Every study on the economics of a breeder economy is quick to point this out, and outline why they are extremely unlikely to be able to fix this problem.
You can still reprocess. The French have always done this.
2/3rds of all new generation installed in the last year is renewable. Spin that any way you want.
Does that count all the coal plants that have been converted to natural gas?
Current estimates are that if we had a "uranium economy" where any sort of significant amount of power came from fission, is that there's enough fuel for about 12 years. Seriously, look it up.
That assumes no reprocessing. The whole point of breeders is that they make more fuel than they consume.
You are right that there is currently a flood of fossil fuel that crowds out nuclear, but people have such short memories...
Just like you CANNOT trademark "Vehicle(tm)" or "Transportation(tm)" to name a car company.
No, but you could trademark "Vehicle" or "Transportation" for GPS software, where usage is not common. Just like MS did with "Word". If I tried to market a word processor as "MightyYar Word", I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I have liked foreign movies, but my wife doesn't like to read the subtitles - and I think she's in the majority. In fairness, she did like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", so maybe it's just a matter of genre.
But anyway, I realize that I miss most of the jokes and cultural references in Japanese films. I saw the series "Oruchuban Ebichu", and fortunately the importers of that show explain many of the cultural references before the program begins. I expect references to American things would be lost on foreigners as well... for instance a joke about Detroit or Cleveland, or a quip about the Carter presidency or Rush Limbaugh. And those are just pop and political references... you'd need to stay faaaaar clear of literary references, since it is unlikely that international audiences will have the same repertoire of English lit education. Hell, you'll lose 75% of the American audience if you make a Romeo and Juliet reference, despite a nearly 100% guarantee that everyone in the audience had to read it in high school.
I heard an analysis that this is because they need to make the movies internationally appealing, which means stripping out anything that would make it more interesting to any specific culture. You can't get any more vanilla then they are aiming for with a blockbuster, in other words.
They look similar, but the iPod Touch is 20% thinner, 20% lighter, still has the old A5 chip running perhaps 40% slower, has only half the RAM, lacks GPS, has a smaller battery, and it has a crappier camera.
Demand. Americans don't country-hop very much compared to Europeans.
Also, things have improved quite a bit. I'm currently on a T-Mobile prepay plan that gives me their sort-of-unlimited-but-they-throttle-the-speed-after-5GB data, unlimited texts, and a paltry 100 voice minutes for $30. My wife has their 1200 minutes or texts plan (but almost no data) for the same amount of money. Sure, I need to buy about $10-15 worth of additional minutes at 10 cents/minute, but it's still a big improvement over what I was paying for inferior service a few years ago. And if the information on the Orange UK website is representative, even the Europeans would find those plans attractive.
Of course having competition requires good regulations.
Well, naturally. The government created this concept called the corporation that can grow to some undefined size and can never die. With asset Hoovers like that out there, you need some mechanism to regulate the competition back into the market.
If all "companies" were individuals or partnerships, I'm not sure that anti-trust laws would be necessary - certainly not at the national level.
Well, sure, but trademarks are only good for the product that they are used to brand. I'm pretty sure you can use "Word" to advertise a brand of pretzels - just don't try to sell software branded as "Word".
No, but Google's position was that if the work WERE printed in the dictionary, it should be clearly marked as a trademark. The committee chose instead to remove the word altogether.
I wasn't "defending" Google so much as saying that it's our own fault that companies behave this way. If you want different results, set up a different incentives system.
LOL, that is a pretty funny definition I wasn't aware of. But in any event, it isn't search-related so it is no threat to Microsoft's short term plans for the word. When they move on to their genocide, they may want to make sure that they can brand their dead-body-piles as Bing-brand dead-body-bings.:)
Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."
The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.
Why give people an 'antidote'? They prefer it that way.
Personally I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie. But when the dog wakes up and starts spewing pseudo scientific crap about how MY choice is inferior, it's time to start smashing egos.
Slashdot Mirror
Every study on the economics of a breeder economy is quick to point this out, and outline why they are extremely unlikely to be able to fix this problem.
You can still reprocess. The French have always done this.
2/3rds of all new generation installed in the last year is renewable. Spin that any way you want.
Does that count all the coal plants that have been converted to natural gas?
Current estimates are that if we had a "uranium economy" where any sort of significant amount of power came from fission, is that there's enough fuel for about 12 years. Seriously, look it up.
That assumes no reprocessing. The whole point of breeders is that they make more fuel than they consume.
You are right that there is currently a flood of fossil fuel that crowds out nuclear, but people have such short memories...
You wouldn't run a plugin that runs every compiled executable you come across would you?
Sadly, I have Flash installed. I think its track record is almost as awesome.
Just like you CANNOT trademark "Vehicle(tm)" or "Transportation(tm)" to name a car company.
No, but you could trademark "Vehicle" or "Transportation" for GPS software, where usage is not common. Just like MS did with "Word". If I tried to market a word processor as "MightyYar Word", I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I'm definitely not missing that... I have Netflix!
(Actually, the free on-demand section on Comcast is far, far worse. It's all the stuff I didn't want to see 30 years ago...)
I have liked foreign movies, but my wife doesn't like to read the subtitles - and I think she's in the majority. In fairness, she did like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", so maybe it's just a matter of genre.
But anyway, I realize that I miss most of the jokes and cultural references in Japanese films. I saw the series "Oruchuban Ebichu", and fortunately the importers of that show explain many of the cultural references before the program begins. I expect references to American things would be lost on foreigners as well... for instance a joke about Detroit or Cleveland, or a quip about the Carter presidency or Rush Limbaugh. And those are just pop and political references... you'd need to stay faaaaar clear of literary references, since it is unlikely that international audiences will have the same repertoire of English lit education. Hell, you'll lose 75% of the American audience if you make a Romeo and Juliet reference, despite a nearly 100% guarantee that everyone in the audience had to read it in high school.
I heard an analysis that this is because they need to make the movies internationally appealing, which means stripping out anything that would make it more interesting to any specific culture. You can't get any more vanilla then they are aiming for with a blockbuster, in other words.
They look similar, but the iPod Touch is 20% thinner, 20% lighter, still has the old A5 chip running perhaps 40% slower, has only half the RAM, lacks GPS, has a smaller battery, and it has a crappier camera.
Blast you! You didn't tell me to sit down first!
Yes, you don't need to have a corporation to have collusion.
Why is this?
Demand. Americans don't country-hop very much compared to Europeans.
Also, things have improved quite a bit. I'm currently on a T-Mobile prepay plan that gives me their sort-of-unlimited-but-they-throttle-the-speed-after-5GB data, unlimited texts, and a paltry 100 voice minutes for $30. My wife has their 1200 minutes or texts plan (but almost no data) for the same amount of money. Sure, I need to buy about $10-15 worth of additional minutes at 10 cents/minute, but it's still a big improvement over what I was paying for inferior service a few years ago. And if the information on the Orange UK website is representative, even the Europeans would find those plans attractive.
Sit down, because this is going to really blow your mind. I paid about 40 times that for a used car.
Of course having competition requires good regulations.
Well, naturally. The government created this concept called the corporation that can grow to some undefined size and can never die. With asset Hoovers like that out there, you need some mechanism to regulate the competition back into the market.
If all "companies" were individuals or partnerships, I'm not sure that anti-trust laws would be necessary - certainly not at the national level.
In other words, regulation begets regulation.
Well, sure, but trademarks are only good for the product that they are used to brand. I'm pretty sure you can use "Word" to advertise a brand of pretzels - just don't try to sell software branded as "Word".
Google is however doing nothing to prevent this usage,
Really? Check out Merriam-Webster.
They also specifically ask that we respect their copyright for "Google" in this blog post.
No, but Google's position was that if the work WERE printed in the dictionary, it should be clearly marked as a trademark. The committee chose instead to remove the word altogether.
I wasn't "defending" Google so much as saying that it's our own fault that companies behave this way. If you want different results, set up a different incentives system.
LOL, that is a pretty funny definition I wasn't aware of. But in any event, it isn't search-related so it is no threat to Microsoft's short term plans for the word. When they move on to their genocide, they may want to make sure that they can brand their dead-body-piles as Bing-brand dead-body-bings. :)
"Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker"
That's actually what Google just prevented.
Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."
The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.
Does anybody want to play Doom like it was 1993?
I don't have any real sentimental attachment to Doom, but I did pay money to have R-Type on my Android phone/tablet.
Money.
Why give people an 'antidote'? They prefer it that way.
Personally I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie. But when the dog wakes up and starts spewing pseudo scientific crap about how MY choice is inferior, it's time to start smashing egos.
as a group bonding tool
That's why I only listen to porno music.
Every year I subject myself to the Christmas Show at Macy's (formerly Wanamaker's) in Philly just to hear the organ.
(Yes, I know they do regular recitals...)