France already tried that. It caused a drop in GDP, and only increased unemployment, just as many economists predicted. Also, France is constantly trying new "robin hood" tactics to sate their population. Every time they do so, it has cost them more revenue than it brought in, and has managed to shut down segments of their economy while increasing unemployment.
As somebody said earlier, 80% of Americans worked on farms in the 1900s. So why don't we have 80% unemployment right now? Automation grows the economy, not the other way around.
About time this discussion has some summon sense. Automation doesn't take away jobs in the long term, rather it allows civilization to focus on higher pursuits like art, science, and engineering.
Every single time there is a new technology that triggers frictional unemployment, some labor union or other "feel good" lobby tries to nip it in the bud. The buggy whip industry tried to ban cars from the city. Where would we be now if they got their way? Invariably we would have a much slower economy and much more horse shit to deal with.
Taxing away the assets of the wealthy as has been suggested is only counterproductive. The wealthy are few, yet the top 10% of them already pay more than 70% of taxes, and they are the ones with the capital to drive the economy. We already see all the time what happens when you give middle class or poor people lots of money: they spend it idly until its gone. Don't believe me? Then how come hardly any lottery winners ever stay rich? They blow their money away almost as fast as they won it.
But no, the solution to all of the world's problems is a complacent robin hood society, technological development be damned! And socialists wonder why there has never been a successful "currency free" commune.
I am assuming that by locked down, they imply a signed bootloader and/or a signed kernel image. I wouldn't be opposed to that provided all games remain available for the open PC platform as well.
Such a thing is reasonable if they want to subsidize the hardware with games purchases and minimize tech support costs (There's far less headache to deal with if they can't do anything other than what you specifically approved. Anybody who has ever worked in an end user facing IT position would know this.) We can talk about software freedom all day (which I very much do want) but if ma, pa, and billy joe average either can't afford it or otherwise won't use it anyways due to it being too technical to them, then what's the point in having freedom over something you otherwise have nothing to do with?
Not really. Overbearing copyrights and patents are a government problem. Without a government to enforce them, neither can exist. Hollywood can't put you in jail, but the government can. Hollywood may be able to sue you, but only the government can pry the cash out of your cold dead fingers.
And in case you haven't noticed, Hollywood virtually owns the Democratic party. Obama himself massively benefited from those photo shoots and endorsements from Hollywood celebrities, so he had to pay back his debt:
Because of them, Obama deliberately broke the rules of the constitution and ratified ACTA without running it through the senate. If he had, it would have certainly failed due to the anti-SOPA momentum at the time. He knew that, so he skirted around the constitution.
On the contrary, the tea party movement was vehemently against SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, and so was the libertarian movement.
If you think it is mostly an R problem, you're a bit deluded.
I took aerospace science in high school, and I don't remember much if any of it, but I seem to recall something about after a propeller driven plane goes so fast that the shockwave left behind each propeller damages the trailing one. Jet turbines don't have this problem because the down force of the blades is at a much sharper angle, or at least they won't experience any problems unless they reach speeds much higher than the fuselage is capable of withstanding.
Or something like that. I've done chemistry, biology, IT, and some law, but I've never actually studied physics.
You have to wonder though if it will ever become more practical than traditional cargo ships. I imagine it would take less energy to stay airborne (given that it relies upon buoyancy rather than thrust) therefore making it more energy efficient than a jumbo jet, and might need less energy to stay in motion than a watercraft given the lower resistance of the air vs water.
Sure, you might need more of them, but pound for pound can it cost less to transport the goods than a cargo ship? I imagine if they added solar power, that would wipe out much of the operating cost. (Plus I've heard something like current cargo ships have a much larger carbon footprint than most of the world's cars combined.)
Well another way to look at it (and I AM a pirate btw, a very serial offender too, see my last post) is that when you shoplift from a store, all you're really doing is depriving them of profit. In the end, every buyer will be able to purchase their goods anyways, and the store in most cases will be able to re-stock the item before it is completely gone (I used to work retail, we regularly did cycle counts to proactively identify stolen property.)
And no I don't shoplift. The main reason I pirate is because I'm tired of the existing distribution model, which sucks balls. Either having to wait forever for a release (new releases take forever on netflix) or dealing with my cable provider's DRM, which prevents me from using MythTV. Besides, NOTHING commercially available is anywhere near as nice as XBMC with a properly done HTPC is for a home theater experience. That, and ordering and ripping blu-rays into XBMC is more complicated and time delayed than simply entering the name of the movie into couchpotato and having a blu-ray rip of the movie be available one hour later.
I'm a huge pirate, I literally pirate at least 4+ tv shows or movies daily (not necessarily by myself, but other people in my household who I've provided access to.) I also regularly download other things that are otherwise considered illegal (e.g. last night I downloaded a bunch of Cisco IOS images for a net simulator, as well as a training manual.)
Yet I have not once ever relied upon megaupload for piracy, even while they were in their heyday.
The incident with Kim Dotcom can happen regardless of who ICANN/IANA answer to, UN or otherwise. It mainly happened due to treaty and trade agreements as well as strong arm tactics that preceded the internet, and don't require its existence to work.
Other countries seize domain names as well, not just the US. He had a.com TLD, the US government controls those. The US can seize those just as any other country can seize its own TLD registrations, again regardless of who controls ICANN. Notice how thepiratebay.org moved to.se. The US doesn't have any authority to seize those.
As for his physical equipment and the police raids, those happened through diplomatic arrangements and agreements, not through the authority of ICANN or any domain registration authority.
That's what thepiratebay and/or usenet is for. Or if you want to be legit, hulu/netflix.
I personally only own one blu-ray disc, which I haven't even watched, and I stopped renting dvd/blu-ray over a year ago.
Meanwhile I still have access to all of the latest releases, many even before they've actually been released. I downloaded the dark knight rises on blu-ray on november 15th, which is over three weeks before it was on store shelves/amazon. Renting on blu-ray/dvd from netflix or blockbuster's mail service you'll have to wait a few months after that even.
Gives me extra comfort in switching to t-mobile like I am currently planning to do.
By the way, anybody in the Phoenix area (east valley especially) care to comment on the quality of service t-mobile offers here? I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
And finally (I'm only taking a minute here to do this as I'm on a short break, so no time to find the source) some companies have been selling carbon credits for carbon cuts that they already planned on doing anyways just to save on their bottom line by reducing costs. So in effect, the carbon trading didn't do anything at all.
Also, it is inevitable that you are going to end up with shell companies whose business model revolves around nothing but selling carbon credits. Say for example, a money laundering business that does fake business transactions, has miraculously low emissions as a result, and makes money on the side by selling carbon credits.
Eww...tofu tastes like liquidy bitter cheese. I imagine it being like pouring milk for your cat, and he doesn't drink it, and left it there for a day til it curds. Then you dump it on a plate and eat it.
But regardless of how it is construed, it is fact. Hiring people is always a risk, especially in a union shop because if they're a bad apple they can be hard to get rid of. Somebody you know, or somebody you know who knows, reduces that risk. In addition, its much easier to find talent that way. Any recruiter will tell you that posting in want-ads, craigslist, or other career finding sites is always a crapshoot because you often end up with rifraff or possibly even people with forged certificates/diplomas. Above that are job fairs, above that is recruiting on college campuses, and above that is your network.
The whole world is about who your contacts are, not just the US.
When you think about it, it makes sense: You'd rather hire somebody you know than a complete stranger. The trick is that you don't have contacts, you need to build your own. There's a great tool for that now: Linkedin.
I don't really think there are very many opposed to conservationism. Conserving energy saves money. What they are opposed to (and this is a libertarian thing, btw) is government telling us what thou shalt do or shalt not do.
That and of course red tape. There's a thing in rural areas where if you find a squirrel with some strange spots, kill it and bury it before somebody sees it, or else suddenly you'll find that you don't own your property. These same people appreciate wildlife and all that, which is why they live in rural areas, but the endangered species act is mostly BS.
That, and cap and tax. It's been proven time and time again that exchanging "carbon credits" doesn't actually accomplish anything, and if anything closely resembles the older days when people used to buy indulgences from the church. And Al Gore, easily one of the biggest energy users on the planet, telling us we need to use less energy while buying carbon credits from himself....yeah....no.
Well, everything we put into our bodies is a chemical, even O2 and H2O.
The question is, how harmful are these chemicals? The flour is actually probably the most harmful ingredient in the bread. Our digestive tract isn't really equipped to process any kind of wheat unlike most herbivores (which we are NOT, in spite of what vegetarians/vegans/peta tells you) and it does have a substance that is rather toxic to our intestines - gluten (which by the way, they almost always list as a separate ingredient, even though it is part of the flour.)
Though probably worse than flour is bleached flour, which happens to have most of the nourishment removed from it, so you mostly just end up with the bad stuff.
Soy is also bad for you, pretty much on par with flour if not worse, and bread often includes it. Yeah, I know, the Chinese lived off of it for some long assed time, and so did blah blah other culture. These guys lived off of it because they literally had nothing else to eat, so either eat soy or starve. The Irish lived off of eating grass for a while as well, but I don't see anybody eating that, primarily because it mostly just goes right through you. Unlike say cows, we only have a single chamber stomach, and it pretty much doesn't do shit to break down the grass into anything that our intestines can absorb. The hippies had it wrong, stay away from soy.
Your homemade bread might include soy as well, namely from the oil you put in the pan to keep the dough from sticking to it, and most vegetable oils include soy as an ingredient (especially the cheap ones.)
To be honest, it's best to avoid bread entirely. Beef for protein and salad are generally the best things you can eat, dress it with extra virgin olive oil and vinegar.
Better than that, replace the beef with ostrich meat if it is available where you live, tastes much better, more nutritious, and is very lean. Plus if you're an eco geek, ostriches require less resources to raise than cows. If nobody sells it locally, you'll pay a lot for it unfortunately.
Bread goes stale from losing its moisture. If you keep it sealed in plastic it will last longer. There might be some viscous ingredients (e.g. HFCS) that hold in some of the moisture better, but I really doubt that it is anything as arcane as you'd otherwise think.
One trick to "un-stale" bread is to put it next to a fruit that is porous and has high water content, e.g. a strawberry or a banana, and seal both in plastic wrap. It'll add a slightly fruity flavor as well as make the bread moist again because the bread absorbs moisture from the fruit.
Slashdot Mirror
If everything in life were made by robots, then economies themselves would be obsolete. Scarcity no longer exists, wealth is no longer needed.
That day will most likely never truly come.
France already tried that. It caused a drop in GDP, and only increased unemployment, just as many economists predicted. Also, France is constantly trying new "robin hood" tactics to sate their population. Every time they do so, it has cost them more revenue than it brought in, and has managed to shut down segments of their economy while increasing unemployment.
As somebody said earlier, 80% of Americans worked on farms in the 1900s. So why don't we have 80% unemployment right now? Automation grows the economy, not the other way around.
About time this discussion has some summon sense. Automation doesn't take away jobs in the long term, rather it allows civilization to focus on higher pursuits like art, science, and engineering.
Every single time there is a new technology that triggers frictional unemployment, some labor union or other "feel good" lobby tries to nip it in the bud. The buggy whip industry tried to ban cars from the city. Where would we be now if they got their way? Invariably we would have a much slower economy and much more horse shit to deal with.
Taxing away the assets of the wealthy as has been suggested is only counterproductive. The wealthy are few, yet the top 10% of them already pay more than 70% of taxes, and they are the ones with the capital to drive the economy. We already see all the time what happens when you give middle class or poor people lots of money: they spend it idly until its gone. Don't believe me? Then how come hardly any lottery winners ever stay rich? They blow their money away almost as fast as they won it.
But no, the solution to all of the world's problems is a complacent robin hood society, technological development be damned! And socialists wonder why there has never been a successful "currency free" commune.
He did this in his first term prior to the election.
I am assuming that by locked down, they imply a signed bootloader and/or a signed kernel image. I wouldn't be opposed to that provided all games remain available for the open PC platform as well.
Such a thing is reasonable if they want to subsidize the hardware with games purchases and minimize tech support costs (There's far less headache to deal with if they can't do anything other than what you specifically approved. Anybody who has ever worked in an end user facing IT position would know this.) We can talk about software freedom all day (which I very much do want) but if ma, pa, and billy joe average either can't afford it or otherwise won't use it anyways due to it being too technical to them, then what's the point in having freedom over something you otherwise have nothing to do with?
Not really. Overbearing copyrights and patents are a government problem. Without a government to enforce them, neither can exist. Hollywood can't put you in jail, but the government can. Hollywood may be able to sue you, but only the government can pry the cash out of your cold dead fingers.
And in case you haven't noticed, Hollywood virtually owns the Democratic party. Obama himself massively benefited from those photo shoots and endorsements from Hollywood celebrities, so he had to pay back his debt:
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1862
http://www.ustr.gov/acta
Because of them, Obama deliberately broke the rules of the constitution and ratified ACTA without running it through the senate. If he had, it would have certainly failed due to the anti-SOPA momentum at the time. He knew that, so he skirted around the constitution.
On the contrary, the tea party movement was vehemently against SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, and so was the libertarian movement.
If you think it is mostly an R problem, you're a bit deluded.
Each propeller blade damages the trailing blade rather (ok that sounded stupid.)
I took aerospace science in high school, and I don't remember much if any of it, but I seem to recall something about after a propeller driven plane goes so fast that the shockwave left behind each propeller damages the trailing one. Jet turbines don't have this problem because the down force of the blades is at a much sharper angle, or at least they won't experience any problems unless they reach speeds much higher than the fuselage is capable of withstanding.
Or something like that. I've done chemistry, biology, IT, and some law, but I've never actually studied physics.
You have to wonder though if it will ever become more practical than traditional cargo ships. I imagine it would take less energy to stay airborne (given that it relies upon buoyancy rather than thrust) therefore making it more energy efficient than a jumbo jet, and might need less energy to stay in motion than a watercraft given the lower resistance of the air vs water.
Sure, you might need more of them, but pound for pound can it cost less to transport the goods than a cargo ship? I imagine if they added solar power, that would wipe out much of the operating cost. (Plus I've heard something like current cargo ships have a much larger carbon footprint than most of the world's cars combined.)
And it's going downmodded...Oh the humanity!
Well another way to look at it (and I AM a pirate btw, a very serial offender too, see my last post) is that when you shoplift from a store, all you're really doing is depriving them of profit. In the end, every buyer will be able to purchase their goods anyways, and the store in most cases will be able to re-stock the item before it is completely gone (I used to work retail, we regularly did cycle counts to proactively identify stolen property.)
And no I don't shoplift. The main reason I pirate is because I'm tired of the existing distribution model, which sucks balls. Either having to wait forever for a release (new releases take forever on netflix) or dealing with my cable provider's DRM, which prevents me from using MythTV. Besides, NOTHING commercially available is anywhere near as nice as XBMC with a properly done HTPC is for a home theater experience. That, and ordering and ripping blu-rays into XBMC is more complicated and time delayed than simply entering the name of the movie into couchpotato and having a blu-ray rip of the movie be available one hour later.
I'm a huge pirate, I literally pirate at least 4+ tv shows or movies daily (not necessarily by myself, but other people in my household who I've provided access to.) I also regularly download other things that are otherwise considered illegal (e.g. last night I downloaded a bunch of Cisco IOS images for a net simulator, as well as a training manual.)
Yet I have not once ever relied upon megaupload for piracy, even while they were in their heyday.
The incident with Kim Dotcom can happen regardless of who ICANN/IANA answer to, UN or otherwise. It mainly happened due to treaty and trade agreements as well as strong arm tactics that preceded the internet, and don't require its existence to work.
Other countries seize domain names as well, not just the US. He had a .com TLD, the US government controls those. The US can seize those just as any other country can seize its own TLD registrations, again regardless of who controls ICANN. Notice how thepiratebay.org moved to .se. The US doesn't have any authority to seize those.
As for his physical equipment and the police raids, those happened through diplomatic arrangements and agreements, not through the authority of ICANN or any domain registration authority.
That's what thepiratebay and/or usenet is for. Or if you want to be legit, hulu/netflix.
I personally only own one blu-ray disc, which I haven't even watched, and I stopped renting dvd/blu-ray over a year ago.
Meanwhile I still have access to all of the latest releases, many even before they've actually been released. I downloaded the dark knight rises on blu-ray on november 15th, which is over three weeks before it was on store shelves/amazon. Renting on blu-ray/dvd from netflix or blockbuster's mail service you'll have to wait a few months after that even.
Gives me extra comfort in switching to t-mobile like I am currently planning to do.
By the way, anybody in the Phoenix area (east valley especially) care to comment on the quality of service t-mobile offers here? I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
I have the most expensive iPad you can buy, but I use my Nexus 7 more.
Well for starters, carbon credits have already turned into a racket, spearheaded by Al Gore:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
Second, some industries are selling credits for doing literally nothing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
And finally (I'm only taking a minute here to do this as I'm on a short break, so no time to find the source) some companies have been selling carbon credits for carbon cuts that they already planned on doing anyways just to save on their bottom line by reducing costs. So in effect, the carbon trading didn't do anything at all.
Also, it is inevitable that you are going to end up with shell companies whose business model revolves around nothing but selling carbon credits. Say for example, a money laundering business that does fake business transactions, has miraculously low emissions as a result, and makes money on the side by selling carbon credits.
The whole thing is a joke.
Eww...tofu tastes like liquidy bitter cheese. I imagine it being like pouring milk for your cat, and he doesn't drink it, and left it there for a day til it curds. Then you dump it on a plate and eat it.
No thanks. Somebody has to pay me to eat tofu.
But regardless of how it is construed, it is fact. Hiring people is always a risk, especially in a union shop because if they're a bad apple they can be hard to get rid of. Somebody you know, or somebody you know who knows, reduces that risk. In addition, its much easier to find talent that way. Any recruiter will tell you that posting in want-ads, craigslist, or other career finding sites is always a crapshoot because you often end up with rifraff or possibly even people with forged certificates/diplomas. Above that are job fairs, above that is recruiting on college campuses, and above that is your network.
Good thing you weren't eating MRE's in the late 90's/early 2000's then, they often included tootsie rolls, and I hated those.
The whole world is about who your contacts are, not just the US.
When you think about it, it makes sense: You'd rather hire somebody you know than a complete stranger. The trick is that you don't have contacts, you need to build your own. There's a great tool for that now: Linkedin.
I don't really think there are very many opposed to conservationism. Conserving energy saves money. What they are opposed to (and this is a libertarian thing, btw) is government telling us what thou shalt do or shalt not do.
That and of course red tape. There's a thing in rural areas where if you find a squirrel with some strange spots, kill it and bury it before somebody sees it, or else suddenly you'll find that you don't own your property. These same people appreciate wildlife and all that, which is why they live in rural areas, but the endangered species act is mostly BS.
That, and cap and tax. It's been proven time and time again that exchanging "carbon credits" doesn't actually accomplish anything, and if anything closely resembles the older days when people used to buy indulgences from the church. And Al Gore, easily one of the biggest energy users on the planet, telling us we need to use less energy while buying carbon credits from himself....yeah....no.
Yeah I meant to type that but typed pie instead (editing mistake?) Didn't catch it until after I posted.
Well, everything we put into our bodies is a chemical, even O2 and H2O.
The question is, how harmful are these chemicals? The flour is actually probably the most harmful ingredient in the bread. Our digestive tract isn't really equipped to process any kind of wheat unlike most herbivores (which we are NOT, in spite of what vegetarians/vegans/peta tells you) and it does have a substance that is rather toxic to our intestines - gluten (which by the way, they almost always list as a separate ingredient, even though it is part of the flour.)
Though probably worse than flour is bleached flour, which happens to have most of the nourishment removed from it, so you mostly just end up with the bad stuff.
Soy is also bad for you, pretty much on par with flour if not worse, and bread often includes it. Yeah, I know, the Chinese lived off of it for some long assed time, and so did blah blah other culture. These guys lived off of it because they literally had nothing else to eat, so either eat soy or starve. The Irish lived off of eating grass for a while as well, but I don't see anybody eating that, primarily because it mostly just goes right through you. Unlike say cows, we only have a single chamber stomach, and it pretty much doesn't do shit to break down the grass into anything that our intestines can absorb. The hippies had it wrong, stay away from soy.
http://www.utne.com/2007-07-01/Science-Technology/The-Dark-Side-of-Soy.aspx?page=3
Your homemade bread might include soy as well, namely from the oil you put in the pan to keep the dough from sticking to it, and most vegetable oils include soy as an ingredient (especially the cheap ones.)
To be honest, it's best to avoid bread entirely. Beef for protein and salad are generally the best things you can eat, dress it with extra virgin olive oil and vinegar.
Better than that, replace the beef with ostrich meat if it is available where you live, tastes much better, more nutritious, and is very lean. Plus if you're an eco geek, ostriches require less resources to raise than cows. If nobody sells it locally, you'll pay a lot for it unfortunately.
http://products.mercola.com/produce/free-range-ostrich/
Bread goes stale from losing its moisture. If you keep it sealed in plastic it will last longer. There might be some viscous ingredients (e.g. HFCS) that hold in some of the moisture better, but I really doubt that it is anything as arcane as you'd otherwise think.
One trick to "un-stale" bread is to put it next to a fruit that is porous and has high water content, e.g. a strawberry or a banana, and seal both in plastic wrap. It'll add a slightly fruity flavor as well as make the bread moist again because the bread absorbs moisture from the fruit.