"there are twin bills in the house and senate in order to conscript for active duty, rerserve military, and homeland security civilian jobs... I forgot the bill numbers... I'll stake my life and reputation that it's true, though.
Yeah, riiiiight. Come back when you can cite the bills. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzz.
Not that there aren't a LOT of bills introduced in Congress on every crazy subject every year.
P.S. The Constitution Party rules. Stick with it. The Libertarian Party has turned into a lunatic fringe debating society off in la la land.
Obtaining and holding this patent is not necessarily a bad thing. Under the right circumstances, the usual reservations about patents could work to the common good in this case. If the holder is incorruptible and dedicated to the common good, he will simply charge a royalty of (apologies to Dr. Evil) One Hundred Trillion dollars for each instance of use. Presto. That particular mode of advertising has now been precluded, or, what's the worst thing that could happen - someone actually comes up with a $1E14 payment, gets his precious ad, but the patent holder now has unlimited funds to apply to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, curing the sick, etc.
Naw, I didn't think so. That's not how capitalism works:-(
"except you [only] drink about one or two or three ounces of espresso in a drink."
The FAQ is confusing, I'll admit. But the bottom line is, you're not going light on caffeine when you enjoy espresso. The 7 oz measurement for espresso is actually an error. Here's what it says when it goes into detail with espresso:
[begin quote] "Is it true that espresso has less caffeine than regular coffee?
"Yes and no. An espresso cup has about as much caffeine as a cup of dark brew. But servings for espresso are much smaller. Which means that the content of caffeine per milliliter are much higher than with a regular brew. Moreover, caffeine is more quickly assimilated when taken in concentrated dosages, such as an espresso cup.
"The myth of lower caffeine espresso comes comes from the fact that the darker roast beans used for espresso do have less caffeine than regularly roasted beans as roasting is supposed to break up or sublimate the caffeine in the beans (I have read this quote on research articles, but found no scientific studies supporting it. Anybody out there?). But espresso is prepared using pressurized water through significantly more ground (twice as much?) than regular drip coffee, resulting in a higher percentage of caffeine per milliliter...
"Here's the caffeine content of Drip/Espresso/Brewed Coffee:
"Some Tea's are higher in caffeine than coffee, so you may not be as caffeine-free as you thought."
While it's certainly possible to create a cup of tea and a cup of coffee, with the cup of tea having more caffeine than the cup of coffee, that's not how it works in actual daily life.
From one list, for 7 oz servings: Drip coffee = 115-175 mg of caffeine Espresso = 100 Brewed coffee = 85-135 Instant coffee = 64-100 Brewed tea = 40-60 Instant tea = 30 Iced tea = 41 (i.e., 70 for 12 oz)
Other lists from other sources are there, and they are similar.
Green tea is even lower than black tea. From Stash Tea, we have:
5 oz cup of coffee = 80 mg One bag of black tea = 40 One bag of green tea = 20
Health wise, green tea r00lz! But black tea is good for variety, and gives benefits as well.
Of course, the amount you actually get depends on how long you brew the tea. I tend to prefer tea brewed for a much briefer time than many people: I like around 2 minutes, and shudder a bit when 5 bits is recommended, let alone when I see people leave the bag in the cup for 10 minutes or more. Yech. When you brew too long, you are adding mostly acid and yucky taste.
"Ok, um, first off, 1.5 tons of water is about 1500lbs, or around 700kgs (give or take a few)."
Huh? Hello! Er, 1.5 [metric] tons (i.e., tonnes) of water is exactly 1500 kg. 1.5 [US short] tons of water is 3000 lb, or 1363 kg.
"You must be out of your mind. My house has these water saver shower heads and I'm looking to see what I can do to get even more water per minute."
Well, I don't think either of us is out of our mind, but I do know that I have used both, and prefer the (original, Whedon Saver Shower) saver head to the old fashioned "waster" head. It gives plenty of water, and dispenses it more efficiently, so less water actually does a better job washing.
"Every other efficiency contrivance is a lie that I know is designed to make me think I'm getting more of something than I really am."
Now I know for a fact this is not true. A "compact fluorescent" bulb of 28 watts gives as much light as a 100 watt incandescent bulb, and is obviously much more efficient. No opinion needed here; both light and power can be measured objectively. Furthermore, nowadays if you look hard enough, CFLs can be had in a variety of "equivalent source temperature" (i.e., frequency distribution of light produced, or "hue"), to taste.
"1.5 tons of water is about the same amount of water that you use taking a shower or a bath."
Actually, er, no. My shower head is a 2.5 gpm water saver, but let's consider an old fashioned 6 gpm water waster mega fountain. Now, I like long showers, but more than 10 minutes? I don't think so. So 6 gpm times 10 minutes is 60 gallons, or 229 kg - a far cry from 1500 kg!
Now, since I am using only 2.5 gpm and it has an instant on-off button on it, I only need maybe 50 kg even for a 10 minute shower.
BTW, the water saver shower heads provide a very satisfying output.
I knew you owners would know:-) Yeah, actually they are great. I'm a diesel nut though. I had a 1982 Audi 5000TD for 18 years until I was stopped for a turn and some airhead plowed into the back at 50 mph without once touching his brake. That one saved my life when it gave up its own.
There is truth in what you say. The going rate for changing the timing belt on my particular car - an econobox, mind you - is over $800, and is required every 40,000 miles. It involves dismounting all kinds of accessories, loosening engine mounts (!), replacing a number of single-use stretch bolts, making some extremely delicate adjustments at the end, etc., etc. The procedure as written up covers over 100 pages, I kid you not.
To change the headlight bulb on the driver's side, you must raise the hood, shift the battery, remove several awkward screws to remove a cowling behind the headlight, operate an extremely fragile clip (yes, I damaged mine first try), and finally get it all back together again. If you push a bit too hard putting the clip back on, you will cock the assembly, throwing the aim way off, and I don't mind telling you it is extremely difficult to fix if you do cock it.
"Are you saying that you could open the hood of a 2004 Audi and diagnose even a small problem?"
Er, yes. Well, not literally yes, because mine is a 1999 VW, and I don't need to open the hood. I spent a couple hundred bux on something called a VAG-COM (VAG-COM) that hooks up the OBD-II connector of any reasonably recent VW/Audi to a Windows notebook. It reads out the diagnostic codes in plain english - something like "temperature sensor shorted to ground" or "MAF signal intermittent" or whatever. It does a lot of other helpful stuff, too.
Many other brands have similar tools available.
The hood comes into the equation only because mine actually opens, and I can actually change out the temperature sensor after finding out that it is bad. But even if I had an Audi A2, if I knew a mechanic with the ability to get inside, at least I could tell him never mind the diagnosis, I want part such-and-such changed.
Now, as it happens, I don't choose to do much of my own work, but I did find out my MAF was bad, and changed it out. I bought the part from the internet for 1/5 what the stealership would have charged, and changed it literally in 5 minutes, a pliers-only job which probably would have been at least $200 for diagnosis and labor, not counting parts, at the stealership.
Oh, you are so trusting. Ask the Federal Reserve's site itself if there if there is anything corrupt and unconstitutional going on here. "Of course not, sir, where did you get that idea?"
It's like asking the cat what happened to the canary.
The AC's have already pointed the way to the truth. Somebody mod them up.
All right, I will give you one more reference, and a good one:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money,... the banks and corporations... will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
"our unemployment rate has been dropping steadily for the la[s]t 8 months"
1) That statistic offers no insight into how many former professionals or blue collar workers with good paying industrial jobs are now flipping burgers, cleaning rest rooms, or operating cash registers, having already forfeited their homes. Hey, a job is a job, right?
2) That statistic does not count those who are no longer interacting with the unemployment department because their benefits have run out, and they have despaired of ever finding suitable jobs again.
I think you have hit on it, but the other side of the coin is when no one holds beliefs strongly enough to argue energetically or convincingly - as if they meant it.
"You actually have some good points to make, but you let yourself down with confrontational comments..."
"I really wish that political discourse in the USA would calm down and grow up."
My instinct is to agree that civility is desirable, but other factors can trump civility. I speak here without reference to specific posts.
Would it have been the right choice to tap Ghengis Khan, or Stalin, or the gentlemen whose initials are A.H. and must never be referenced in unrelated internet discussions,politely on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, sir, but I beg you to consider that what you are doing is unfair."
Confront the wrong. Confront lies. Confront evil.
That said, confrontation and incivility are not the same thing.
> > fund managers make zillions based on return. they don't care.
> Fund managers don't own the funds they manage.
Parent's parent had the reasoning wrong, but he's right in his conclusion. Fund managers don't care because their remuneration is obscenely high, even though hardly any of them even match the performance of the simple index.
Incompetent as they are, I doubt most managers are quite stupid enough to buy their own funds.
"Most of the shares are owned by individuals through: 1. pension funds, 2. 401k plans, 3. mutual funds."
Think about it. If the entire employment of the US is outsourced (other than politicians, lawyers, doctors, nurses, hair dressers, and food preparation workers), there isn't going to be much of a market for stocks among the peons. Not only that, but the lawyers will sue the doctors, the doctors will malpractice the lawyers, and the politicians will have no constituents, only a rebellion.
And don't bother accusing me of parroting "democrat liberal mantra bs lines" because it won't wash. I bucked the trend by backing Barry Goldwater in high school in 1964, and have always favored conservatives.
UNTIL NOW. Until this issue opened my eyes.
Face it, this isn't a liberal/conservative issue anyway. The US is staring at its onrushing demise just like the USSR was a few years ago. In both cases it will be due to corruption and selfishness.
In the USSR, the State owned industry, and corrupted its house to death.
In the US, industry owns the State, and is corrupting its house to death.
When you travel 180 degrees on a circle either to the Right or the Left, you end up in the same place.
"Because the GPL says you must be allowed to do anything with the code."
Oh come now. It PLAINLY doesn't say you can do ANYTHING with it. For example, you can't take the unchanged code, strip out the GPL, and add your own copyright.
"The GPL clearly stipulates that additional restrictions on the distribution of the software is not allowed. Requiring attribution, as minor as this is, is an additional restriction."
That's it in a nutshell. So (1) Is this a genuine restriction, and (2) is this not a needless flaw in the GPL?
The new license requires you to place acknowledgement "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", and requires for it to be "in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments". Innocent as it sounds, it's actually a helluva loophole for lawyers that could sue your pants off for simply advertising, say, "with full iTunes DRM compatibility" on the cover of a boxed edition of your distro. Unless you really want to write "with full iTunes DRM compatibility and this product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors".
Nonsense. This is a straw man argument. Advertising "with full iTunes DRM compatibility" on the box is not a "third party acknowledgement". It is a marketing assertion. The clause has nothing to say about marketing assertions.
Slashdot Mirror
"there are twin bills in the house and senate in order to conscript for active duty, rerserve military, and homeland security civilian jobs... I forgot the bill numbers... I'll stake my life and reputation that it's true, though.
Yeah, riiiiight. Come back when you can cite the bills. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzz.
Not that there aren't a LOT of bills introduced in Congress on every crazy subject every year.
P.S. The Constitution Party rules. Stick with it. The Libertarian Party has turned into a lunatic fringe debating society off in la la land.
Carbon nanotubes are just carbon. Carbon is not toxic.
Asbestos is not toxic either. Toxins work by chemical poisoning. Asbestos works its harm via mechanical damage on a microscopic scale.
Obtaining and holding this patent is not necessarily a bad thing. Under the right circumstances, the usual reservations about patents could work to the common good in this case. If the holder is incorruptible and dedicated to the common good, he will simply charge a royalty of (apologies to Dr. Evil) One Hundred Trillion dollars for each instance of use. Presto. That particular mode of advertising has now been precluded, or, what's the worst thing that could happen - someone actually comes up with a $1E14 payment, gets his precious ad, but the patent holder now has unlimited funds to apply to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, curing the sick, etc.
:-(
Naw, I didn't think so. That's not how capitalism works
"except you [only] drink about one or two or three ounces of espresso in a drink."
The FAQ is confusing, I'll admit. But the bottom line is, you're not going light on caffeine when you enjoy espresso. The 7 oz measurement for espresso is actually an error. Here's what it says when it goes into detail with espresso:
[begin quote]
"Is it true that espresso has less caffeine than regular coffee?
"Yes and no. An espresso cup has about as much caffeine as a cup of dark brew. But servings for espresso are much smaller. Which means that the content of caffeine per milliliter are much higher than with a regular brew. Moreover, caffeine is more quickly assimilated when taken in concentrated dosages, such as an espresso cup.
"The myth of lower caffeine espresso comes comes from the fact that the darker roast beans used for espresso do have less caffeine than regularly roasted beans as roasting is supposed to break up or sublimate the caffeine in the beans (I have read this quote on research articles, but found no scientific studies supporting it. Anybody out there?). But espresso is prepared using pressurized water through significantly more ground (twice as much?) than regular drip coffee, resulting in a higher percentage of caffeine per milliliter...
"Here's the caffeine content of Drip/Espresso/Brewed Coffee:
"Drip 115-175
Espresso 100 1 serving (1-2oz)
Brewed 80-135"
[End of quote]
"And tea almost certainly has more caffeine than your precious espresso."
The Caffeine FAQ disagrees with you.
Espresso = 100 mg caffeine per 7 oz
Brewed tea = 40-60 mg caffeine per 7 oz
So does Stash Tea.
5 oz cup of coffee = 80 mg
One bag of black tea = 40
One bag of green tea = 20
"Some Tea's are higher in caffeine than coffee, so you may not be as caffeine-free as you thought."
While it's certainly possible to create a cup of tea and a cup of coffee, with the cup of tea having more caffeine than the cup of coffee, that's not how it works in actual daily life.
Check the Caffeine FAQ
From one list, for 7 oz servings:
Drip coffee = 115-175 mg of caffeine
Espresso = 100
Brewed coffee = 85-135
Instant coffee = 64-100
Brewed tea = 40-60
Instant tea = 30
Iced tea = 41 (i.e., 70 for 12 oz)
Other lists from other sources are there, and they are similar.
Green tea is even lower than black tea. From Stash Tea, we have:
5 oz cup of coffee = 80 mg
One bag of black tea = 40
One bag of green tea = 20
Health wise, green tea r00lz! But black tea is good for variety, and gives benefits as well.
Of course, the amount you actually get depends on how long you brew the tea. I tend to prefer tea brewed for a much briefer time than many people: I like around 2 minutes, and shudder a bit when 5 bits is recommended, let alone when I see people leave the bag in the cup for 10 minutes or more. Yech. When you brew too long, you are adding mostly acid and yucky taste.
"Ok, um, first off, 1.5 tons of water is about 1500lbs, or around 700kgs (give or take a few)."
Huh? Hello! Er, 1.5 [metric] tons (i.e., tonnes) of water is exactly 1500 kg. 1.5 [US short] tons of water is 3000 lb, or 1363 kg.
"You must be out of your mind. My house has these water saver shower heads and I'm looking to see what I can do to get even more water per minute."
Well, I don't think either of us is out of our mind, but I do know that I have used both, and prefer the (original, Whedon Saver Shower) saver head to the old fashioned "waster" head. It gives plenty of water, and dispenses it more efficiently, so less water actually does a better job washing.
"Every other efficiency contrivance is a lie that I know is designed to make me think I'm getting more of something than I really am."
Now I know for a fact this is not true. A "compact fluorescent" bulb of 28 watts gives as much light as a 100 watt incandescent bulb, and is obviously much more efficient. No opinion needed here; both light and power can be measured objectively. Furthermore, nowadays if you look hard enough, CFLs can be had in a variety of "equivalent source temperature" (i.e., frequency distribution of light produced, or "hue"), to taste.
"1.5 tons of water is about the same amount of water that you use taking a shower or a bath."
Actually, er, no. My shower head is a 2.5 gpm water saver, but let's consider an old fashioned 6 gpm water waster mega fountain. Now, I like long showers, but more than 10 minutes? I don't think so. So 6 gpm times 10 minutes is 60 gallons, or 229 kg - a far cry from 1500 kg!
Now, since I am using only 2.5 gpm and it has an instant on-off button on it, I only need maybe 50 kg even for a 10 minute shower.
BTW, the water saver shower heads provide a very satisfying output.
For now I just left the cover off the mechanism, got out my emergency mechanical crank key, and leave it in the door pocket.
Ah, a fellow TDI owner! Aren't they great.
:-) Yeah, actually they are great. I'm a diesel nut though. I had a 1982 Audi 5000TD for 18 years until I was stopped for a turn and some airhead plowed into the back at 50 mph without once touching his brake. That one saved my life when it gave up its own.
I knew you owners would know
"Are you a vortexer? :)"
Fred's TDI Club. Occasionally visit the Vortex too.
Hey mine's a Golf GLS too, a 99.5 TDI. When you try to tilt it, does your sunroof ever slide open halfway and stick there instead?
There is truth in what you say. The going rate for changing the timing belt on my particular car - an econobox, mind you - is over $800, and is required every 40,000 miles. It involves dismounting all kinds of accessories, loosening engine mounts (!), replacing a number of single-use stretch bolts, making some extremely delicate adjustments at the end, etc., etc. The procedure as written up covers over 100 pages, I kid you not.
To change the headlight bulb on the driver's side, you must raise the hood, shift the battery, remove several awkward screws to remove a cowling behind the headlight, operate an extremely fragile clip (yes, I damaged mine first try), and finally get it all back together again. If you push a bit too hard putting the clip back on, you will cock the assembly, throwing the aim way off, and I don't mind telling you it is extremely difficult to fix if you do cock it.
"Are you saying that you could open the hood of a 2004 Audi and diagnose even a small problem?"
Er, yes. Well, not literally yes, because mine is a 1999 VW, and I don't need to open the hood. I spent a couple hundred bux on something called a VAG-COM (VAG-COM) that hooks up the OBD-II connector of any reasonably recent VW/Audi to a Windows notebook. It reads out the diagnostic codes in plain english - something like "temperature sensor shorted to ground" or "MAF signal intermittent" or whatever. It does a lot of other helpful stuff, too.
Many other brands have similar tools available.
The hood comes into the equation only because mine actually opens, and I can actually change out the temperature sensor after finding out that it is bad. But even if I had an Audi A2, if I knew a mechanic with the ability to get inside, at least I could tell him never mind the diagnosis, I want part such-and-such changed.
Now, as it happens, I don't choose to do much of my own work, but I did find out my MAF was bad, and changed it out. I bought the part from the internet for 1/5 what the stealership would have charged, and changed it literally in 5 minutes, a pliers-only job which probably would have been at least $200 for diagnosis and labor, not counting parts, at the stealership.
Oh, you are so trusting. Ask the Federal Reserve's site itself if there if there is anything corrupt and unconstitutional going on here. "Of course not, sir, where did you get that idea?"
... the banks and corporations ... will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson
It's like asking the cat what happened to the canary.
The AC's have already pointed the way to the truth. Somebody mod them up.
All right, I will give you one more reference, and a good one:
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Unconstitutional
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money,
"our unemployment rate has been dropping steadily for the la[s]t 8 months"
1) That statistic offers no insight into how many former professionals or blue collar workers with good paying industrial jobs are now flipping burgers, cleaning rest rooms, or operating cash registers, having already forfeited their homes. Hey, a job is a job, right?
2) That statistic does not count those who are no longer interacting with the unemployment department because their benefits have run out, and they have despaired of ever finding suitable jobs again.
I think you have hit on it, but the other side of the coin is when no one holds beliefs strongly enough to argue energetically or convincingly - as if they meant it.
Somewhere in the middle, say I.
"You, sir, and your ilk are a disgrace to conservatism."
:-)
It's no use trying to make me feel better
"You actually have some good points to make, but you let yourself down with confrontational comments ..."
"I really wish that political discourse in the USA would calm down and grow up."
My instinct is to agree that civility is desirable, but other factors can trump civility. I speak here without reference to specific posts.
Would it have been the right choice to tap Ghengis Khan, or Stalin, or the gentlemen whose initials are A.H. and must never be referenced in unrelated internet discussions,politely on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, sir, but I beg you to consider that what you are doing is unfair."
Confront the wrong. Confront lies. Confront evil.
That said, confrontation and incivility are not the same thing.
"I guarantee you we wouldn't have an H1-B and an outsourcing problem if these programs targeted lawyers."
Muahahaha! Quite so, sir. You're ahead of me.
I cheer myself by imagining a fantasy world where there are H1Bs for politicians.
> > fund managers make zillions based on return. they don't care.
> Fund managers don't own the funds they manage.
Parent's parent had the reasoning wrong, but he's right in his conclusion. Fund managers don't care because their remuneration is obscenely high, even though hardly any of them even match the performance of the simple index.
Incompetent as they are, I doubt most managers are quite stupid enough to buy their own funds.
"Most of the shares are owned by individuals through: 1. pension funds, 2. 401k plans, 3. mutual funds."
Think about it. If the entire employment of the US is outsourced (other than politicians, lawyers, doctors, nurses, hair dressers, and food preparation workers), there isn't going to be much of a market for stocks among the peons. Not only that, but the lawyers will sue the doctors, the doctors will malpractice the lawyers, and the politicians will have no constituents, only a rebellion.
And don't bother accusing me of parroting "democrat liberal mantra bs lines" because it won't wash. I bucked the trend by backing Barry Goldwater in high school in 1964, and have always favored conservatives.
UNTIL NOW. Until this issue opened my eyes.
Face it, this isn't a liberal/conservative issue anyway. The US is staring at its onrushing demise just like the USSR was a few years ago. In both cases it will be due to corruption and selfishness.
In the USSR, the State owned industry, and corrupted its house to death.
In the US, industry owns the State, and is corrupting its house to death.
When you travel 180 degrees on a circle either to the Right or the Left, you end up in the same place.
It sounds like you likely have a misconception as to what 1080i is exactly.
1080i is 1920x1080, 30 frames/sec, 60 fields/sec interlaced.
Methinks this is still quite high for a PC monitor. Not to feel bad, though, because very few HDTVs can resolve every pixel of 1080i either.
720p (1280x720, 60 fps non-interlaced) is a better match for 95+% of PC monitors, and is still very pleasing.
"Because the GPL says you must be allowed to do anything with the code."
Oh come now. It PLAINLY doesn't say you can do ANYTHING with it. For example, you can't take the unchanged code, strip out the GPL, and add your own copyright.
"The GPL clearly stipulates that additional restrictions on the distribution of the software is not allowed. Requiring attribution, as minor as this is, is an additional restriction."
That's it in a nutshell. So (1) Is this a genuine restriction, and (2) is this not a needless flaw in the GPL?
The new license requires you to place acknowledgement "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", and requires for it to be "in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments". Innocent as it sounds, it's actually a helluva loophole for lawyers that could sue your pants off for simply advertising, say, "with full iTunes DRM compatibility" on the cover of a boxed edition of your distro. Unless you really want to write "with full iTunes DRM compatibility and this product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors".
Nonsense. This is a straw man argument. Advertising "with full iTunes DRM compatibility" on the box is not a "third party acknowledgement". It is a marketing assertion. The clause has nothing to say about marketing assertions.