For Pete's sake, folks, the word is transliterated. There's no single correct spelling in English. If you can't live with that, you can conform to the manual of style of your choice. But don't flame over it.
Don't think so one-dimensional. Monarchy-republic is orthogonal to democracy-dictatorship.
Really. So then anarcho-fascism must be diagonal to parliamentary democracy-kleptocracy. Since political philosophies are easy to chart objectively based on quantitative analysis. Or you're stark raving mad, perhaps.
Seriously, I can only parse that post as nonsense. Is there some joke going on in this thread I'm not aware of?
We take the best designs, based on what we know now, start deploying them, see what happens, re-factor, repeat.
Ideally we do. Over here, in reality, we take the most best designs, based on profitability projections, and deploy them if they'll make money or are politically expedient, and damned be anything else.
We don't even have good methodologies to study the impact of wind farms; so far, all we've done is count dead birds. If we're serious about preventing climate change, we need to know when we're about to cause it.
Wind farms are definitely good. We should use them! Just carefully. There's no reason a moderate mixed program of wind/hydro/solar/dinosaurs/nukes can't carry us along until we can collect solar power extraterrestrially. Covering the whole world with wind farms is unnecessary, so why chance it?
I assume you've explained the same point to the zoning authorities: A single apartment building probably generates much more friction than a wind mill...
Yep. Now, what happens when a bunch of buildings get together? They change the climate! Cities alter the climate in any number of ways, including altering wind patterns.
The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven.
You're mistaken. Here's a 1999 article on the subject, with some related links. Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV, I'm not aware of any recent development. Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly. Whether that's worth the loss of sensation... I dunno.
Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.
You are also mistaken. UCSD delays circumcision but does it at the parent's request, as is the case with all other public hospitals I'm aware of. No hospital in America or Europe, public or private, would dare prevent a mohel or family practitioner from circumcising an infant.
See? That's why you don't make the big bucks. You can bet when Kinsey is done they won't have to ask that, because they'll know that nobody will ever want anything explained to them ever again.
Now, probably there is plenty of wind out there not to make an impact, but no one has even addressed this. Everyone thinks it is a magical energy source with NO negative consequences. I want to know if there are any, but no one seems to be worried. Is it an issue people are hiding to promote wind power? Or is it really insignificant?
I've been raising this point, around here especially, whenever a wind-power topic comes up. Generally, you're right: Not too many folks're interested, and a few are downright hostile to the notion. It'd be nice to see some peer-type-reviewed studies, or at least computer modeling, before we test it head-first. I suspect any such thing would, as usual, be ignored by those it opposes and embraced by those it favors, with no real political impact regardless. But at least I'd go from "vaguely worried" to either "somewhat relieved" or "a crank with citations".
You seem to be suggesting that you should hire the inferior person, if he's a native of the country you happen to be born in (or are a current resident of), over the superior person who is not a member of the same group. How is this reasonable?
It doesn't look reasonable from a little-picture bottom-line view, but in the big picture it's not only reasonable but important. This is why Congress limits foreign workers. Of the two workers, the local is likely to spend more domestically, will pay more taxes over his or her career, may serve on a jury, is many times more likely to do volunteer work, and is infinitely more likely to defend the nation in times of crisis. Nations prefer local workers because local workers prefer their nations.
as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it. The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.
People keep saying this in this thread. But the judiciary system can also issue writs, which are quite powerful enforcement tools. Injunctions and writs of mandamus, for example, are two writs that can be aimed directly at an executive branchketeer to force compliance.
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
That was my first thought, as well: The freedom to speak anonymously isn't freedom to make anonymous threats. However, I disagree that anyone was threatening the jury here. There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone. If I say that George W. Bush should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of the country on rails, that's not the same as threatening to assault him.
Why is there "no doubt" about this? Is there some reason why kites have to be very expensive?
I'm'a go out on a limb here and guess the OP read the article and you didn't. I'd suggest you look at the part in which they talk about how very, very expensive it would be.
Not many birds fly at 30,000 feet, Einstein.
That's true, but I'm fairly sure that very few birds fly higher. Which means (try to stay with me) they fly below the kites. Now, I'm no Einstein myself, but I'm given to understand that the tethers connecting the kites to the ground would probably be made of matter, rather than a magical material that holds kites in place but lets birds pass through freely.
On a related note, I'll add my concern that while this may be a good technology on a small-to-medium scale, any large-scale world-wide usage could interfere not just with birds but with the air currents themselves. I'd favor developing it, but I'd be cautious about how it's implemented.
Web publishers say they have started limiting the number of companies they outsource their ad selling to and are working with security vendors, such as San Francisco-based ClickFacts, to detect malicious software on their networks and remove it as quickly as possible.
I'm impressed! The Wall Street Journal talked to every Web publisher and got them to agree to do this. We should send Emily to go negotiate peace in the middle east.
I'm against the use of copyright law to snatch money, over the odds, from illicit downloaders - Damages of $9,250 per song in the case of Capitol vs Thomas
While I agree that the punitive damages tossed around in these cases are excessive, that action - just like all the others - makes no claim for downloading music. Thomas is being sued for uploading; that is, distribution.
Sometimes using his left elbow on Shift / Control keys.
Is he aware that there are foot pedals available that can be used for this? Most on the market are fully customizable for any keyboard/click command plus macros, although ctrl/shift/alt/click is a typical setup. Some of the systems are expandable, so you can add as many pedals as you care to deal with.
The problem we're having now is that the massive extensions to copyright terms mean that the writer is getting decades of pay for his day's work (ok, so you can't write a book in a day, but you get my point).
Sure, I support lowering the protection period. I also support eliminating laws against circumvention and reverse engineering. I highly support civil procedure reform to prevent the thuggish tactics so popular with IP attorneys (or at least I'd like to see these mass-threat tactics treated as the barratry they are).
But I won't advocate eliminating copyright. I like copyright; it's put food on my table.
I daresay that you would have to put up a ridiculous number of turbines before they have any effect. I mean, the world seems to have done ok with those other large scale wind blockers commonly known as office buildings....
Well, the GP was asking why we shouldn't erect a ridiculous number of turbines. And cities do interfere with the climate for miles around.
I think wind power is terrific, but I don't think we should consider it an answer to all our power needs without knowing how it'll impact our environment. Same with hydro power and Earth-based solar collection.
FWIW, I favor some wind, some hydro, some solar, nuke plants, and working toward extraplanetary solar collection.
Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we shouldn't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity? Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up?
Because we don't yet fully understand our atmosphere. How will this impact air currents? Will that alter climates? We don't know.
Care you share your reasoning? Or is this "belief" in the religious sense?
Half-and-half, or thereabouts. Prior to the establishment of modern copyright,* creators suffered pretty badly. The Statute of Anne makes a note of this as preamble. Although lawsuits, legislation, and Irish book piracy ran wild for the next century, a lot more authors got paid and a lot more books got writ. Based on this, I conclude that copyright works - at least somewhat.
The faith end of things is a general belief in property as a viable concept applied to a belief in the work ethic. A writer, like a carpenter, deserves a day's pay for a day's work.** As noted above, copyright is the only method we've used that's even been marginally successful at achieving that. While intellectual property may not be an inescapable conclusion of those premises, it's the only one I've got.
* That is, a limited, protected copyright granted to the author.
** Yeah, I'm ignoring a lot of nuance, such as what a bad author or carpenter deserve, but I don't want to start a discourse on the work ethic. I'll note that artistry is (generally), and I think should be, a meritocratic vocation.
Slashdot Mirror
Try Tiananmen perhaps?
For Pete's sake, folks, the word is transliterated. There's no single correct spelling in English. If you can't live with that, you can conform to the manual of style of your choice. But don't flame over it.
Because slashdot was written before multibyte encodings were invented and no one bothered to fix it.
/. did add unicode support at one point, but it Caused Problems. Search around and you can prolly find some of the exploits.
Don't think so one-dimensional. Monarchy-republic is orthogonal to democracy-dictatorship.
Really. So then anarcho-fascism must be diagonal to parliamentary democracy-kleptocracy. Since political philosophies are easy to chart objectively based on quantitative analysis. Or you're stark raving mad, perhaps.
Seriously, I can only parse that post as nonsense. Is there some joke going on in this thread I'm not aware of?
But all democracies are either a republic or a monarchy, and the US is not a monarchy.
What? What? Am I the only one who can see this? A monarchy is a form of democracy?
No impact whatsoever on wind. Any more question?
Yeah. What's the second law of thermodynamics?
We take the best designs, based on what we know now, start deploying them, see what happens, re-factor, repeat.
Ideally we do. Over here, in reality, we take the most best designs, based on profitability projections, and deploy them if they'll make money or are politically expedient, and damned be anything else.
We don't even have good methodologies to study the impact of wind farms; so far, all we've done is count dead birds. If we're serious about preventing climate change, we need to know when we're about to cause it.
Wind farms are definitely good. We should use them! Just carefully. There's no reason a moderate mixed program of wind/hydro/solar/dinosaurs/nukes can't carry us along until we can collect solar power extraterrestrially. Covering the whole world with wind farms is unnecessary, so why chance it?
I assume you've explained the same point to the zoning authorities: A single apartment building probably generates much more friction than a wind mill...
Yep. Now, what happens when a bunch of buildings get together? They change the climate! Cities alter the climate in any number of ways, including altering wind patterns.
The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven.
You're mistaken. Here's a 1999 article on the subject, with some related links. Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV, I'm not aware of any recent development. Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly. Whether that's worth the loss of sensation... I dunno.
Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.
You are also mistaken. UCSD delays circumcision but does it at the parent's request, as is the case with all other public hospitals I'm aware of. No hospital in America or Europe, public or private, would dare prevent a mohel or family practitioner from circumcising an infant.
Do I need to explain more?
See? That's why you don't make the big bucks. You can bet when Kinsey is done they won't have to ask that, because they'll know that nobody will ever want anything explained to them ever again.
Now, probably there is plenty of wind out there not to make an impact, but no one has even addressed this. Everyone thinks it is a magical energy source with NO negative consequences. I want to know if there are any, but no one seems to be worried. Is it an issue people are hiding to promote wind power? Or is it really insignificant?
I've been raising this point, around here especially, whenever a wind-power topic comes up. Generally, you're right: Not too many folks're interested, and a few are downright hostile to the notion. It'd be nice to see some peer-type-reviewed studies, or at least computer modeling, before we test it head-first. I suspect any such thing would, as usual, be ignored by those it opposes and embraced by those it favors, with no real political impact regardless. But at least I'd go from "vaguely worried" to either "somewhat relieved" or "a crank with citations".
You seem to be suggesting that you should hire the inferior person, if he's a native of the country you happen to be born in (or are a current resident of), over the superior person who is not a member of the same group. How is this reasonable?
It doesn't look reasonable from a little-picture bottom-line view, but in the big picture it's not only reasonable but important. This is why Congress limits foreign workers. Of the two workers, the local is likely to spend more domestically, will pay more taxes over his or her career, may serve on a jury, is many times more likely to do volunteer work, and is infinitely more likely to defend the nation in times of crisis. Nations prefer local workers because local workers prefer their nations.
as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it. The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.
People keep saying this in this thread. But the judiciary system can also issue writs, which are quite powerful enforcement tools. Injunctions and writs of mandamus, for example, are two writs that can be aimed directly at an executive branchketeer to force compliance.
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
That was my first thought, as well: The freedom to speak anonymously isn't freedom to make anonymous threats. However, I disagree that anyone was threatening the jury here. There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone. If I say that George W. Bush should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of the country on rails, that's not the same as threatening to assault him.
I did work a few years ago for an unnamed handset maker
That must've saved a lot on letterhead and business cards.
Ok, what - exactly what - is greener than a kite?
Is that a trick question? What color is the kite?
Why is there "no doubt" about this? Is there some reason why kites have to be very expensive?
I'm'a go out on a limb here and guess the OP read the article and you didn't. I'd suggest you look at the part in which they talk about how very, very expensive it would be.
Not many birds fly at 30,000 feet, Einstein.
That's true, but I'm fairly sure that very few birds fly higher. Which means (try to stay with me) they fly below the kites. Now, I'm no Einstein myself, but I'm given to understand that the tethers connecting the kites to the ground would probably be made of matter, rather than a magical material that holds kites in place but lets birds pass through freely.
On a related note, I'll add my concern that while this may be a good technology on a small-to-medium scale, any large-scale world-wide usage could interfere not just with birds but with the air currents themselves. I'd favor developing it, but I'd be cautious about how it's implemented.
Web publishers say they have started limiting the number of companies they outsource their ad selling to and are working with security vendors, such as San Francisco-based ClickFacts, to detect malicious software on their networks and remove it as quickly as possible.
I'm impressed! The Wall Street Journal talked to every Web publisher and got them to agree to do this. We should send Emily to go negotiate peace in the middle east.
Preceeds == comes before
It's English - treat it with respect, please.
Once more, we prove the rule. People, if you flame spelling and grammar, your post is going to include a spelling or grammar mistake.
I'm against the use of copyright law to snatch money, over the odds, from illicit downloaders - Damages of $9,250 per song in the case of Capitol vs Thomas
While I agree that the punitive damages tossed around in these cases are excessive, that action - just like all the others - makes no claim for downloading music. Thomas is being sued for uploading; that is, distribution.
Sometimes using his left elbow on Shift / Control keys.
Is he aware that there are foot pedals available that can be used for this? Most on the market are fully customizable for any keyboard/click command plus macros, although ctrl/shift/alt/click is a typical setup. Some of the systems are expandable, so you can add as many pedals as you care to deal with.
If i would have a steel, or any material more friction-resistant, i'm sure i wouldn't have such weird, carved, keys...
Yeah, but this is about tools for disabled geeks. A geek would probably not need this link to find steel keyboards.
The problem we're having now is that the massive extensions to copyright terms mean that the writer is getting decades of pay for his day's work (ok, so you can't write a book in a day, but you get my point).
Sure, I support lowering the protection period. I also support eliminating laws against circumvention and reverse engineering. I highly support civil procedure reform to prevent the thuggish tactics so popular with IP attorneys (or at least I'd like to see these mass-threat tactics treated as the barratry they are).
But I won't advocate eliminating copyright. I like copyright; it's put food on my table.
I daresay that you would have to put up a ridiculous number of turbines before they have any effect. I mean, the world seems to have done ok with those other large scale wind blockers commonly known as office buildings....
Well, the GP was asking why we shouldn't erect a ridiculous number of turbines. And cities do interfere with the climate for miles around.
I think wind power is terrific, but I don't think we should consider it an answer to all our power needs without knowing how it'll impact our environment. Same with hydro power and Earth-based solar collection.
FWIW, I favor some wind, some hydro, some solar, nuke plants, and working toward extraplanetary solar collection.
Can someone provide me with a credible reason why we shouldn't stack these things on every coast in the world to provide nations with clean electricity? Or is nuclear power still too sexy to give up?
Because we don't yet fully understand our atmosphere. How will this impact air currents? Will that alter climates? We don't know.
Care you share your reasoning? Or is this "belief" in the religious sense?
Half-and-half, or thereabouts. Prior to the establishment of modern copyright,* creators suffered pretty badly. The Statute of Anne makes a note of this as preamble. Although lawsuits, legislation, and Irish book piracy ran wild for the next century, a lot more authors got paid and a lot more books got writ. Based on this, I conclude that copyright works - at least somewhat.
The faith end of things is a general belief in property as a viable concept applied to a belief in the work ethic. A writer, like a carpenter, deserves a day's pay for a day's work.** As noted above, copyright is the only method we've used that's even been marginally successful at achieving that. While intellectual property may not be an inescapable conclusion of those premises, it's the only one I've got.
* That is, a limited, protected copyright granted to the author.
** Yeah, I'm ignoring a lot of nuance, such as what a bad author or carpenter deserve, but I don't want to start a discourse on the work ethic. I'll note that artistry is (generally), and I think should be, a meritocratic vocation.