In Washington State, power companies (Puget Sound Energy for example) paid for all the CFL bulbs you could carry away as long as you paid the sales tax on the bulb.
These things are do-able today, without major changes to the grid, or the buildings, or anything else.
Of course, CFL bulbs are not without a down-side, namely the mercury in side. Power companies are also stepping up to recycle those, but I bet most end up in the trash.
The plants were designed to be scalable, and they did plan for growth.
Then a funny thing happened. Environmental-whackos stepped up and put a stop to all new electrical generation plants for a period of around 15 years. You couldn't even expand existing plants during this period.
Only when things started getting really bad, and California blacked out a couple times did the rules start to loosen.
Hell it was probably you marching up and down with your scruffy beard and cardboard sign in college that stopped infrastructure development for all we know.
First consumers can already "make choices about how and when to consume power".
Second, Utility company cut-offs to high-load things like water heaters already exist. Energy suppliers in some ares pay you a small amount to have the ability to drop your water heater elements during peak usage (cooking time and high air conditioning loads).
There is nothing suggested in TFA that does not already exist.
The most immediate single change that the average consumer can impliment is CFL lightbulbs. These are so effective that some Power companies PAY for the bulbs for you.
Absolutely. I clicked them when I first read it and I clicked them again just now.
First, there is nothing in that article that could possibly be actionable after being slashdotted.
Secondly, child porn honeypot links are not left lying about on web pages where cache-ahead browsers (such as Opera) might fetch a link that was never actually viewed.
Had you had the intestinal fortitude the click the links in the slash dot article you would have come across this quote:
--Quote: How the hyperlink sting operation worked: The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity.
In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic." --endquote.
You will not wander into these on the net, you would get these URLs thru clandestine porn-trader "chat rooms". Their usefulness is immediately destroyed once they become public and crawled by Yahoo and Google (or slashdotted).
If you were old enough to have a kid, you would be glad these means are employed. Its still not censorship, and nobody has yet posted a url that they can get to from their country which is blocked by the US.
Ok, so I take that as a retraction of your "who wants to start" gauntlet, and an admission that the US does not censor the web.
Not being able to cite even ONE URL available to the rest of the world, the allegation of censor ship now morphs into one of monitoring.
Once again the claim is made against the US, totally ignoring those countries which CONSTANTLY monitor, and further, this claim is based solely on rumor and internet hear-say.
Fact is you are much more likely to be visited by Police for surfing child porn from the UK than the US.
As for Islamicist cites, links to those often appear in mainstream media web sites. I've been there. Know what happened? Nothing.
> The block wasn't entirely effective to experienced users.
And further, it wasn't done by the US Government but by the Parties themselves to conserve bandwidth.
You might not be able to get to Portions of official US Government web sites either, but then I can't get to some of these either. Military, Nuclear regulatory agency internal sites, FBI internal network.
I hardly think prudent security measures rise to the level of censorship.
Me: tapping foot, waiting for someone to post a link available to the ROW but censored by the USA.
Since there is virtually nothing the US censors now, I can't see this as a big deal.
National Security web site censoring just doesn't happen in the US because the US realizes how feeble and flawed that approach is.
But nice try, ignoring countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, et al that routinely censor web sites and have been for decades, and go straight for the juggler of the US simply because it could theoretically someday happen.
> The second one is a social problem, and is where > government intervention belongs.
Oh, please, lets not add more government.
If you offer a GOOD email protocol which solves the major problems with SMTP, and put up a few demonstration servers and give the code away free (like sendmail, qmail, postfix etc) it would take off by itself, with no need of government intervention.
Witness any number of today's wildly popular protocols, web applications, chat clients, Voip clients. No government needed.
Someday the "Skype of Email" will show up and simply take over as people adopt it in droves.
You are aware, are you not, that somewhere between 80 and 95% of all mail is spam, and spam takes way more servers and bandwidth than ALL other uses of the internet combined?
You pay for that, I pay for that. It costs ME money. Some users pay bandwidth by the byte. It costs them even more.
What would your connection cost if spam was once and for all eliminated? What could you ISP save in bandwidth and servers, and pass on to you in lower fees?
Its not JUST an irritation, its theft of services.
It would appear it has already been adequately covered by the SCOTUS, and the Virginia court is wasting everyone's time and money with yet another hearing.
Yes its ridiculous, but not all together atypical.
If there was money involved, it would never have happened. (Paying customers have a way of getting what they want, but people who develop for the karma occasionally take a "my way or no way" approach.) [/me, expecting flames].
But the beauty of Open Source is the self correcting nature of the development community. People can take it and do what they want with it. This would never happen in a closed source product.
There was never an attempt to establish what "close enough" means. They simply determined that there was a common ancestor.
For this you don't need control groups. In fact in DNA analysis control groups are rarely used at all any more. It is not necessary. You can read up on DNA analysis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_analysis
Further, there is no indication that any of the 17 distant relatives "Wanted" anything, or even knew what there DNA sample was used for.
30 years living in Alaska tells me you are just wrong, and ignorant of the facts.
The language is dyeing because it is largely useless to them, preserved mostly for historical purposes.
It is still taught, both at home, and in schools. You can even enroll in college courses teaching these languages.
Just as Norwegian is lost to by the second generation after immigration from Norway, so too is Inuit. Not by suppression. Simply thru disuse. A choice made by the peoples themselves.
These people have never been beaten. Their pride is intact. I've lived there. Have you? Or is this just more liberal ranting?
Inuit/Inupiat and Eskimo people have never had their culture attacked, discredited or suppressed. They have never been defeated in battle, and never have been made war upon.
Not in Alaska and not in Canada. If anything, native cultures of the far north are celebrated far in excess of their actual accomplishments.
> If you can't prove she's dead, and nobody saw her > die, and there's no evidence that she's anywhere > other than where he says, you can't convict a > person of first degree murder.
Wrong. They just did.
Are your points, grounds for appeal? Certainly.
But you can most certainly convict without a body, because to prohibit such convictions merely rewards those criminals better at disposing of bodies.
Remarkably narrow by western European standards perhaps, but the arctic is thinly populated, and far more inbred than you might imagine.
These people did not have horses, and walked most places except along rivers and coasts. They did not go far to find a wife, and individual villages were often deeply inbred. Everybody within 100 miles was kin in one way or another, and usually closer kin than would be accepted in anywhere in the rest of North America.
> He might have only died 160 years ago. I'd be > more impressed if he'd been dead for thousands of > years.
Exactly so.
This hardly qualifies as Archeology at all.
Further, in spite of the hand wringing in TFA, is does nothing but discredit native verbal traditions as a source of scientific information.
First, no verbal traditions provided the slightest clue as to his id or even his clan/tribe. The fact that he was extracted from a glacier, reasonably intact, and NOBODY could pin down his tribe/clan from his clothing, and personal effects says the traditions are little more than stories.
Second, a certain racism rears its ugly head with regard to the new found relatives statement that he could ONLY NOW be given "the respect and dignity he deserves." Really? Heaven forbid the native people accorded a white man the dignity of a proper native ceremony.
Slashdot Mirror
True.
It takes money to save money.
In Washington State, power companies (Puget Sound Energy for example) paid for all the CFL bulbs you could carry away as long as you paid the sales tax on the bulb.
These things are do-able today, without major changes to the grid, or the buildings, or anything else.
Of course, CFL bulbs are not without a down-side, namely the mercury in side. Power companies are also stepping up to recycle those, but I bet most end up in the trash.
I cry foul!!
The plants were designed to be scalable, and they did plan for growth.
Then a funny thing happened. Environmental-whackos stepped up and put a stop to all new electrical generation plants for a period of around 15 years. You couldn't even expand existing plants during this period.
Only when things started getting really bad, and California blacked out a couple times did the rules start to loosen.
Hell it was probably you marching up and down with your scruffy beard and cardboard sign in college that stopped infrastructure development for all we know.
No the grid does not have to be re-engineered. All the inter-ties for micro-power already exist. All the laws are already on the books.
The technology already exists.
Nothing new here.
First consumers can already "make choices about how and when to consume power".
Second, Utility company cut-offs to high-load things like water heaters already exist. Energy suppliers in some ares pay you a small amount to have the ability to drop your water heater elements during peak usage (cooking time and high air conditioning loads).
There is nothing suggested in TFA that does not already exist.
The most immediate single change that the average consumer can impliment is CFL lightbulbs. These are so effective that some Power companies PAY for the bulbs for you.
I'd say its a safe bet that the files from apple.com are in perfect condition.
Which means it either became corrupted in transit to, or on arrival to your machine.
Which leads the question: Is the OP or any of the seeders on Comcast?
Absolutely. I clicked them when I first read it and I clicked them again just now.
First, there is nothing in that article that could possibly be actionable after being slashdotted.
Secondly, child porn honeypot links are not left lying about on web pages where cache-ahead browsers (such as Opera) might fetch a link that was never actually viewed.
Had you had the intestinal fortitude the click the links in the slash dot article you would have come across this quote:
--Quote:
How the hyperlink sting operation worked:
The government's hyperlink sting operation worked like this: FBI Special Agent Wade Luders disseminated links to the supposedly illicit porn on an online discussion forum called Ranchi, which Luders believed was frequented by people who traded underage images. One server allegedly associated with the Ranchi forum was rangate.da.ru, which is now offline with a message attributing the closure to "non-ethical" activity.
In October 2006, Luders posted a number of links purporting to point to videos of child pornography, and then followed up with a second, supposedly correct link 40 minutes later. All the links pointed to, according to a bureau affidavit, a "covert FBI computer in San Jose, California, and the file located therein was encrypted and non-pornographic."
--endquote.
You will not wander into these on the net, you would get these URLs thru clandestine porn-trader "chat rooms". Their usefulness is immediately destroyed once they become public and crawled by Yahoo and Google (or slashdotted).
If you were old enough to have a kid, you would be glad these means are employed. Its still not censorship, and nobody has yet posted a url that they can get to from their country which is blocked by the US.
Ok, so I take that as a retraction of your "who wants to start" gauntlet, and an admission that the US does not censor the web.
Not being able to cite even ONE URL available to the rest of the world, the allegation of censor ship now morphs into one of monitoring.
Once again the claim is made against the US, totally ignoring those countries which CONSTANTLY monitor, and further, this claim is based solely on rumor and internet hear-say.
Fact is you are much more likely to be visited by Police for surfing child porn from the UK than the US.
As for Islamicist cites, links to those often appear in mainstream media web sites. I've been there. Know what happened? Nothing.
More crickets....
> The block wasn't entirely effective to experienced users.
And further, it wasn't done by the US Government but by the Parties themselves to conserve bandwidth.
You might not be able to get to Portions of official US Government web sites either, but then I can't get to some of these either. Military, Nuclear regulatory agency internal sites, FBI internal network.
I hardly think prudent security measures rise to the level of censorship.
Me: tapping foot, waiting for someone to post a link available to the ROW but censored by the USA.
Crickets....
Well I've been waiting for someone to jump in
and point to a site I can't get to. Half expecting
it really.
crickets.....
Since there is virtually nothing the US censors now, I can't see this as a big deal.
National Security web site censoring just doesn't happen in the US because the US realizes how feeble and flawed that approach is.
But nice try, ignoring countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, et al that routinely censor web sites and have been for decades, and go straight for the juggler of the US simply because it could theoretically someday happen.
> The second one is a social problem, and is where
> government intervention belongs.
Oh, please, lets not add more government.
If you offer a GOOD email protocol which solves the major problems with SMTP, and put up a few demonstration servers and give the code away free (like sendmail, qmail, postfix etc) it would take off by itself, with no need of government intervention.
Witness any number of today's wildly popular protocols, web applications, chat clients, Voip clients. No government needed.
Someday the "Skype of Email" will show up and simply take over as people adopt it in droves.
Its not done because its HARD to do.
Irritation?
You are aware, are you not, that somewhere between 80 and 95% of all mail is spam, and spam takes way more servers and bandwidth than ALL other uses of the internet combined?
You pay for that, I pay for that. It costs ME money. Some users pay bandwidth by the byte. It costs them even more.
What would your connection cost if spam was once and for all eliminated? What could you ISP save in bandwidth and servers, and pass on to you in lower fees?
Its not JUST an irritation, its theft of services.
Nice try sneaking in that "childhood" analogy.
Mod GrandParent up.
Why can't I horde my mod points for things that need it?
Mod parent up.
It would appear it has already been adequately covered by the SCOTUS, and the Virginia court is wasting everyone's time and money with yet another hearing.
Yes its ridiculous, but not all together atypical.
If there was money involved, it would never have happened. (Paying customers have a way of getting what they want, but people who develop for the karma occasionally take a "my way or no way" approach.) [/me, expecting flames].
But the beauty of Open Source is the self correcting nature of the development community. People can take it and do what they want with it. This would never happen in a closed source product.
There was never an attempt to establish what "close enough" means. They simply determined that there was a common ancestor.
For this you don't need control groups. In fact in DNA analysis control groups are rarely used at all any more. It is not necessary. You can read up on DNA analysis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_analysis
Further, there is no indication that any of the 17 distant relatives "Wanted" anything, or even knew what there DNA sample was used for.
30 years living in Alaska tells me you are just wrong, and ignorant of the facts.
The language is dyeing because it is largely useless to them, preserved mostly for historical purposes.
It is still taught, both at home, and in schools. You can even enroll in college courses teaching these languages.
Just as Norwegian is lost to by the second generation after immigration from Norway, so too is Inuit. Not by suppression. Simply thru disuse. A choice made by the peoples themselves.
These people have never been beaten. Their pride is intact. I've lived there. Have you? Or is this just more liberal ranting?
But did they see guilt? Or merely arrogance, contrivance and deceit, which would qualify half of slashdot posters as guilty verdicts.
And further the questions raised by the parent post were questions of procedure not the jury verdict.
> I won't say whether or not he's guilty.
You don't have to. The jury did. Which means he is guilty by definition.
It has yet to be proved that he did kill her. Never the less, he is guilty.
Guilt is a legal finding. Not always a factual finding.
> Clearly he must have understood Reiser ... would not help his case by testifying.
Yet he put him on the stand anyway.
What a surprise. An attorney with morals!
Who is this WE you speak of?
Inuit/Inupiat and Eskimo people have never had their culture attacked, discredited or suppressed. They have never been defeated in battle, and never have been made war upon.
Not in Alaska and not in Canada. If anything, native cultures of the far north are celebrated far in excess of their actual accomplishments.
> If you can't prove she's dead, and nobody saw her
> die, and there's no evidence that she's anywhere
> other than where he says, you can't convict a
> person of first degree murder.
Wrong. They just did.
Are your points, grounds for appeal? Certainly.
But you can most certainly convict without a body, because to prohibit such convictions merely rewards those criminals better at disposing of bodies.
> his dude supplied genetic material to SEVENTEEN living people..
Go back and re-read TFA. There have been no descendants identified.
He shares ancestors with 17 people, through his mother's side.
Remarkably narrow by western European standards perhaps, but the arctic is thinly populated, and far more inbred than you might imagine.
These people did not have horses, and walked most places except along rivers and coasts. They did not go far to find a wife, and individual villages were often deeply inbred. Everybody within 100 miles was kin in one way or another, and usually closer kin than would be accepted in anywhere in the rest of North America.
> He might have only died 160 years ago. I'd be
> more impressed if he'd been dead for thousands of
> years.
Exactly so.
This hardly qualifies as Archeology at all.
Further, in spite of the hand wringing in TFA, is does nothing but discredit native verbal traditions as a source of scientific information.
First, no verbal traditions provided the slightest clue as to his id or even his clan/tribe. The fact that he was extracted from a glacier, reasonably intact, and NOBODY could pin down his tribe/clan from his clothing, and personal effects says the traditions are little more than stories.
Second, a certain racism rears its ugly head with regard to the new found relatives statement that he could ONLY NOW be given "the respect and dignity he deserves." Really? Heaven forbid the native people accorded a white man the dignity of a proper native ceremony.