It has been changing. In the US more of the population lives in cities than lives in rural places, and the trend shows this as an accelerating gap. I know this could reverse but I dont see that happening. People who move into cities do it just because of what you are saying . . . to be able to live close to work, shopping, etc, and not have to rely on a car. Of course there are people who want to live where they can have space, but this is a luxury and the people who 1)can afford it, and 2)wish to live that way are a minority, even in the US. And yes, they should be free to make that choice.
This is a good example of flawed argument: Although we have been working on it around the world since at least the 70's with the last oil crisis and haven't seemed to find anything viable enough to replace oil long term yet.
The grain of salt (and rather large one) that you have to take is the fact that the various promising alternatives being developed in the late 70s were summarily squashed sometime in February 1981, right about the same time the solar panels on the White House were removed. It is only now that a lot of those technologies are being revisited. Yes, with better materials technology, and yes, also with a different economic situation. But is it disingenuous at best to suggest that there was a continuous period of time since the 70's until now that these things have been looked at with support from the feds (ie, money).
I suppose that for me the really infuriating thing about the oil company CEO is that he is raking in my tax dollars in the guise of subsidies. I'd rather the oil market was unsubsidized and deal with that reality, where if I don't like it I can choose not to support it. But now even though I chose not to buy oil (in the form of gasoline) the bastards still have a hand in my pocket. I'm not sure why that doesn't infuriate you too, though there have been some experiments which examine that phenomenon.
You start out good, I recently submitted a story about the biofuel industry worsening the carbon situation based on the deforestation of land for growing fuel crops (it was rejected). But your last two sentences are just trolling. The fact is that we need to find alternatives to oil because we can't produce it domesticly for a long enough time for it to be a continuing viable energy source and the global oil market is not something we want to rely on (another discussion). So what's left is coming up with a portfolio of solutions that can help to fill the gap, including reducing demand/use, and finding alternative fuels.
Global warming is a fact, the cause is less certain, but we know that the more carbon there is in the atmosphere likely means the more heat trapped by the atmosphere. To that end it is wise to find fuel sources that don't further add to the problem. So I am assuming that you mean human caused global warming as a cult rather than the general phemomena. There are also many different types of biofuels and not all of them suffer the problems that you are pointing out. Futhermore, the fertilizer runoff problem is not the fault of biofuel production, rather one of use and practices of the agricultural industries. There are some ineresting potential synergies that come to mind. Algae for bio-deisel that grows in briny water, the need to refine briney water to fresh water, salt that comes from this process as a replacement for mined salt . . . just the seeds really, but I think there is a lot of potential.
Simpsons references get marked funny, but this offtopic? Modding offtopic is almost useless, if you don't get it leave it alone and spend your mod points in a better place. Mine are gone, else I'd have modded you up . . .
Interesting but wrong. Obama has not won . . . he has claimed victory. The winner is either announced when one is picked officially at the convention, or when all but one of the candidates steps down. Neither of those things has occurred yet. Note that I am for Obama, and in the event that Hillary wins I will probably just vote for Ron Paul, as in the end I believe that most of the things the feds are into these days they should be leaving to the state and regional governments.
This is not upending the system. This is putting the system back to the way that it was prior to IIRC 1970. I don't really understand your objection aside from the fact that you think it might be inconvenient . . . and even there I'm not sure I understand whose inconvenience you preceive.
That's the strawman most often put forth to quell the discussion. Another one is the "fighting to protect your freedoms". Pretty lame, but the bar is pretty low on how to get people behind this kind of activity. I don't recall any Iraqi insurgents ever creating any kind of trouble in any of the 50 states, so I'm curious about your rationale for the statement. Are you just parroting something you heard, or can you further explain your sentiment?
The system in place now is that corporations get carte blanche. I disagree, and as all things in an open society, to keep them clean requires work on the part of the people. The cities/townships that host the corporations all have city and town councils. It's not like one body in the state has to oversee it all. As for gathering the knowledge, I don't know. But that does not mean that we should sit back while corporations take over representation and resource management.
This is a great idea. I think one of the worst things that happened to American corporate culture was the removal of the periodic renewall of the charter. This was put to a general vote of the region hosting the corporation, and gave the people a chance to revoke a corporations charter because of poor business practices, excessive polluting, or some other offensive behavior. This would be good for market based capitalism, as it would provide not only an incentive to do "good" for the region, but give small companies a chance to swoop in and take over for the bloated corporate entities that spiraled into the profit optimized corruption model.
That said, let's look at the law here. You have no "constitutional" rights in the US to do whatever you want with whatever you want. You have no "rights" to download, store, digitally alter media produced by someone else if they don't want you to.
The constitution enumerates the rights of the government over the people. The people start off with every right, and have their rights limited only where states rights as enumerated by the constitution intersect.
In engineering school you do learn the specialization in school. In Law you might get some exposure to the specializations in school, or you might not. But you learn the specialization in practice.
I'm reading that as partial toungue in cheek, but even if it is not you might get a kick out of the TC Boyle short story where a US president (future, unspecified) looking for something to bring the country together had a new moon installed (the old one was dingy). Anyway the new one was much brighter than the old, and at its unveilling people began to exhibit some strange behavior (trying not to spoil it just in case . . . ).
So it's like when you park your car in your garage at night. In the morning you don't look in the trunk to make sure that i) no one put a hostage/ dead body in there; ii) no one removed a hostage/ dead body; or iii) the spare tire is in good working condition. While it is possible, and recommended that you do so, there is no guarantee that everyone does this.
I learned from the movies and tv that a car will always explode after almost any kind of accident. This is very unsafe. God help you if you drive a Pinto . . .
Sure is, to quantify that a little googling showes an average commute (one way) of something like 16 to 20 miles in the US. So you are right by about a factor of 2 assuming that the first level google yielded credible numbers.
Ah, but then he wouldn't have returned the favor and tone as set by jmorris42, who is supreme dick almost every time he posts (at least in this story). But I agree that less personal insult would go a long way on slashdot.
Yes. If anything Open Source eliminates the liklihood that the user will be exposed to the "God Complex" or whatever the quote was. I see that as primarily a closed source problem, and one that if it does appear in open source is easily overcome vs. improbably overcome.
Maybe I'm the only one, but ITunes is a great music server, and I use it exclusively without ever having gone to ITunes Music Store. There is nothing about using ITunes that demands or requires DRM. ITMS does have most of it's music DRMed (or so I hear) but again this has nothing to do with ITunes the music player/organizer program.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been changing. In the US more of the population lives in cities than lives in rural places, and the trend shows this as an accelerating gap. I know this could reverse but I dont see that happening. People who move into cities do it just because of what you are saying . . . to be able to live close to work, shopping, etc, and not have to rely on a car. Of course there are people who want to live where they can have space, but this is a luxury and the people who 1)can afford it, and 2)wish to live that way are a minority, even in the US. And yes, they should be free to make that choice.
This is a good example of flawed argument:
Although we have been working on it around the world since at least the 70's with the last oil crisis and haven't seemed to find anything viable enough to replace oil long term yet.
The grain of salt (and rather large one) that you have to take is the fact that the various promising alternatives being developed in the late 70s were summarily squashed sometime in February 1981, right about the same time the solar panels on the White House were removed. It is only now that a lot of those technologies are being revisited. Yes, with better materials technology, and yes, also with a different economic situation. But is it disingenuous at best to suggest that there was a continuous period of time since the 70's until now that these things have been looked at with support from the feds (ie, money).
I suppose that for me the really infuriating thing about the oil company CEO is that he is raking in my tax dollars in the guise of subsidies. I'd rather the oil market was unsubsidized and deal with that reality, where if I don't like it I can choose not to support it. But now even though I chose not to buy oil (in the form of gasoline) the bastards still have a hand in my pocket. I'm not sure why that doesn't infuriate you too, though there have been some experiments which examine that phenomenon.
You start out good, I recently submitted a story about the biofuel industry worsening the carbon situation based on the deforestation of land for growing fuel crops (it was rejected). But your last two sentences are just trolling. The fact is that we need to find alternatives to oil because we can't produce it domesticly for a long enough time for it to be a continuing viable energy source and the global oil market is not something we want to rely on (another discussion). So what's left is coming up with a portfolio of solutions that can help to fill the gap, including reducing demand/use, and finding alternative fuels.
Global warming is a fact, the cause is less certain, but we know that the more carbon there is in the atmosphere likely means the more heat trapped by the atmosphere. To that end it is wise to find fuel sources that don't further add to the problem. So I am assuming that you mean human caused global warming as a cult rather than the general phemomena. There are also many different types of biofuels and not all of them suffer the problems that you are pointing out. Futhermore, the fertilizer runoff problem is not the fault of biofuel production, rather one of use and practices of the agricultural industries. There are some ineresting potential synergies that come to mind. Algae for bio-deisel that grows in briny water, the need to refine briney water to fresh water, salt that comes from this process as a replacement for mined salt . . . just the seeds really, but I think there is a lot of potential.
Simpsons references get marked funny, but this offtopic? Modding offtopic is almost useless, if you don't get it leave it alone and spend your mod points in a better place. Mine are gone, else I'd have modded you up . . .
Interesting but wrong. Obama has not won . . . he has claimed victory. The winner is either announced when one is picked officially at the convention, or when all but one of the candidates steps down. Neither of those things has occurred yet. Note that I am for Obama, and in the event that Hillary wins I will probably just vote for Ron Paul, as in the end I believe that most of the things the feds are into these days they should be leaving to the state and regional governments.
Since at least two of the above are dickless (ie, female) to which one are you referring?
Disclaimer: people I love are lawyers, but I still find the jokes funny.
This is not upending the system. This is putting the system back to the way that it was prior to IIRC 1970. I don't really understand your objection aside from the fact that you think it might be inconvenient . . . and even there I'm not sure I understand whose inconvenience you preceive.
That's the strawman most often put forth to quell the discussion. Another one is the "fighting to protect your freedoms". Pretty lame, but the bar is pretty low on how to get people behind this kind of activity. I don't recall any Iraqi insurgents ever creating any kind of trouble in any of the 50 states, so I'm curious about your rationale for the statement. Are you just parroting something you heard, or can you further explain your sentiment?
The system in place now is that corporations get carte blanche. I disagree, and as all things in an open society, to keep them clean requires work on the part of the people. The cities/townships that host the corporations all have city and town councils. It's not like one body in the state has to oversee it all. As for gathering the knowledge, I don't know. But that does not mean that we should sit back while corporations take over representation and resource management.
This is a great idea. I think one of the worst things that happened to American corporate culture was the removal of the periodic renewall of the charter. This was put to a general vote of the region hosting the corporation, and gave the people a chance to revoke a corporations charter because of poor business practices, excessive polluting, or some other offensive behavior. This would be good for market based capitalism, as it would provide not only an incentive to do "good" for the region, but give small companies a chance to swoop in and take over for the bloated corporate entities that spiraled into the profit optimized corruption model.
But the kermit the frog reaction video has to be one of the funniest to come out of it.
The constitution enumerates the rights of the government over the people. The people start off with every right, and have their rights limited only where states rights as enumerated by the constitution intersect.
Yup. My degree is AE, but I never did that outside of school. Now I'm an architect (buildings). They don't care about my AE degree much.
In engineering school you do learn the specialization in school. In Law you might get some exposure to the specializations in school, or you might not. But you learn the specialization in practice.
I'm reading that as partial toungue in cheek, but even if it is not you might get a kick out of the TC Boyle short story where a US president (future, unspecified) looking for something to bring the country together had a new moon installed (the old one was dingy). Anyway the new one was much brighter than the old, and at its unveilling people began to exhibit some strange behavior (trying not to spoil it just in case . . . ).
malibu
So it's like when you park your car in your garage at night. In the morning you don't look in the trunk to make sure that i) no one put a hostage/ dead body in there; ii) no one removed a hostage/ dead body; or iii) the spare tire is in good working condition. While it is possible, and recommended that you do so, there is no guarantee that everyone does this.
I learned from the movies and tv that a car will always explode after almost any kind of accident. This is very unsafe. God help you if you drive a Pinto . . .
Sure is, to quantify that a little googling showes an average commute (one way) of something like 16 to 20 miles in the US. So you are right by about a factor of 2 assuming that the first level google yielded credible numbers.
Ah, but then he wouldn't have returned the favor and tone as set by jmorris42, who is supreme dick almost every time he posts (at least in this story). But I agree that less personal insult would go a long way on slashdot.
Yes. If anything Open Source eliminates the liklihood that the user will be exposed to the "God Complex" or whatever the quote was. I see that as primarily a closed source problem, and one that if it does appear in open source is easily overcome vs. improbably overcome.
Maybe I'm the only one, but ITunes is a great music server, and I use it exclusively without ever having gone to ITunes Music Store. There is nothing about using ITunes that demands or requires DRM. ITMS does have most of it's music DRMed (or so I hear) but again this has nothing to do with ITunes the music player/organizer program.
what what what?
Thank you for validating one of my core beliefs.