So you guys couldn't convince voters to approve of an effective government take-over of the entire US-based internet, so you made up "Net Neutrality Princples," and go caterwauling when the world doesn't pay attention to your novel, made-up "principles?" This isn't reporting, this is loser POV pushing.
Throwing nuclear waste into a room doesn't create any risk of a criticality accident. You might as well expect depleted uranium rounds to be creating nuclear explosions when striking solid objects. Fission doesn't happen that easily.
Spent fuel rods are 95 percent U-238. Plutonium can be produced form U-238. If we recycled our spent fuel rods, there would be a ready supply of domestic plutonium available. Why aren't we recycling our fuel rods? In 1977, President Jimmy Carter outlawed nuclear recycling, out of fear foreign nations would somehow steal plutonium to make nuclear bombs. This fear never came to pass, and nations have simply produced plutonium from their own reactors, or enriched uranium, a la Iran. It is time to discard baseless fears about the dangers of nuclear recycling, and produce our own plutonium. Canada, Britain, France and Russia all recycle their nuclear fuel, and France, which produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy, stores all of its waste inside of a single room. Recycling our nuclear fuel would render Yucca Mountain obsolete, and vastly decrease the time, energy and space that would need to be spent to handle spent nuclear fuel.
I guess I went from a CS major first year to applying to law schools this year, so maybe you're onto something. However, I'm not going to blow money on a hugely expensive, crappy car that says "BMW" on it.
I think there is some confusion here regarding "commercial speech." Commercial speech, as a separate subset of speech, is a recent innovation, a concept dating to 1942. Which, I might add, is not universally recognized phenomenon, and many jurists, including some on the Supreme Court, hold that "commercial speech" is equally as Constitutionally protected speech as "noncommercial" speech.
How would anyone use the Interstate Commerce Clause as an argument that spam is protected speech? Was this a nonsensical defense brought up in the case, or does the uber-parent or original article have a non-existent grasp of Constitutional Law?
Unless the software suite is the only thing the user is going to see, and not the underlying OS or any other software, you should just follow the guidelines for the OS or desktop environment. Otherwise, you get a schizophrenic result that clashes with everything else, leading to user confusion and frustration. If you're designing from scratch, I suggest reading Raskin's "The Humane Interface," and using that as a baseline. Don't read the Apple user guidelines. Unless you're used to a Mac, they don't make sense.
I'm familiar with the parable, but I don't see how the lesson that breaking windows is false economy applies to Windows. Unless computer rage is in demand...
Capitalism has nothing to do with altruism. It works because for you to pay me money, I have to have something to sell you that you want. Altruism isn't very helpful if you are giving me something for free that I don't want.
At the worst it would mean a return to a world in which corporations had to design their own applications from scratch, and in which expert programmers moved from job to job and moved the skills around.
Everyone constantly re-inventing the wheel would be enormously expensive, and not as if the rest of us would be hiring programmers to design our games and word processors.
We need a human translation of the article, but he is somewhat correct. If you look at the computer revolution, it only entered everyday home and work life once software became a commercialized commodity. FOSS doesn't have a profit motive, which means you can create what you want, but it also means there's no strong incentive to provide a product that *others* want. Using the Linux example (need to find another one), it has a lot of neat, weird, esoteric features bundled into it, that Windows lacks, but Windows has what people are willing to pay for, not whatever the Windows devs want to put into it. Look at Vista; MS put crap into it no one wanted, and now large numbers of people aren't buying the thing. FOSS is great, but it's a very niche system that serves a niche very very well, but the computing world could survive without it. It could not survive a world without commercial software.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm, indicate a per capita occurrence of rape of 0.5 per 1,000, for those over the age of 12, both genders. So, for the sake of argument, we'll pretend that every one of those 0.5 rapes is of a female, and that each 1,000 is 500 males, and 500 females. The current life expectancy at birth for a female is 80.97, which we'll round up to 81. So if we had that 1,000 sample, and somehow all females within that population were born and died on the same date, and lived to 81, using 1 full rape every 2 years, 81 - 12, 69, 69/2 = 34.5, 1 in 14 would conceivably be victims of rape using a flawed formula and flawed logic that favors a high number of female rapes. If you wanted to tossed in child rape, well, see uber-parent.
And saying that they're "underreported" is often an excuse to pick a number out of a hat to give the situation an appearance of widespread occurrence. Instead of annoying people with what can only be termed rape propaganda, would be more useful to recognize rapes are quite uncommon, but do happen, and we should ensure that females, or anyone else, are legally able to carry weaponry for self-defense. More guns, less crime, including rape.
Reminds me of the myth that "1 in 4" women are victims of sexual assault. This sort of willful scare-mongering, and yes, lying, needs to stop. Once people realize groups that allege to be on the side of the victims are untrustworthy and corrupt, they'll transfer that to semi-hostile view of the much smaller number of, but still real, victims.
I think I might actually like white/blue LED lighting, but I'd have to see it first in a domestic setting. It might only look cool in sci-fi and corporate settings. Right now, all my lighting are CFLs with light that looks almost exactly like normal incandescents.
"The acrylic lens will be altered by time in an attractive fashion, Moulton said. "The LEDs produce a slightly unnatural blue-ish light. As the acrylic ages, it becomes slightly yellowed and crazed through exposure to ultraviolet light," he said. "The yellowing and crazing will tend to mitigate the unnatural blue hue of the LED light. Thus, Gravia will produce a more natural color of light with age."
He predicted that the acrylic will begin to yellow within 10 to 15 years when Gravia is used in a home's interior room.
Why would I buy a product that takes 10-15 years to become tolerable for normal household use, when in 10-15 years, either this technology will be updated so that it comes with natural light out of the box, or new competing technologies develop that do the same thing, without the color drawback?
Google "global warming ceased in 1998." You'll find yourself proven mistaken. A quick Google search on "global cooling" will also display predictions of global cooling from both former anthropogenic global warming scientists, and their opponents, and for a few decades at the least, not a few years.
But for every cycle in measurable history, the increase in temperature has happened first.
But what happens if the CO2 concentration rises first?
Stay tuned, because we're going to find out. It's never happened before, but it's happened now. There's been a step change (on a geological time scale) in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The majority of the global warming that occurred in the 20th century was pre-1950, before widespread global industrialization. Then the last quarter of the 20th century experienced mild global warming, which ceased in 1998. Now we are seeing predictions of global cooling, due to solar variability. Your conclusion is not one that can be applied to the current scenario.
I guess, but bringing Wikipedia into it is the equivalent of a fiscal conservative showing up at a city Democrat meeting, or a guy in full drag showing up at the monthly GOP meeting. However, doing both at once, showing up at the Libertarian meeting would result in no problems.
Slashdot Mirror
So you guys couldn't convince voters to approve of an effective government take-over of the entire US-based internet, so you made up "Net Neutrality Princples," and go caterwauling when the world doesn't pay attention to your novel, made-up "principles?" This isn't reporting, this is loser POV pushing.
Throwing nuclear waste into a room doesn't create any risk of a criticality accident. You might as well expect depleted uranium rounds to be creating nuclear explosions when striking solid objects. Fission doesn't happen that easily.
Source: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
I guess I went from a CS major first year to applying to law schools this year, so maybe you're onto something. However, I'm not going to blow money on a hugely expensive, crappy car that says "BMW" on it.
I think there is some confusion here regarding "commercial speech." Commercial speech, as a separate subset of speech, is a recent innovation, a concept dating to 1942. Which, I might add, is not universally recognized phenomenon, and many jurists, including some on the Supreme Court, hold that "commercial speech" is equally as Constitutionally protected speech as "noncommercial" speech.
How would anyone use the Interstate Commerce Clause as an argument that spam is protected speech? Was this a nonsensical defense brought up in the case, or does the uber-parent or original article have a non-existent grasp of Constitutional Law?
Unless the software suite is the only thing the user is going to see, and not the underlying OS or any other software, you should just follow the guidelines for the OS or desktop environment. Otherwise, you get a schizophrenic result that clashes with everything else, leading to user confusion and frustration. If you're designing from scratch, I suggest reading Raskin's "The Humane Interface," and using that as a baseline. Don't read the Apple user guidelines. Unless you're used to a Mac, they don't make sense.
Wouldn't it be a MS-DOS Tax? If you bought PC-DOS, the IBM brand, was it still a tax?
I'm familiar with the parable, but I don't see how the lesson that breaking windows is false economy applies to Windows. Unless computer rage is in demand...
Capitalism has nothing to do with altruism. It works because for you to pay me money, I have to have something to sell you that you want. Altruism isn't very helpful if you are giving me something for free that I don't want.
Um, MS-DOS was licensed, not given away for free. Unless you were copying that floppy...
Everyone constantly re-inventing the wheel would be enormously expensive, and not as if the rest of us would be hiring programmers to design our games and word processors.
We need a human translation of the article, but he is somewhat correct. If you look at the computer revolution, it only entered everyday home and work life once software became a commercialized commodity. FOSS doesn't have a profit motive, which means you can create what you want, but it also means there's no strong incentive to provide a product that *others* want. Using the Linux example (need to find another one), it has a lot of neat, weird, esoteric features bundled into it, that Windows lacks, but Windows has what people are willing to pay for, not whatever the Windows devs want to put into it. Look at Vista; MS put crap into it no one wanted, and now large numbers of people aren't buying the thing. FOSS is great, but it's a very niche system that serves a niche very very well, but the computing world could survive without it. It could not survive a world without commercial software.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm, indicate a per capita occurrence of rape of 0.5 per 1,000, for those over the age of 12, both genders. So, for the sake of argument, we'll pretend that every one of those 0.5 rapes is of a female, and that each 1,000 is 500 males, and 500 females. The current life expectancy at birth for a female is 80.97, which we'll round up to 81. So if we had that 1,000 sample, and somehow all females within that population were born and died on the same date, and lived to 81, using 1 full rape every 2 years, 81 - 12, 69, 69/2 = 34.5, 1 in 14 would conceivably be victims of rape using a flawed formula and flawed logic that favors a high number of female rapes. If you wanted to tossed in child rape, well, see uber-parent.
And saying that they're "underreported" is often an excuse to pick a number out of a hat to give the situation an appearance of widespread occurrence. Instead of annoying people with what can only be termed rape propaganda, would be more useful to recognize rapes are quite uncommon, but do happen, and we should ensure that females, or anyone else, are legally able to carry weaponry for self-defense. More guns, less crime, including rape.
Reminds me of the myth that "1 in 4" women are victims of sexual assault. This sort of willful scare-mongering, and yes, lying, needs to stop. Once people realize groups that allege to be on the side of the victims are untrustworthy and corrupt, they'll transfer that to semi-hostile view of the much smaller number of, but still real, victims.
Have you seen what happens when you wrap a light source in cellophane? Looks unpleasant and tacky, and I'm not just talking about the light, either.
I think I might actually like white/blue LED lighting, but I'd have to see it first in a domestic setting. It might only look cool in sci-fi and corporate settings. Right now, all my lighting are CFLs with light that looks almost exactly like normal incandescents.
I'm not getting my data from a quick Google search, but as you are unfamiliar with large sections of the topic at hand, I thought it might benefit your currently existing knowledge base. Your image isn't detailed enough to discern a two year climate decrease, and ignores a decade of available data since 1998. Sources indicating that global warming ceased in 1998 are, in part, http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf, http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38 and http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/global-warming-movement-falling-apart/. You guys can't even keep your story straight anymore.
...then I have a bridge to sell you. PRC nano-tech lead not happening.
Google "global warming ceased in 1998." You'll find yourself proven mistaken. A quick Google search on "global cooling" will also display predictions of global cooling from both former anthropogenic global warming scientists, and their opponents, and for a few decades at the least, not a few years.
I guess, but bringing Wikipedia into it is the equivalent of a fiscal conservative showing up at a city Democrat meeting, or a guy in full drag showing up at the monthly GOP meeting. However, doing both at once, showing up at the Libertarian meeting would result in no problems.