store electricity created from wind in refrigerated warehouses
No, no, no.... There's no wind in these refrigerated warehouses. The point is that wind power fluctuates, so to smooth things out, this guy wants to use the electricity generated from wind power to overcool refrigerated warehouses at night, and then undercool them during the day when electricity demand peaks to make more of the electricity generated during the day available for other purposes.
Reputable companies would have little interest in doing this. They already have large, expensive web pages that are already linked from the legitimate Wikipedia article.
What you'd end up with is the same thing you get by putting AdSense ads up: a bunch of questionable ads for fly-by-night companies that are just as likely to rip you off as sell you something useful.
Interesting. If you allow 25 square meters per tree, it would take an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined to provide enough trees to absorb a billion tons of CO2 each year.
Why are we using the word "secure" to indicate whether a DRM scheme has been cracked or not? A cracked DRM scheme has no negative security implications for the user, but calling it "insecure" makes it sound to Joe Sixpack like it's dangerous, when in fact, a cracked DRM scheme is a good thing.
Also, a DRM scheme being a little bit cracked is like being a little bit pregnant. Either it's cracked or not. CSS, for instance, is cracked (weaknesses in the scheme allow keys to be recovered through brute force). FairPlay (afaik) isn't cracked, but various implementations of it have been.
Well, since Philips controls the definition of "CD", and they've decided that a CD with noncompliant data doesn't really count as a CD, it is technically correct (the best kind of correct) that no DRM system has ever been developed for the CD. But there have been tons developed for the shiny plastic coaster.
It's probably ridiculous for me to say this, but dammit, this is Slashdot, so I'm gonna say it anyway:
Is it not possible, nay, probable, that this was Steve Jobs's plan all along with reference to interoperability? The iTunes/iPod Family of Devices gets locked up behind music industry DRM which we all know Apple would rather not have bothered with in the first place. They were slow to fix exploits of various versions of FairPlay, and fixed those exploits probably at content cabal insistence. On the side was a lack of interoperability with other devices/services that went along with FairPlay.
Now that people are up in arms about the iPod not playing fair with others, more and more Joe Sixpacks are starting to see that DRM is a bad thing. Here comes Steve Jobs, suggesting that if you want to point fingers at FairPlay's effect on interoperability, you should also be pointing fingers at the content cabal.
Could this have been his diabolical plan all along?!
Well.... Probably not. But it would sure make for a good conspiracy theory for all the Mac fansites out there.
I'm fairly certain this has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. Rather, it's akin to one of those "we will give you money for your highways, but you have to do X first" laws, which are very common in federal legislation. In this particular case, rather than using the carrot of money to get the states to comply, the federal government is using the stick of not accepting non-compliant state IDs for federal identification purposes. (Think federal employment, social security, etc.)
The actual problem here is that various states don't want to foot the bill for this project. Privacy issues are just a red herring tacked on to get the general populace into an uproar.
As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states.
You might as well have made some ridiculous generalization concerning the IQ of people from Africa. Some fine hypocritical bigotry coming from someone who claims to cherish freedom.
I know I'm inviting The Wrath of Slashdot by even mentioning Fox News, but their website (and probably other news websites as well) uses the clever headlines for links on their front page, but then gives the boring-yet-informative headline on the actual article.
For example, the article officially titled "Report: Giant Weights to Be Dropped Into Mouth of Erupting Mud Volcano" received the link text "Can Giant Balls Plug Erupting Volcano?"
If you have a reference you could cite, I'd be interested in reading it. Sure wish you hadn't posted AC, because there's a good chance you won't read this.
Unions have a limited purpose, and this case probably qualifies.
However, unions almost always go beyond this limited purpose, because they are a representative democracy of their members. When the president of a labor union is essentially a career politician, rather than, say, a career electrician, and he earns a paycheck from the union itself, then he becomes motivated to provide whatever token considerations to his constituents that he can. I mean, he wants to get re-elected so he can keep drawing that paycheck, right?
What this means is every time the company contract comes up, the labor union is pressured to offer more than a par deal to its members. Rather than securing their reasonable inflation-based COLA, they end up bringing in overinflated medical and pension benefits. Several decades of this later - long after the general mistreatment of workers had been mostly resolved in the US - the older airline and auto companies are crumbling under the weight of an aging-but-not-dying former workforce, with an even worse future in store for them.
In addition, since worker mistreatment in the US is mostly nonexistent, the unions end up defending the laziest, most worthless workers who deserve to be fired, because the good workers don't need the union's assistance. They have to do this, because otherwise, it would seem to the good workers that the union (and its dues) are a waste. The good workers know they don't need the union's help now, but when the union defends some moron who should have been let go for incompetence years ago, the good workers think, hey, the union defended them, so if I ever have problems, I'm sure they'll help me.
Now, I'm not saying unions should be nonexistent. They do serve a useful purpose. But they should stick to that limited purpose, rather than becoming (or growing as) bureaucracies of their own that act primarily for their own survival.
Maybe Jobs is right to sue blog sites that leak product info, and release everything with a ton of hype, of the "Best. Chewing. Gum. Evah!!!".
On that note, might I point out that the features you mentioned are akin to the comic included with each piece of Bazooka bubble gum: mild amusement wrapped around a pink, flavorless brick.
That's the purpose of the legislation. To prevent change to the network.
Uh, no.
Network neutrality aims to prevent telecom/cable ISPs from regulating traffic based on content or source. That's all. You should be able to pay your ISP - and only your ISP - for the bandwidth you use, without your ISP throttling or blocking your access based on the content that is delivered. It protects third-party innovators by ensuring that their content can be delivered to the customer as long as they pay their bills to their own ISP.
Can you state how network neutrality will "prevent change to the network" beyond offering this protection? Opponents to network neutrality continue to try to convince others that all legislation is, on its face, a bad thing, but they provide no evidence to indicate how it would be bad. All we hear is that somehow, in some nonspecific way, innovation will be disrupted, when supporters of network neutrality have already stated multiple concrete and very real ways in which innovation is fostered by adopting these regulations.
Re:Hand out the Moisturizer
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Around here, we have a novel system for collecting moisture from the air in the dead of winter.
We have a widespread system of asphalt-covered concrete which collect the copious moisture, extracted from the nearby lake due to atmospheric pressure differentials, in the form of a thick residue. We then dissolve large amounts of highly soluble compounds into this residue to prevent it from freezing solid, and then the mixture is processed by repeatedly compressing it under several hundred pounds of weight.
We use the resulting product to support both the automobile and landscaping industries, by using it to rust out car underbodies and kill treelawn grass.
The problem with trying to blame the electoral system for current policy is that if the electoral system is removed, then eventually someone will get elected by the popular vote who wouldn't have been elected under the electoral vote, they'll enact unpopular policies, and people will bitch about not having the electoral system anymore. The same thing happens with the line-item veto: whichever party holds the White House wants it, the other major party opposes it, and then when the Presidency switches parties, so do the opinions on the line-item veto.
My point was that there were no general problems inherent to the electoral system that would be corrected by its removal. The potential for a discrepancy between the nationwide popular vote and the electoral vote is a philosophical quandary, of course, but by itself doesn't constitute a problem.
The founders also avoided letting people vote directly for president which, in retrospect, has created more problems than it solved.
How so? You may not agree philosophically with the concept of popular vote not being directly tied to who wins the Presidency, but I'm unaware of any actual problems caused by the electoral vote system that would be eliminated with its removal.
Slashdot Mirror
store electricity created from wind in refrigerated warehouses
No, no, no.... There's no wind in these refrigerated warehouses. The point is that wind power fluctuates, so to smooth things out, this guy wants to use the electricity generated from wind power to overcool refrigerated warehouses at night, and then undercool them during the day when electricity demand peaks to make more of the electricity generated during the day available for other purposes.
Reputable companies would have little interest in doing this. They already have large, expensive web pages that are already linked from the legitimate Wikipedia article.
What you'd end up with is the same thing you get by putting AdSense ads up: a bunch of questionable ads for fly-by-night companies that are just as likely to rip you off as sell you something useful.
Going from a national ID card directly to genocide seems like quite a leap in logic to me.
Interesting. If you allow 25 square meters per tree, it would take an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined to provide enough trees to absorb a billion tons of CO2 each year.
Why are we using the word "secure" to indicate whether a DRM scheme has been cracked or not? A cracked DRM scheme has no negative security implications for the user, but calling it "insecure" makes it sound to Joe Sixpack like it's dangerous, when in fact, a cracked DRM scheme is a good thing.
Also, a DRM scheme being a little bit cracked is like being a little bit pregnant. Either it's cracked or not. CSS, for instance, is cracked (weaknesses in the scheme allow keys to be recovered through brute force). FairPlay (afaik) isn't cracked, but various implementations of it have been.
That isn't the solution either. Instead, credit-issuing agencies should be required to verify requests for credit lines before approving them.
Well, since Philips controls the definition of "CD", and they've decided that a CD with noncompliant data doesn't really count as a CD, it is technically correct (the best kind of correct) that no DRM system has ever been developed for the CD. But there have been tons developed for the shiny plastic coaster.
It's probably ridiculous for me to say this, but dammit, this is Slashdot, so I'm gonna say it anyway:
Is it not possible, nay, probable, that this was Steve Jobs's plan all along with reference to interoperability? The iTunes/iPod Family of Devices gets locked up behind music industry DRM which we all know Apple would rather not have bothered with in the first place. They were slow to fix exploits of various versions of FairPlay, and fixed those exploits probably at content cabal insistence. On the side was a lack of interoperability with other devices/services that went along with FairPlay.
Now that people are up in arms about the iPod not playing fair with others, more and more Joe Sixpacks are starting to see that DRM is a bad thing. Here comes Steve Jobs, suggesting that if you want to point fingers at FairPlay's effect on interoperability, you should also be pointing fingers at the content cabal.
Could this have been his diabolical plan all along?!
Well.... Probably not. But it would sure make for a good conspiracy theory for all the Mac fansites out there.
I'm fairly certain this has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. Rather, it's akin to one of those "we will give you money for your highways, but you have to do X first" laws, which are very common in federal legislation. In this particular case, rather than using the carrot of money to get the states to comply, the federal government is using the stick of not accepting non-compliant state IDs for federal identification purposes. (Think federal employment, social security, etc.)
The actual problem here is that various states don't want to foot the bill for this project. Privacy issues are just a red herring tacked on to get the general populace into an uproar.
As a whole, the people of Kansas typically have a lower IQ than those from other states.
You might as well have made some ridiculous generalization concerning the IQ of people from Africa. Some fine hypocritical bigotry coming from someone who claims to cherish freedom.
What does states' rights have to do with privacy?
Actually, after reading the e-mails that got him into this mess, it's clear that he missed the day they taught S'ing TFU in grade school.
I know I'm inviting The Wrath of Slashdot by even mentioning Fox News, but their website (and probably other news websites as well) uses the clever headlines for links on their front page, but then gives the boring-yet-informative headline on the actual article.
For example, the article officially titled "Report: Giant Weights to Be Dropped Into Mouth of Erupting Mud Volcano" received the link text "Can Giant Balls Plug Erupting Volcano?"
Fortune-Telling Gypsy Robot: Have you heard of the Monks of Deshuba?
Fry: (helpfully) I've not heard of them....
If you have a reference you could cite, I'd be interested in reading it. Sure wish you hadn't posted AC, because there's a good chance you won't read this.
Unions have a limited purpose, and this case probably qualifies.
However, unions almost always go beyond this limited purpose, because they are a representative democracy of their members. When the president of a labor union is essentially a career politician, rather than, say, a career electrician, and he earns a paycheck from the union itself, then he becomes motivated to provide whatever token considerations to his constituents that he can. I mean, he wants to get re-elected so he can keep drawing that paycheck, right?
What this means is every time the company contract comes up, the labor union is pressured to offer more than a par deal to its members. Rather than securing their reasonable inflation-based COLA, they end up bringing in overinflated medical and pension benefits. Several decades of this later - long after the general mistreatment of workers had been mostly resolved in the US - the older airline and auto companies are crumbling under the weight of an aging-but-not-dying former workforce, with an even worse future in store for them.
In addition, since worker mistreatment in the US is mostly nonexistent, the unions end up defending the laziest, most worthless workers who deserve to be fired, because the good workers don't need the union's assistance. They have to do this, because otherwise, it would seem to the good workers that the union (and its dues) are a waste. The good workers know they don't need the union's help now, but when the union defends some moron who should have been let go for incompetence years ago, the good workers think, hey, the union defended them, so if I ever have problems, I'm sure they'll help me.
Now, I'm not saying unions should be nonexistent. They do serve a useful purpose. But they should stick to that limited purpose, rather than becoming (or growing as) bureaucracies of their own that act primarily for their own survival.
What good is observability if you neglect accuracy to get it?
In that case, shouldn't it be called Windows Vista Penultimate?
Maybe Jobs is right to sue blog sites that leak product info, and release everything with a ton of hype, of the "Best. Chewing. Gum. Evah!!!".
On that note, might I point out that the features you mentioned are akin to the comic included with each piece of Bazooka bubble gum: mild amusement wrapped around a pink, flavorless brick.
I've always wondered what would happen if OPEC just stood up and said "The spice will NOT flow."
George "Muad'dubya" Bush: Mah name is a killin' word. Get that spice a-flowin'.
That's the purpose of the legislation. To prevent change to the network.
Uh, no.
Network neutrality aims to prevent telecom/cable ISPs from regulating traffic based on content or source. That's all. You should be able to pay your ISP - and only your ISP - for the bandwidth you use, without your ISP throttling or blocking your access based on the content that is delivered. It protects third-party innovators by ensuring that their content can be delivered to the customer as long as they pay their bills to their own ISP.
Can you state how network neutrality will "prevent change to the network" beyond offering this protection? Opponents to network neutrality continue to try to convince others that all legislation is, on its face, a bad thing, but they provide no evidence to indicate how it would be bad. All we hear is that somehow, in some nonspecific way, innovation will be disrupted, when supporters of network neutrality have already stated multiple concrete and very real ways in which innovation is fostered by adopting these regulations.
Around here, we have a novel system for collecting moisture from the air in the dead of winter.
We have a widespread system of asphalt-covered concrete which collect the copious moisture, extracted from the nearby lake due to atmospheric pressure differentials, in the form of a thick residue. We then dissolve large amounts of highly soluble compounds into this residue to prevent it from freezing solid, and then the mixture is processed by repeatedly compressing it under several hundred pounds of weight.
We use the resulting product to support both the automobile and landscaping industries, by using it to rust out car underbodies and kill treelawn grass.
The problem with trying to blame the electoral system for current policy is that if the electoral system is removed, then eventually someone will get elected by the popular vote who wouldn't have been elected under the electoral vote, they'll enact unpopular policies, and people will bitch about not having the electoral system anymore. The same thing happens with the line-item veto: whichever party holds the White House wants it, the other major party opposes it, and then when the Presidency switches parties, so do the opinions on the line-item veto.
My point was that there were no general problems inherent to the electoral system that would be corrected by its removal. The potential for a discrepancy between the nationwide popular vote and the electoral vote is a philosophical quandary, of course, but by itself doesn't constitute a problem.
Next thing you know, we'll be harvesting spice. ........The spice must flow.
The founders also avoided letting people vote directly for president which, in retrospect, has created more problems than it solved.
How so? You may not agree philosophically with the concept of popular vote not being directly tied to who wins the Presidency, but I'm unaware of any actual problems caused by the electoral vote system that would be eliminated with its removal.