Equilibrium will happen neither instantaneously nor completely. Compare the air in Mexico City with the air of surrounding areas. This isn't about total pollution in the world. This is about moving pollution away from the people, and your equilibrium theory is completely bogus.
Unless you're talking about a timespan of thousands of years. In that case...Dear future humankind: I expect everything to be solar-powered by the year 2222.
The actual article mentions climate change, so it is not just about quality of air for people. It took just over one week for radiation from Japan to reach the US. In Japan itself, there is an 18 mile radius around the stricken plants. Would you not expect CO2 to move around as much as radioisotopes?
The air in Mexico City may be more foul than surrounding areas, but if equilibrium didn't occur, then Mexico City would be a dead zone because the pollution would have nowhere to go and no way to get there. The fact that the air is foul is because the pollution is being created quicker than the equilibrium process can dissipate it, but it still dissipates.
Equilibrium is not bogus, all systems gravitate towards it. Doesn't matter if it is the ocean, the air or the fluids in your body.
Having all the pollution in one place doesn't work. It will move from high density areas to low density until it reaches equilibrium. Besides, the EUs purpose is to reduce CO2 emissions because of climate change. As such, having to produce additional electricity will release more CO2. Now, whether that will be less than the CO2 released by more fuel efficient vehicles has not been determined.
Good to know. Are you a lawyer, or is it because you've seen it happen, or you've been through an incident like you described? It is an honest question...
Let's just say strong ties to law enforcement. Really can't say much more than that.
...which of the 4 people living here and on which of the 9 computers (7 physical, 2 virtual) behind my NAT firewall committed the act based on the evidence you have already? Which subnet of my internal network were they using (the virtual machines are subnetted away from the rest of the network)? Is it possible that someone outside my home cracked my wireless security, joined my network, and committed the act in question?
If you have 9 computers in your possession, the authorities really don't care which is infringing, they are still in your possession. Subnets don't really matter, nor does your NAT firewall, as all they have to do is show that the content in question was transmitted to whatever device you have that is connected to your ISP (usually a router). That is enough to give probable cause for a search warrant (at least in the US). From there, they can confiscate said computers and analyze them looking for signs of the data in question.
It may be possible that somebody outside your home cracked your security. You could try to use that as a defense, it wouldn't be up to the prosecutor to show that it didn't happen, anymore than they would need to show that somebody broke into your home or business and used your computer. That would be your burden to disprove the prosecutor's case. Besides, a good prosecutor would point out that if you have the smarts to create the network you have described, then you have the smarts to adequately protect it. Negligence usually is not a good defense at a trial.
Here is an analogy for you. If you loan your car to somebody and they commit a crime with it, the authorities are coming after you. If you have an alibi, that is great, otherwise, you'd better be ready and willing to turn over who borrowed your car. Even with an alibi, if you don't want to be an accomplace, you'd better be ready and willing to turn over who borrowed your car.
So, back to your 9 computers. If it wasn't you who did whatever, which of your family or users (depending on whether this is a home or work system) did? That is the information they will find out when they confiscate your equipment. Happens every day, all the time.
Of course with not having to buy fuel, there isn't any money going to the government to build and maintain roads. The most efficient vehicle in the world is pretty worthless if there aren't any roads to drive it on. Back in the day, when fuel tax was first implemented to pay for highways, all vehicles got pretty much the same mileage, so the more you drove, the more tax you paid for the roads. That is not the case today.
Whether you pay an extra 20 grand for a vehicle is your personal choice. Whether you pay your fair share for the roads to drive it on or not, is not you personal choice.
A few weeks ago, there was a lot of discussion about how many universities are wanting to drop the math requirements from their CS degrees. Now we have dropping OO, too....Is all of this a continued dumbing down of college so that the masses can get a degree?
It's not so much "dumbing down" but the fact that the world is getting more complex and there are more subjects to learn, both practical and theoretical. Something has to give because only so much fits into 4 years.
For example, you used to just have batch processes, and then interactive computing came along, then relational databases, then GUI's, then web, then cloud computing and parallelism got practical due to technology, etc. Yet one still has to know how to do batch, interactive, relational, GUI, and web while learning the new stuff also.
Then a better solution, if there is too much to learn in 4 years, is to change CS into a 5 year program. That's what they've done with accounting and a number of other majors. Instead of dropping things, they added what was considered necessary for a complete package.
Back in the day, and I'll assume now as well, CMU has a hell of a reputation as Comp-Sci school. Heavy on the theory. And Most definitely on par with MIT, UCB, and UIUC. Admittedly I came out of UIUC knowing how to build a web page. Of course this was because my room mate was busy porting Mosaic to c++/windows NT for the NCSA. Point being I think it's a safe bet that CMU's Comp-Sci dept. isn't focused on dumbing down their program.
Interestingly enough, MIT, UCB and UIUC still teach object oriented programming to freshman and sophomores. I wonder what CMU knows that the rest don't, or vice-versa.
I am so glad I didn't get a CS degree - and in fact most of the people I hire do not have CS degrees. My BSc in Mechanical Engineering is far more useful to me as a VP of a software company than any CS degree. Engineering taught me how to think, how to design from a blank piece of paper, how to manage projects, how to work with people. I taught myself to write code.
I want t hire people who can develop real world products not be the product of some well paid Dean's education experiment.
Anyone considering a software job should think long and hard about a CS degree. It wont teach you anything that you'll need in the real world. Do a real science subject or a real engineering subject, not CS.
I actually agree with you. For most programming jobs, one is better served with a degree in the field you want to be in and then add programming courses as electives. Computer Science degree graduates used to be the ones who applied theory to real life by, for instance, developing relational databases for others to program. Like physics, computer science used to be looked at as an applied mathematics field. It used to be viewed as a profession. Today, it has been turned into a trade school degree to get a job.
As a chemistry major back in the 70s, we had to take chemistry and other hard science (as opposed to soft science) classes in the first two years, so that by the time we were upper classman, we were in a position to take the hard hard science classes. Many people drop out of chemistry (usually pre-med) because the work was too difficult. Those that had an aptitude for it and persevered, became chemists.
It is interesting, that in a program that claims to turn out Computer Scientists, CMU would not be doing something similar.
A few weeks ago, there was a lot of discussion about how many universities are wanting to drop the math requirements from their CS degrees. Now we have dropping OO, too. I seem to recall that CS stands for Computer Science. Should not somebody with a Computer Science degree be able to handle things like OO and math? I could see dropping these requirements if the degree were something like Computer Technician or Computer programming (although even that last one, would indicate that a graduate would be verse in multiple programming paradigms).
Is all of this a continued dumbing down of college so that the masses can get a degree? If so, it appears more and more technical jobs will go offshore as the next generation of true computer scientists won't receive their training in this country.
On the other hand, if the goal is to pay a university a $100K to teach you how to do web pages and the like, then go for it. But, if the US wants to return to being a technology leader, then they need to focus on more than just the currently hot marketing skills and focus instead on the whole big picture.
They should do away with the gas tax (and any other tax at any level of government meant to repaire roads) and put in place a tax on any vehicle, payable at time of registration (annually) based on the Gross Vehicle Weight and mileage change from previous registration, which is known of EVERY vehicle type, including big trucks. This is fair in every respect I can think of, without the intrusiveness of GPS, etc...
I would concur with this. Since bigger heavier vehicles do more damage, their fee should be higher per mile than smaller fuel efficient vehicles. The real obstacle will be, however, when you have to pay $250 for the usage fee when you license your vehicle (15,000 at 25mpg = 600 gallons of gas tax to replace). But one way around it would be for the first year to record the information and then you pay quarterly estimates based on the previous year's results.
The problem with toll road solution is that it treats every vehicle the same regardless how much damage it does to the road. The heavier the vehicle, the more damage to the roadway occurs. Semi's are the worst, then regular non-semi trucks, then SUVs and pickups with something like the smart car being the least damaging (because it is so light). Shouldn't the fee paid be based on the damage to the road surface incurred? I'm not opposed to the toll road principle, but it should include a base rate plus a tonnage weight.
The difference is in New York they are trying to be fair by taxing the fuel efficient vehicle to cover their share of road repairs. This plan raises the taxes on everybody, including those already paying their fair share of road repairs.
There are a number of serious problems with this proposal. The first two are similar. Who will pay for these tracking devices and the installation? Second, is it legal for the government to impose a tracking device on your vehicle, without cause?
The third and rest are more pragmatic. This solution totally ignores how damage is done to highways. A fully loaded 18 wheeler going 70mph does significantly more damage to highway infrastructure than your Honda Civic, same with an SUV. The heavier the vehicle the more wear and tear to the pavement. So why should the small lighter car subsidize the bigger vehicles? It seems like the very idea of this is that those who use the roads more should pay more for maintenance and upkeep, kind of like turning the roads into electronic toll roads. However, it should really be based on those who damage the roads should be paying more for the maintenance and upkeep, more like an actual user fee: heavier vehicles use up more of the road surface, so should pay more to replenish that surface.
Then there is the issue of these "public" roads have already been paid for by individual's tax dollars. Federal fuel tax is for new construction, not maintenance. Maintenance is left up to the states, so while this scheme may keep the federal government from increase the fuel tax, under current law it does nothing to help with maintenance. If the federal government is concerned with the state's cost of maintaining the highway system, there is nothing stopping congress from changing the law on how the funds can be used right now.
Finally, if the concern is with hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles not paying their fair share, then slap an excise tax on those vehicles to cover what the fuel tax revenue would have been. Of course, that would make them less popular and not as many people will want to buy them. But if the goal is to make every body pay, then this would be simpler to administer, which means it would be cheaper to administer. It also would not require modification to everybody's vehicle.
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code. True freedom is letting people do what they want, even if they have different values than you.
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.
It's backwards thinking and does no good to free and open source movement, as companies won't even be considering using it. GPL alone has created a large problem. It has made companies associate open source with huge legal trouble, and generally will make companies avoid open sourcing and open source code completely just because of GPL. They rather get the easier and guaranteed legally good alternative, which is licensing from other companies like MPEG-LA for H.264 and Microsoft for WP7 and so on.. Yes, it costs money. But when dealing with companies, it's a lot easier for them and solves many troubles that the hypocrites at GPL headquearters have caused for the whole open source movement. This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win. I'm personally disgusted by this move by Samba team, as they're the ones that try to make it easy to both move away from Windows and integrate with other operating systems. GPL is bad.
There is nothing in the GPL v2 or v3 that would prohibit Apple from including Samba. GPLv3 specifically allows it to be included even if other parts are not GPL. What cannot be done, however, is slap a bigger license over the top of included GPL'd programs that would circumvent the GPL. All Apple would have to do is issue a statement that says something to effect that portions of OSX are released under a GPLv3 license. Then list those portions and the actual require GPL verbage and make the source code available. That's no different than Windows having it's license and the pre-installed apps having theirs.
GPLv3 is not the problem. Companies wanting to use GPLv3 code without adhering to the licensing agreements are the problem. I am curious, though, since the Microsoft networking stuff is copyrighted and patented, how Apple developed a clean room copy without resorting to using the Samba code. If they based their own version on anything they learned from Samba, then they are still, in fact in violation of the GPL. Of course, that would be an argument for a different day and time.
In short, GPLv3 is just an excuse being used to deflect attention from Apple's own internal decisions. .
There's a list of some of the patents in the article...
" Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;"
This is so vague even I can't understand what it is.
" Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;"
Woah. The insight of this is truly staggering.
" Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;"
No idea what this means either.
" Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and"
. ..
" Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document."
Could we take "Colour Markers", "Scribbling on a document" to be previous implmentations of this? Because then there's a lot of people you could sue.
With the exception of that download thing, my old Palm Pre did all of that with WebOS. I wonder why Microsoft isn't suing HP since their new tablet and phone also does all of this?
Look who is being sued -- Barnes and Noble and other companies that use android on their device. Correction, relatively small companies without large legal staffs that use android on their device. If android is the problem, then why isn't Microsoft suing Google for infringement? Oh, wait, Google has as much money and as many lawyers as Microsoft does. This is much like locking the drug user up in jail, but ignoring the pusher. If Microsoft really believes that android is infringing, then they should go directly after Google.
I know only a minimal amount about Android, but why does Google insist on walking on the very edge of legality in regards to all of the software involved here? Licensing costs? That explains Java, but why all the incompatible custom changes, copyright header removals, and general open source shadiness.
They may be within that law, but are outside the bounds of being upstanding (apologize before hand for the term) 'FOSS netizens'.
Can they really not get Android to work *and* play nice?
Because they are one of the largest tech companies in the world and they believe they can do whatever they want. After all, isn't Google one of those too big to let fail companies?
Linux proponents should have learned from Microsoft. You have to wait until the copyright offender has reached critical mass before you threaten to sue for copyright infringement. The settlements are much larger that way.
Japan reported that workers were exposed to Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 that was released into the atmosphere from the explosion. I was under the impression that there was not any safe exposure limits to Iodine-131. We are all exposed to Cesium-137 thanks to the nuclear weapon production/testing during the cold war, so unless it was a really high dose, it's probably not an immediate concern. But I'm not sure the same can be said about the iodine, can it?
You do not think that if what is going on in Japan hit the west coast that it would not create a national emergency? Particularly if the West Coast was out of power? What would happen if California, alone, lost the Diablo Canyon and the two San Onofre plants? It would seem to be difficult to reopen all of those shipping ports without power. It would seem to be difficult how to rebuild the road and rail infrastructure to transport goods and services without power. It doesn't take the entire country to be in the line of fire for it to be a national problem. Sure, ships could divert around to the east coast, but a) that takes time and b) the east coast ports aren't in a position to handle the capacity of the west coast.
The fact is that in the US, the majority of electrical power is generated by an ever decreasing number of mega power plants (not all nuclear). This is cheaper for the companies that produce power, because of the regulatory cost in building a plant, but creates significant points of failure if one of these plants go down. On the otherhand, multiple small plants increases the points of failure, but the actual failure has less of an impact. The entire grid, antiquated as it is, is based on the notion of their being many small producers that can be switched in and out if needed to other areas. That is not the environment we have today, however, where there are fewer power stations, each creating more power. In addition, the power needs in the areas with the mega plants, use significantly more power so there is less to dump on the grid in a national emergency (again, a national emergency does not mean the entire country is out of power). If somehow, the North East could directly divert it's power production to the West Coast, how much excess capacity is there in the NE production? Not enough to handle the power consumption of the west coast if something like what is going on in Japan happened on the west coast. Likewise, the west coast does not have enough capacity for it's own use and the east coast.
If the quake and tsunami that took out Japan had occurred of of the California coast, it would impact the entire country. And, just like Japan, the rest of the country would be faced with power rationing just to get needed power for emergency services to the victims. Also, like Japan, there would not be any permanent short term fix to the system.
Face it, in a time when everybody wants lower taxes and lower prices, nobody is willing to spend more to build redundancy into a fragile power grid/network. Luckily for the US, this disaster was on the other side of the Pacific and not here. But, I guarantee that civil planners are working on contingency plans in the US given the two systems were very similar. The economic danger from relying on mega plants is far worse than the radiation danger.
Even in the US, where the failure of a large mega plant puts too much strain on the system. Missouri has a single plant (wanting to add more reactors on the same site). If that plant fails, St. Louis and Southern Illinois is without power, at least until the coal plants in the midwest up their capacity. Sure, power can be shifted from other areas of the country, but that usually only works for the short term (remember the rolling blackouts in California a few years back). While the US does have a national system, it is not really designed so that if New York is out of power for whatever reason, California can pick it up and vice versa. If this quake and tsunami hit the west coast of the US, then California, Washington, etc. would be experiencing the same problems that Japan is. What the US has is actually a regional power grid. It's not truly designed, at least for the long term, to provide power from one coast to another, but relies on regional shifts of power.
Canada is set up similarly (large geographic area divided into regional power districts). There solution, however, has been to build multiple lower powered nuclear plants per region instead of a one or two really big ones. That way, if one goes out, the region can still produce the majority of it's power needs.
Since their are hundreds of links because there are hundreds of studies it would be hard to post a single link. Try searching on: cfl energy consumption canada study as a starting point for your research.
The real fallout that Japan needs to worry about is that they have permanently lost a substantial part of their capacity to generate electricity and won't be able to replace it anytime soon. The US and other countries with these high power nuclear plants should learn a lesson. It is better to build several smaller plants instead of a few megaplants. That way, if one of them is out of commission, it is not a total loss to the power grid.
The lack of power in Japan will be a significant issue as the country tries to react to the quake and tsunami and will hamper long term recovery efforts, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Equilibrium will happen neither instantaneously nor completely. Compare the air in Mexico City with the air of surrounding areas. This isn't about total pollution in the world. This is about moving pollution away from the people, and your equilibrium theory is completely bogus.
Unless you're talking about a timespan of thousands of years. In that case...Dear future humankind: I expect everything to be solar-powered by the year 2222.
The actual article mentions climate change, so it is not just about quality of air for people. It took just over one week for radiation from Japan to reach the US. In Japan itself, there is an 18 mile radius around the stricken plants. Would you not expect CO2 to move around as much as radioisotopes?
The air in Mexico City may be more foul than surrounding areas, but if equilibrium didn't occur, then Mexico City would be a dead zone because the pollution would have nowhere to go and no way to get there. The fact that the air is foul is because the pollution is being created quicker than the equilibrium process can dissipate it, but it still dissipates.
Equilibrium is not bogus, all systems gravitate towards it. Doesn't matter if it is the ocean, the air or the fluids in your body.
Having all the pollution in one place doesn't work. It will move from high density areas to low density until it reaches equilibrium. Besides, the EUs purpose is to reduce CO2 emissions because of climate change. As such, having to produce additional electricity will release more CO2. Now, whether that will be less than the CO2 released by more fuel efficient vehicles has not been determined.
"Let's just say strong ties to law enforcement. Really can't say much more than that."
Nothing projects confidence in law enforcement and those with "strong ties" like statements like above.
Wish I could say more but there is an NDA in effect.
Good to know. Are you a lawyer, or is it because you've seen it happen, or you've been through an incident like you described? It is an honest question...
Let's just say strong ties to law enforcement. Really can't say much more than that.
...which of the 4 people living here and on which of the 9 computers (7 physical, 2 virtual) behind my NAT firewall committed the act based on the evidence you have already? Which subnet of my internal network were they using (the virtual machines are subnetted away from the rest of the network)? Is it possible that someone outside my home cracked my wireless security, joined my network, and committed the act in question?
If you have 9 computers in your possession, the authorities really don't care which is infringing, they are still in your possession. Subnets don't really matter, nor does your NAT firewall, as all they have to do is show that the content in question was transmitted to whatever device you have that is connected to your ISP (usually a router). That is enough to give probable cause for a search warrant (at least in the US). From there, they can confiscate said computers and analyze them looking for signs of the data in question.
It may be possible that somebody outside your home cracked your security. You could try to use that as a defense, it wouldn't be up to the prosecutor to show that it didn't happen, anymore than they would need to show that somebody broke into your home or business and used your computer. That would be your burden to disprove the prosecutor's case. Besides, a good prosecutor would point out that if you have the smarts to create the network you have described, then you have the smarts to adequately protect it. Negligence usually is not a good defense at a trial.
Here is an analogy for you. If you loan your car to somebody and they commit a crime with it, the authorities are coming after you. If you have an alibi, that is great, otherwise, you'd better be ready and willing to turn over who borrowed your car. Even with an alibi, if you don't want to be an accomplace, you'd better be ready and willing to turn over who borrowed your car.
So, back to your 9 computers. If it wasn't you who did whatever, which of your family or users (depending on whether this is a home or work system) did? That is the information they will find out when they confiscate your equipment. Happens every day, all the time.
Of course with not having to buy fuel, there isn't any money going to the government to build and maintain roads. The most efficient vehicle in the world is pretty worthless if there aren't any roads to drive it on. Back in the day, when fuel tax was first implemented to pay for highways, all vehicles got pretty much the same mileage, so the more you drove, the more tax you paid for the roads. That is not the case today.
Whether you pay an extra 20 grand for a vehicle is your personal choice. Whether you pay your fair share for the roads to drive it on or not, is not you personal choice.
It's not so much "dumbing down" but the fact that the world is getting more complex and there are more subjects to learn, both practical and theoretical. Something has to give because only so much fits into 4 years.
For example, you used to just have batch processes, and then interactive computing came along, then relational databases, then GUI's, then web, then cloud computing and parallelism got practical due to technology, etc. Yet one still has to know how to do batch, interactive, relational, GUI, and web while learning the new stuff also.
Then a better solution, if there is too much to learn in 4 years, is to change CS into a 5 year program. That's what they've done with accounting and a number of other majors. Instead of dropping things, they added what was considered necessary for a complete package.
Back in the day, and I'll assume now as well, CMU has a hell of a reputation as Comp-Sci school. Heavy on the theory. And Most definitely on par with MIT, UCB, and UIUC. Admittedly I came out of UIUC knowing how to build a web page. Of course this was because my room mate was busy porting Mosaic to c++/windows NT for the NCSA. Point being I think it's a safe bet that CMU's Comp-Sci dept. isn't focused on dumbing down their program.
Interestingly enough, MIT, UCB and UIUC still teach object oriented programming to freshman and sophomores. I wonder what CMU knows that the rest don't, or vice-versa.
I am so glad I didn't get a CS degree - and in fact most of the people I hire do not have CS degrees. My BSc in Mechanical Engineering is far more useful to me as a VP of a software company than any CS degree. Engineering taught me how to think, how to design from a blank piece of paper, how to manage projects, how to work with people. I taught myself to write code.
I want t hire people who can develop real world products not be the product of some well paid Dean's education experiment.
Anyone considering a software job should think long and hard about a CS degree. It wont teach you anything that you'll need in the real world. Do a real science subject or a real engineering subject, not CS.
I actually agree with you. For most programming jobs, one is better served with a degree in the field you want to be in and then add programming courses as electives. Computer Science degree graduates used to be the ones who applied theory to real life by, for instance, developing relational databases for others to program. Like physics, computer science used to be looked at as an applied mathematics field. It used to be viewed as a profession. Today, it has been turned into a trade school degree to get a job.
As a chemistry major back in the 70s, we had to take chemistry and other hard science (as opposed to soft science) classes in the first two years, so that by the time we were upper classman, we were in a position to take the hard hard science classes. Many people drop out of chemistry (usually pre-med) because the work was too difficult. Those that had an aptitude for it and persevered, became chemists.
It is interesting, that in a program that claims to turn out Computer Scientists, CMU would not be doing something similar.
A few weeks ago, there was a lot of discussion about how many universities are wanting to drop the math requirements from their CS degrees. Now we have dropping OO, too. I seem to recall that CS stands for Computer Science. Should not somebody with a Computer Science degree be able to handle things like OO and math? I could see dropping these requirements if the degree were something like Computer Technician or Computer programming (although even that last one, would indicate that a graduate would be verse in multiple programming paradigms).
Is all of this a continued dumbing down of college so that the masses can get a degree? If so, it appears more and more technical jobs will go offshore as the next generation of true computer scientists won't receive their training in this country.
On the other hand, if the goal is to pay a university a $100K to teach you how to do web pages and the like, then go for it. But, if the US wants to return to being a technology leader, then they need to focus on more than just the currently hot marketing skills and focus instead on the whole big picture.
They should do away with the gas tax (and any other tax at any level of government meant to repaire roads) and put in place a tax on any vehicle, payable at time of registration (annually) based on the Gross Vehicle Weight and mileage change from previous registration, which is known of EVERY vehicle type, including big trucks. This is fair in every respect I can think of, without the intrusiveness of GPS, etc...
I would concur with this. Since bigger heavier vehicles do more damage, their fee should be higher per mile than smaller fuel efficient vehicles. The real obstacle will be, however, when you have to pay $250 for the usage fee when you license your vehicle (15,000 at 25mpg = 600 gallons of gas tax to replace). But one way around it would be for the first year to record the information and then you pay quarterly estimates based on the previous year's results.
If I could mod you up, I would.
The problem with toll road solution is that it treats every vehicle the same regardless how much damage it does to the road. The heavier the vehicle, the more damage to the roadway occurs. Semi's are the worst, then regular non-semi trucks, then SUVs and pickups with something like the smart car being the least damaging (because it is so light). Shouldn't the fee paid be based on the damage to the road surface incurred? I'm not opposed to the toll road principle, but it should include a base rate plus a tonnage weight.
The difference is in New York they are trying to be fair by taxing the fuel efficient vehicle to cover their share of road repairs. This plan raises the taxes on everybody, including those already paying their fair share of road repairs.
There are a number of serious problems with this proposal. The first two are similar. Who will pay for these tracking devices and the installation? Second, is it legal for the government to impose a tracking device on your vehicle, without cause?
The third and rest are more pragmatic. This solution totally ignores how damage is done to highways. A fully loaded 18 wheeler going 70mph does significantly more damage to highway infrastructure than your Honda Civic, same with an SUV. The heavier the vehicle the more wear and tear to the pavement. So why should the small lighter car subsidize the bigger vehicles? It seems like the very idea of this is that those who use the roads more should pay more for maintenance and upkeep, kind of like turning the roads into electronic toll roads. However, it should really be based on those who damage the roads should be paying more for the maintenance and upkeep, more like an actual user fee: heavier vehicles use up more of the road surface, so should pay more to replenish that surface.
Then there is the issue of these "public" roads have already been paid for by individual's tax dollars. Federal fuel tax is for new construction, not maintenance. Maintenance is left up to the states, so while this scheme may keep the federal government from increase the fuel tax, under current law it does nothing to help with maintenance. If the federal government is concerned with the state's cost of maintaining the highway system, there is nothing stopping congress from changing the law on how the funds can be used right now.
Finally, if the concern is with hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles not paying their fair share, then slap an excise tax on those vehicles to cover what the fuel tax revenue would have been. Of course, that would make them less popular and not as many people will want to buy them. But if the goal is to make every body pay, then this would be simpler to administer, which means it would be cheaper to administer. It also would not require modification to everybody's vehicle.
Who comes up with these crazy ideas?
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want. If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code. True freedom is letting people do what they want, even if they have different values than you.
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like. True freedom is letting people do what they want. That includes making money with the code, or using that code in a larger proprietary code. If you do not allow this you're a hypocrite.
It's backwards thinking and does no good to free and open source movement, as companies won't even be considering using it. GPL alone has created a large problem. It has made companies associate open source with huge legal trouble, and generally will make companies avoid open sourcing and open source code completely just because of GPL. They rather get the easier and guaranteed legally good alternative, which is licensing from other companies like MPEG-LA for H.264 and Microsoft for WP7 and so on.. Yes, it costs money. But when dealing with companies, it's a lot easier for them and solves many troubles that the hypocrites at GPL headquearters have caused for the whole open source movement. This is why I support true open source licenses that allow both free and proprietary use. They are the real free licenses, not GPL, and unless we deal with that hypocricy Microsoft will always win. I'm personally disgusted by this move by Samba team, as they're the ones that try to make it easy to both move away from Windows and integrate with other operating systems. GPL is bad.
There is nothing in the GPL v2 or v3 that would prohibit Apple from including Samba. GPLv3 specifically allows it to be included even if other parts are not GPL. What cannot be done, however, is slap a bigger license over the top of included GPL'd programs that would circumvent the GPL. All Apple would have to do is issue a statement that says something to effect that portions of OSX are released under a GPLv3 license. Then list those portions and the actual require GPL verbage and make the source code available. That's no different than Windows having it's license and the pre-installed apps having theirs.
GPLv3 is not the problem. Companies wanting to use GPLv3 code without adhering to the licensing agreements are the problem. I am curious, though, since the Microsoft networking stuff is copyrighted and patented, how Apple developed a clean room copy without resorting to using the Samba code. If they based their own version on anything they learned from Samba, then they are still, in fact in violation of the GPL. Of course, that would be an argument for a different day and time.
In short, GPLv3 is just an excuse being used to deflect attention from Apple's own internal decisions.
.
There's a list of some of the patents in the article...
" Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;"
This is so vague even I can't understand what it is.
" Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;"
Woah. The insight of this is truly staggering.
" Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;"
No idea what this means either.
" Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and"
. . .
" Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document."
Could we take "Colour Markers", "Scribbling on a document" to be previous implmentations of this? Because then there's a lot of people you could sue.
With the exception of that download thing, my old Palm Pre did all of that with WebOS. I wonder why Microsoft isn't suing HP since their new tablet and phone also does all of this?
Look who is being sued -- Barnes and Noble and other companies that use android on their device. Correction, relatively small companies without large legal staffs that use android on their device. If android is the problem, then why isn't Microsoft suing Google for infringement? Oh, wait, Google has as much money and as many lawyers as Microsoft does. This is much like locking the drug user up in jail, but ignoring the pusher. If Microsoft really believes that android is infringing, then they should go directly after Google.
I know only a minimal amount about Android, but why does Google insist on walking on the very edge of legality in regards to all of the software involved here? Licensing costs? That explains Java, but why all the incompatible custom changes, copyright header removals, and general open source shadiness.
They may be within that law, but are outside the bounds of being upstanding (apologize before hand for the term) 'FOSS netizens'.
Can they really not get Android to work *and* play nice?
Because they are one of the largest tech companies in the world and they believe they can do whatever they want. After all, isn't Google one of those too big to let fail companies?
Linux proponents should have learned from Microsoft. You have to wait until the copyright offender has reached critical mass before you threaten to sue for copyright infringement. The settlements are much larger that way.
Japan reported that workers were exposed to Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 that was released into the atmosphere from the explosion. I was under the impression that there was not any safe exposure limits to Iodine-131. We are all exposed to Cesium-137 thanks to the nuclear weapon production/testing during the cold war, so unless it was a really high dose, it's probably not an immediate concern. But I'm not sure the same can be said about the iodine, can it?
You do not think that if what is going on in Japan hit the west coast that it would not create a national emergency? Particularly if the West Coast was out of power? What would happen if California, alone, lost the Diablo Canyon and the two San Onofre plants? It would seem to be difficult to reopen all of those shipping ports without power. It would seem to be difficult how to rebuild the road and rail infrastructure to transport goods and services without power. It doesn't take the entire country to be in the line of fire for it to be a national problem. Sure, ships could divert around to the east coast, but a) that takes time and b) the east coast ports aren't in a position to handle the capacity of the west coast.
The fact is that in the US, the majority of electrical power is generated by an ever decreasing number of mega power plants (not all nuclear). This is cheaper for the companies that produce power, because of the regulatory cost in building a plant, but creates significant points of failure if one of these plants go down. On the otherhand, multiple small plants increases the points of failure, but the actual failure has less of an impact. The entire grid, antiquated as it is, is based on the notion of their being many small producers that can be switched in and out if needed to other areas. That is not the environment we have today, however, where there are fewer power stations, each creating more power. In addition, the power needs in the areas with the mega plants, use significantly more power so there is less to dump on the grid in a national emergency (again, a national emergency does not mean the entire country is out of power). If somehow, the North East could directly divert it's power production to the West Coast, how much excess capacity is there in the NE production? Not enough to handle the power consumption of the west coast if something like what is going on in Japan happened on the west coast. Likewise, the west coast does not have enough capacity for it's own use and the east coast.
If the quake and tsunami that took out Japan had occurred of of the California coast, it would impact the entire country. And, just like Japan, the rest of the country would be faced with power rationing just to get needed power for emergency services to the victims. Also, like Japan, there would not be any permanent short term fix to the system.
Face it, in a time when everybody wants lower taxes and lower prices, nobody is willing to spend more to build redundancy into a fragile power grid/network. Luckily for the US, this disaster was on the other side of the Pacific and not here. But, I guarantee that civil planners are working on contingency plans in the US given the two systems were very similar. The economic danger from relying on mega plants is far worse than the radiation danger.
Even in the US, where the failure of a large mega plant puts too much strain on the system. Missouri has a single plant (wanting to add more reactors on the same site). If that plant fails, St. Louis and Southern Illinois is without power, at least until the coal plants in the midwest up their capacity. Sure, power can be shifted from other areas of the country, but that usually only works for the short term (remember the rolling blackouts in California a few years back). While the US does have a national system, it is not really designed so that if New York is out of power for whatever reason, California can pick it up and vice versa. If this quake and tsunami hit the west coast of the US, then California, Washington, etc. would be experiencing the same problems that Japan is. What the US has is actually a regional power grid. It's not truly designed, at least for the long term, to provide power from one coast to another, but relies on regional shifts of power.
Canada is set up similarly (large geographic area divided into regional power districts). There solution, however, has been to build multiple lower powered nuclear plants per region instead of a one or two really big ones. That way, if one goes out, the region can still produce the majority of it's power needs.
Since their are hundreds of links because there are hundreds of studies it would be hard to post a single link. Try searching on: cfl energy consumption canada study as a starting point for your research.
The real fallout that Japan needs to worry about is that they have permanently lost a substantial part of their capacity to generate electricity and won't be able to replace it anytime soon. The US and other countries with these high power nuclear plants should learn a lesson. It is better to build several smaller plants instead of a few megaplants. That way, if one of them is out of commission, it is not a total loss to the power grid.
The lack of power in Japan will be a significant issue as the country tries to react to the quake and tsunami and will hamper long term recovery efforts, too.