you conveniently picked two power sources that do cause environmental damage. hydroelectric because of the changes it makes to a natural area when it is dammed, and geothermal because of the way it is harvested.
but what about solar, wind, veggie diesel, hydrogen, etc.?
also, there may be ways to gather hydroelectric without altering the surrounding landscape by using natural sources of fast running water. maybe new drilling techniques to minmize the impact of geothermal.
i fail to see the point of picking technologies far less harmful than nuclear technologies, and acting as if because they also cause a small amount of comparative harm, then nuclear power is therefore ok to use.
like i said. both should be banned. but the one thing we don't need is more.
the only reason what you said could be true, is that we have kept nuclear development at bay. otherwise the reverse would be true and the consequences could be devastating.
we have many sources of clean energy at our disposal. energy that is sustainable and renewable. energy that can be siphoned from the earth without the help of big conglomerates is some cases, and don't think that doesn't have anything to do with why we aren't seeing them developed more.
with the information we have now, there is no longer an excuse for letting either of these technologies(coal or nuclear), remain.
that's because if coal is left out in the open or escapes into the air, it doesn't cause birth defects, or cancer, or render entire areas unliveable for tens of thousands of years. coal dust is dangerous, but it is unlikely that enough could escape from a mine to cause the damage a reactor leak could cause.
more care should be taken with nuclear power, dim bulb. and when it escapes we should be more concerned.
a lot of the deaths in coal mines occured because of poor working conditions and dangerous situations miners are forced to endure.
that hardly equates to nuclear material which is dangerous just sitting in a box.
define irrational. there were valid concerns with nuclear power when it was first introduced, and there are still danger today, even though we've made it safer. it was not irrational at all to conclude that it was not safe and reliable, and still isn't.
just because there are safeguards on reactors that reduce the risk of them going critical now, does not mean there was never, and still isn't, a danger. and, true to form for pro-nuclear nitwits, no discussion of what to do with waste that will pose a threat thousands of generations in to the future.
and think of how much waste there will be if nuclear power is used extensively. where will we put it? how can we guarantee it's safety when we can't even stop leak in the comparatively paltry amount we have in storage today?
consider also the increased risk of terrorism to an increasing number of reactors and waste storage facilities, especially when we don't even bother to adequately secure the ones we have now.
nuclear power is not sustainable, even if the danger of blowing up reactors is nullified. which there is no way of guaranteeing even with new safeguards. human error is always a factor. it's pure arogance to think we can control such a violent reaction, and denial to think we can just stuff waste into the ground and never pay the price for our irresponsibility.
yes, because American Soldiers are righteous and good. doing the lords work killing the godless terrorists.
got news for you. those terrorists have a stronger faith in god than you(their version of it anyway), and look what happened to their society.
if you want to know what America would be like with a theocracy, just look at any muslim governed nation.
i am so sick of you self-righteous bastards moralizing about how if the rest of the world thought like you, we'd have no more problems. well, look at what happens in a world where everyone IS forced to follow the same moral code.
i think the definition of "Adult" needs to be defined.
i would hate to think that the definition of an adult is someone who enjoys violence towards women and monorities.
this game is a joke. i can't believe that realistic killing would enhance the enjoyment of a good game for a well-adjusted person. this only makes things better for those with issues to work out.
that being said, i am not in favor of any censorship beyond that which a good parent would do for their child, or that consumers can exercise themselves with their purchasing power.
those two in combination should be enough for any free society.
descrimination based on race, however, is another matter and those references should be removed.
as for the love of violence that seems to permeate our society, the root causes of that are not contained in a video game, not could irradication of that game fix those problems.
it's dumbasses like you that are helping idiot's like George Bush take away our freedoms. do you seriously believe that telling someone where a drug dealer is should be illegal?
nothing that you say should be illegal as long as it doesn't put someone in danger just by saying it, like telling someone it's ok to cross the street when you know there's a car coming. and i don't want to hear that drugs are dangerous. the person you told has a choice between here and there and can simply walk away.
you are responsible for your own actions. just because i mention where a crime can be committed doesn't mean you have to do it. i'm just answering your question, and that should be protected speech.
and this thing looks like a sandwich. no wonder he likes it.
i notice he talks about this like it's an alternative to a Linux box, but then points out that it runs linux, but that you won't really notice that because of the interface.
how exactly does that protect owners from the "unaccountability" of linux that he says is another reason that small businesses stay away from it?
so, as i understand this, if you want to free yourself up from the support and indemnification hassles of a linux box, get this linux box!
i think he's been smoking his Windows howto manuals(they oughta be good for something).
as soon as one single negative thing can be said of the Mac, they come in droves to tell us how they were right all along, macs suck, and we should all have been using windows.
forget about all the times when windows has been cripled and the mac unaffected. because of this exploit, the mac sucks, and windows is great.
how does that work? windows is now more secure because someone FINALLY found a way to exploit a mac? don't think so.
Apple makes their product easier to implement on a windows network by turning on somthing that would normally be off, and because windows networks are so insecure by default, someone exploits the mac.
and so now macs suck, eh? never fails. windows users are so desperate to justify why they use this inferior system, that they take any chance to bash the mac and make it seem inferior.
wait...what's that? i think you have naked pictures of Anna Kornikova in your inbox! better open 'em up now.
there is also the fact that the assignment of damages is a flawed process in the first place.
downloading a file and listening to it is like listening to the radio. only when getting a file from a server, i must download it BEFORE i can listen to it.
just because i listen to it, doesn't mean i'm going to buy it. charging someone for having a downloaded file is like charging them for just listening to it. you don;t know i was going to buy it.
and sharing of files sounds more like running a radio station than a pirate server. they are just putting files up there to be listened to like any FM station. sounds more like an FCC violation than a copyright violation to me.
so send 'em an FCC cease and desist letter, or give them a broadcast license, and be done with it.
they are doing more than protecting their copyright. all they have to do to accomplish that is to send a cease and desist letter to the person to tell them to stop sharing files.
the fact that they are actually charging means that they have identified a new revenue stream to help their sagging sales. and it isn't developing interesting or groundbreaking artists like you would think.
it's suing children, even children living in the projects. that's what's causing the hubub bub.
CAN they do this legally? yes. SHOULD a multi-billion dollar corporation be suing a little girl living in the projects and others like her, NO.
there is what you can do, and what you should do. and there is being smart enough to know the difference.
the only thing he's threatening is legal action for McBrides slander and prosecution for his illegal manipulation of his companies stock prices.
sounds reasonable to me.
it doesn't matter if email is considered public communication by law. it has become that anyway through critical mass. by setting the public's expectations, AOL and other ISPs have accepted the responsibility of meeting those expectations.
his ananlogy is also correct because he was comparing effects. the effect of blocking email is the same as blocking phone service in that it interupts communication.
he was also correct in comparing telemarketing calls to spam. both are mass untargeted marketing, just use different modes.
geezus, i re-read your stuff on electric cars.
my god man, those things haven't been true since the 70s.
this level of misinformation is why Bush keeps getting elected and enviromentalists have such a bad rap.
i love how you completely disallow for any technology improvements in batteries while getting completely behind the advances that would allow you to keep driving your muscle car. that is so self-serving.
your biggest misconception is that electric cars still need to be charged. they do not. the gas electric hybrids for sale today charge themselves as they drive. no network of charging stations needed at all. go to your local honda or toyota dealership, or do a little research dude.
as far as alchohol for the gas part of the hybrid engine from corn grown here, sounds great. i would want to see how it compares to a diesel hybrid burning vegetable oil(this can already be done and is in practice), but i'm up for it. and the same farmers can grow the corn that produces this oil.
but as for genetically enigineering plants. this is just the same "we want it now, f*ck the consequences, we'll worry about them later" mentality that got us into the fossil fuel fiasco.
until we can say for certain that there will be no ill effects, we shouldn't go messing with nature. they have actually engineered pesticides that reside within plants and invade cell of pests. what happens when, once out in nature, they mutate like things in nature do, and start attacking other cells?
why do we need to genetically engineer corn to produce the alcohol needed anyway? you didn't explain that.
love the anti-environmentalist attitude. yeah, those people who think we should actually make a sacrifice to stem the effects of pollution are just wackos. don't they know that we should be able to do whatever we want unchecked by common sense and good judgement? voted for that idiot Bush, didn't you? i could tell.
what a putz. in a pathetic attemp to hold on to your gas guzzling manhood, you are willing to sacrifice the environment.
well don't worry too much. i think that if most production cars are electric fuel cell hybrids, the occasional muscle car won't do that much damage. it, or fossil fuel burning cars in general, just can't be the norm.
i'd like to say that i own a Mopar(2002 Dodge Intrepid) and like a little power in my car. but i would rather just drive it on the weekends and evenings, and have a good public transportation system(like Europe) to take to work. or have a muscle car in the garage, and a fuel cell car to do my work drive.
if both public transportation and fuel efficient cars become more prevelant, more powerful versions of these engines will be developed and eventually change the future of hot rodding anyway.
"If you think this is fun, just wait until we have electric cars! Think gasoline is nasty stuff? (I can't wait to say, "I told you so!".)"
i think using gasoline means our continued dependence on fossil fuels. if batteries are dangerous in an accident, then we must find a way to make them safe, not use it as an excuse to keep burning gas.
if you don't like electricity as a solution, how about offering a positive alternative? instead of waiting around to laugh at people if your worse case scenario comes true.
hey, he's running IIS guys. i guess that explains it. you think gasoline is dangerous, try running Windows!
glad this dudes not my dad.
his kids will make nice ditch diggers or McEmployee's at a nice fast food restaurant.
you need to know how to use a computer to do any job these days, not just IT.
of course you should also encourage your children to engage in other activities and spend time with real people, but who doesn't know that?
you can be good at things on a computer and be successful in other areas of your life, idiot.
I know a lot of folks who have fulfilling non-IT lives, but still know there way around an OS. that's how they afford those lives.
well, you better go back to breaking rocks, and teaching your kids to brak rocks. because that's about all they're going to be qualified for.
Slashdot Mirror
uuum, England? France? not US.
no one should be punished for something they have the potential to do.
there were already laws against piracy, all the DMCA does is take away rights.
but what about solar, wind, veggie diesel, hydrogen, etc.?
also, there may be ways to gather hydroelectric without altering the surrounding landscape by using natural sources of fast running water. maybe new drilling techniques to minmize the impact of geothermal.
i fail to see the point of picking technologies far less harmful than nuclear technologies, and acting as if because they also cause a small amount of comparative harm, then nuclear power is therefore ok to use.
your argument lacks logic.
i have been using Spam Arrest for many month's and not gotten a single spam. FYI.
the only reason what you said could be true, is that we have kept nuclear development at bay. otherwise the reverse would be true and the consequences could be devastating.
we have many sources of clean energy at our disposal. energy that is sustainable and renewable. energy that can be siphoned from the earth without the help of big conglomerates is some cases, and don't think that doesn't have anything to do with why we aren't seeing them developed more.
with the information we have now, there is no longer an excuse for letting either of these technologies(coal or nuclear), remain.
except greed.
more care should be taken with nuclear power, dim bulb. and when it escapes we should be more concerned.
a lot of the deaths in coal mines occured because of poor working conditions and dangerous situations miners are forced to endure.
that hardly equates to nuclear material which is dangerous just sitting in a box.
just because there are safeguards on reactors that reduce the risk of them going critical now, does not mean there was never, and still isn't, a danger. and, true to form for pro-nuclear nitwits, no discussion of what to do with waste that will pose a threat thousands of generations in to the future.
and think of how much waste there will be if nuclear power is used extensively. where will we put it? how can we guarantee it's safety when we can't even stop leak in the comparatively paltry amount we have in storage today?
consider also the increased risk of terrorism to an increasing number of reactors and waste storage facilities, especially when we don't even bother to adequately secure the ones we have now.
nuclear power is not sustainable, even if the danger of blowing up reactors is nullified. which there is no way of guaranteeing even with new safeguards. human error is always a factor. it's pure arogance to think we can control such a violent reaction, and denial to think we can just stuff waste into the ground and never pay the price for our irresponsibility.
got news for you. those terrorists have a stronger faith in god than you(their version of it anyway), and look what happened to their society.
if you want to know what America would be like with a theocracy, just look at any muslim governed nation.
i am so sick of you self-righteous bastards moralizing about how if the rest of the world thought like you, we'd have no more problems. well, look at what happens in a world where everyone IS forced to follow the same moral code.
you want the red candy icon, or the blue one?
i would hate to think that the definition of an adult is someone who enjoys violence towards women and monorities.
this game is a joke. i can't believe that realistic killing would enhance the enjoyment of a good game for a well-adjusted person. this only makes things better for those with issues to work out.
that being said, i am not in favor of any censorship beyond that which a good parent would do for their child, or that consumers can exercise themselves with their purchasing power.
those two in combination should be enough for any free society.
descrimination based on race, however, is another matter and those references should be removed.
as for the love of violence that seems to permeate our society, the root causes of that are not contained in a video game, not could irradication of that game fix those problems.
he knows much that is hidden. quite.
it's dumbasses like you that are helping idiot's like George Bush take away our freedoms. do you seriously believe that telling someone where a drug dealer is should be illegal?
nothing that you say should be illegal as long as it doesn't put someone in danger just by saying it, like telling someone it's ok to cross the street when you know there's a car coming. and i don't want to hear that drugs are dangerous. the person you told has a choice between here and there and can simply walk away.
you are responsible for your own actions. just because i mention where a crime can be committed doesn't mean you have to do it. i'm just answering your question, and that should be protected speech.
stay off my rights!
..... Apple's web site tab navigation. better get ready for another letter boys :-)
i notice he talks about this like it's an alternative to a Linux box, but then points out that it runs linux, but that you won't really notice that because of the interface.
how exactly does that protect owners from the "unaccountability" of linux that he says is another reason that small businesses stay away from it?
so, as i understand this, if you want to free yourself up from the support and indemnification hassles of a linux box, get this linux box!
i think he's been smoking his Windows howto manuals(they oughta be good for something).
forget about all the times when windows has been cripled and the mac unaffected. because of this exploit, the mac sucks, and windows is great.
how does that work? windows is now more secure because someone FINALLY found a way to exploit a mac? don't think so.
Apple makes their product easier to implement on a windows network by turning on somthing that would normally be off, and because windows networks are so insecure by default, someone exploits the mac.
and so now macs suck, eh? never fails. windows users are so desperate to justify why they use this inferior system, that they take any chance to bash the mac and make it seem inferior.
wait...what's that? i think you have naked pictures of Anna Kornikova in your inbox! better open 'em up now.
there is also the fact that the assignment of damages is a flawed process in the first place.
downloading a file and listening to it is like listening to the radio. only when getting a file from a server, i must download it BEFORE i can listen to it.
just because i listen to it, doesn't mean i'm going to buy it. charging someone for having a downloaded file is like charging them for just listening to it. you don;t know i was going to buy it.
and sharing of files sounds more like running a radio station than a pirate server. they are just putting files up there to be listened to like any FM station. sounds more like an FCC violation than a copyright violation to me.
so send 'em an FCC cease and desist letter, or give them a broadcast license, and be done with it.
they are doing more than protecting their copyright. all they have to do to accomplish that is to send a cease and desist letter to the person to tell them to stop sharing files.
the fact that they are actually charging means that they have identified a new revenue stream to help their sagging sales. and it isn't developing interesting or groundbreaking artists like you would think.
it's suing children, even children living in the projects. that's what's causing the hubub bub.
CAN they do this legally? yes. SHOULD a multi-billion dollar corporation be suing a little girl living in the projects and others like her, NO.
there is what you can do, and what you should do. and there is being smart enough to know the difference.
the only thing he's threatening is legal action for McBrides slander and prosecution for his illegal manipulation of his companies stock prices.
sounds reasonable to me.
it doesn't matter if email is considered public communication by law. it has become that anyway through critical mass. by setting the public's expectations, AOL and other ISPs have accepted the responsibility of meeting those expectations. his ananlogy is also correct because he was comparing effects. the effect of blocking email is the same as blocking phone service in that it interupts communication. he was also correct in comparing telemarketing calls to spam. both are mass untargeted marketing, just use different modes.
geezus, i re-read your stuff on electric cars.
my god man, those things haven't been true since the 70s.
this level of misinformation is why Bush keeps getting elected and enviromentalists have such a bad rap.
i love how you completely disallow for any technology improvements in batteries while getting completely behind the advances that would allow you to keep driving your muscle car. that is so self-serving.
as far as alchohol for the gas part of the hybrid engine from corn grown here, sounds great. i would want to see how it compares to a diesel hybrid burning vegetable oil(this can already be done and is in practice), but i'm up for it. and the same farmers can grow the corn that produces this oil.
but as for genetically enigineering plants. this is just the same "we want it now, f*ck the consequences, we'll worry about them later" mentality that got us into the fossil fuel fiasco.
until we can say for certain that there will be no ill effects, we shouldn't go messing with nature. they have actually engineered pesticides that reside within plants and invade cell of pests. what happens when, once out in nature, they mutate like things in nature do, and start attacking other cells?
why do we need to genetically engineer corn to produce the alcohol needed anyway? you didn't explain that.
love the anti-environmentalist attitude. yeah, those people who think we should actually make a sacrifice to stem the effects of pollution are just wackos. don't they know that we should be able to do whatever we want unchecked by common sense and good judgement? voted for that idiot Bush, didn't you? i could tell.
as for the IIS thing, i was going by your sig.
well don't worry too much. i think that if most production cars are electric fuel cell hybrids, the occasional muscle car won't do that much damage. it, or fossil fuel burning cars in general, just can't be the norm.
i'd like to say that i own a Mopar(2002 Dodge Intrepid) and like a little power in my car. but i would rather just drive it on the weekends and evenings, and have a good public transportation system(like Europe) to take to work. or have a muscle car in the garage, and a fuel cell car to do my work drive.
if both public transportation and fuel efficient cars become more prevelant, more powerful versions of these engines will be developed and eventually change the future of hot rodding anyway.
i think using gasoline means our continued dependence on fossil fuels. if batteries are dangerous in an accident, then we must find a way to make them safe, not use it as an excuse to keep burning gas.
if you don't like electricity as a solution, how about offering a positive alternative? instead of waiting around to laugh at people if your worse case scenario comes true.
hey, he's running IIS guys. i guess that explains it. you think gasoline is dangerous, try running Windows!
Word, people who say "Word" are lame. typical of the dumasses who don't get the Mac.
glad this dudes not my dad. his kids will make nice ditch diggers or McEmployee's at a nice fast food restaurant. you need to know how to use a computer to do any job these days, not just IT. of course you should also encourage your children to engage in other activities and spend time with real people, but who doesn't know that? you can be good at things on a computer and be successful in other areas of your life, idiot. I know a lot of folks who have fulfilling non-IT lives, but still know there way around an OS. that's how they afford those lives. well, you better go back to breaking rocks, and teaching your kids to brak rocks. because that's about all they're going to be qualified for.