it's classed as fuel
US Examples (from people that do it): South Dakota wants a road tax, California requires a grease hauler license
4: If you want to start it in cold weather you have to heat the fuel pipes to ensure the veg oil isn't too thick to be used.
Just start on diesel #1 and switch to veg. Veg isn't too far off from biodiesel, if you get fuel made in summer the filters don't catch all the gell (gells when chilled). The solution is for the bio producers to refilter in the winter or just to dilute it with diesel #1.
And about the people worring about vegetable oil capacity, theres a surplus why not use it? No one claims that veg/bio/ethonol/whatever is the ONLY solution, a solution can consist of many componants and be no less of a soloution.
What's to stop the company/person with the prior art filing their own patent when the copycat is denied?
Patent Law
Statutory Bars The law requires you to exercise your rights or loose them. The textbook case is Egbert v. Lippmann
As to the present case, it appears that the RIAA may have sat on its laurels waiting for the defendant to settle under an assumption that he would, and then were surprised by a motion for summary judgment.
It's also possible the MSJ was filed right after the complaint and so there wasn't time for the RIAA to do discovery (I had this happen during my clerkship this summer). Rule 56 requires that ample time for discovery be given.
Although a typical oil tanker consumes 1 million gallons of fuel to make the trip from the middle east it carries 25 million gallons of oil so, at the end, that makes the trip a net energy gain.
By your logic: A semi consumes X btus of oil and caries Y btus stored in corn. Y>X therefore ethonol is a net energy gain.
The point was that the study is using a methodology that is not used when calculating the efficiancy of other energy sources and therefore difficult to compare. The methodology may be correct but the data wont mean anything until you compare with data on other sources generated in the same manner.
Site your sources.
Anyone on the internet can throw around meaningless statistics.
For example, 99% of statistics on the internet are misquoted from sources that know nothing about the topic they are writing about.
Statistics on farming are generally unreliable because those formulating them know nothing about the business. The most perverse assume all acres are irrigated and neglect modern practices like no-till. The actual, unbiased, number is much harder to estimate. It is terribly dependant on soil type, growing location and methodology. A more usefull number would be an average of actual numbers while the majority base their figures on specific "hypothetical" situations.
Not that it will educate anyone by posting this on /. but...
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.
By that methodology we should be measuring how much energy it takes to obtain hydrogen. Or the energy it takes to transport oil from the Mideast by tanker.
The truth is that raw material (corn etc.) was going to be grown regardless of what it is used for. And in the case of bio-diesel, the raw material many times exists as a wasted byproduct of another process (vegetable oil etc.)
I agree, most people involved in the media seem to be what Republicans and libertarians call "liberal." Whether they actually are traditionally liberal, and whether the corporations they work for let them print everything they want to print the way they would want to - those are different issues.
But anyway, what's wrong with being liberal?
Nothing is wrong with being liberal. Actually, the plethora of ideas is what makes this country great.
The problem is having biased media. A fact should not be filtered by anyone's opinion, lest it cease to be a fact.
Macs are great for people who can use them but when you take the general public (idiots in general hence why we have so many virus problems) and start to mix MS things become messy.
Just a few points:
These are teens we are talking about, not senior citizens. They'll figure it out.
Virus problems solved by Windows??
Windows easier to use than Mac?
What kind of stuff do you think they need to do that will be so confusing on a Mac? A web browser and a word processor would be sufficient and those can only vary so much.
Some friends of mine set something like this up for a local ministry useing Linux. Everything is locked down and the internet is filtered. There are always a good number of people using the machines doing homework and webmail. It works pretty well.
It sounds like you are having trouble selling your ideas because you have little respect for those that would implement them.
From my extensive experiance with farmers, I would instead characterize your findings as resistance to change due to distrust of things they don't understand. I don't think that resistance to change means farmers are somehow less intelligent as you would imply. I know plenty of programmers who wont even consider the latest and greatest coding techniques/languages because it isn't how they've always done things.
I'd consider softening your approach from your "fight the man!", elitest rantings and try to discover how farmers think in order to make your case.
Based on primary energy source, coal-fired capacity represented 43 percent (260,990 megawatts) of the Nation's existing capacity (Figure 1). Gas-fired capacity accounted for 19 percent (117,845 megawatts); nuclear, 14 percent (86,163 megawatts); renewable energy sources,2 1
Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States 2000
Photovoltaic Industry Statistics: Market Share
Try alchohol based oxygenates like ethonol.
Uhh, right there in that quote.
Forgive me then if I was not clear. What I ment is that, the content industry does not care if legislation they have lobied for restricts our freedoms. You concluded that the statement: "the content industry doesn't care if you CAN'T build your own player" was equivilent to "the content industry doesn't care about people making their own players".
Nonsense. Your foolish claim suggests the only dissenting opinions are coming out of Slashdot and MIT. The DMCA struck a nerve with all sorts of legal and libertarian groups. The EFF made a big stink over it and the EFF has lawyers and lobbyists. They have already made the directed arguments towards "congress-criters" that you claim have not been made.
Perhaps you are right, maybe the arguments that I have suggested have been made but they certainly were not made in the linked interview. However, I tend to disagree that those arguments have been effectively conveyed to the people in positions of influence. I live in a sparsley populated state with undue political influence, I have incredible access to my representatives and I can tell you now that those "directed arguments" are not sinking in.
My entire position has been that our community's efforts have not been completely effective. With laws as heinous as the DMCA on the books, I can hardly see how anything else can be concluded.
Perhaps not, but you did characterise the Linux guys as "waaah waaah I want you to give me stuff for free"
I'm sorry that you thought I was characterizing our community as freeloaders. I was attempting to show how the greater population views our problems with content restrictions. I would venture to say that 99% of the population (sorry I don't have exact numbers) does not understand why we don't just put Windows on our laptops so we can play DVDs on planes. Never did I mean to imply that the majority of Linux guys want to bypass DRM in order to get stuff for free. On the contrary, Linux guys aren't about getting free stuff, we are about freedom from proprietary software and monopolists.
Do you see the obvious problem with using character assassination to make your argument?
Can you point out where I was practicing charecter assasination?