While SCO's demise brings a smile to the faces of nearly all of us, I would argue that the impact of Groklaw will far outlive the SCO vs. Linux cases. Groklaw has also brought to light (and made easily accessible and searchable) the flaws in the OOXML comedy, the testing of open source licenses, and some of the intricacies of the piracy and DRM debates. SCO is done, but Groklaw will continue to provide a valuable service, hopefully for years to come. Yes, Thanks, PJ.
McCain has also switched positions on several issues, but in general, those have been over the course of years, rather than months. Yes, they're both politicians, and their views have changed.
I pose this as a rhetorical question, not as an attack, but as a seed for further discussion:
Considering the amount of overhead in the current welfare system, would the money spent on welfare do more good if it were left in the taxpayers' hands?
Preventing offshore drilling for the reasons you mention isn't a bad thing, but the reasons being stated by the politicians (primarily environmental) are disingenuous. Let's take ANWR for example. It's something like 19 million acres, of which drilling is proposed on 2000. That's one hundredth of a percent. We won't be destroying ANWR by drilling there. ANWR gets something like 1000 visitors per year, and the wildlife there is extremely sparse. What's more, the Alaskans are the ones most in favor of tapping it.
Secondly, I'd like to take issue with your statement that saving our oil reserves for later is a good idea. Implicit in that argument is the assumption that the value of oil in 20/30/50 years will be astronomically more than it is now. If alternative energy continues to progress as rapidly as it has been, oil will become much less valuable in the future because a better alternative will be available. In other words, we will have made ourselves suffer for nothing.
While it is true that we would not see the benefits from renewed drilling for probably five years, the statement that it is a "short-term solution" isn't true. A typical life for an oil field is 30 years at least, and there are tons of oil fields that have been in operation for 50 years or more.
The impression I'm getting of Obama is beginning to trend toward "weak". Despite winning a clear majority of delegates in the primaries, he bowed to Hillary Clinton for a roll-call vote at the convention. Those cases where he has changed his stance appear to follow popular opinion. I still haven't heard him give any straight answers to the "tough questions".
This really worries me. If he really is as weak-kneed as he seems, it means that he'll be more subject to influence than a president should be. Considering their recent actions, I would really hate to see Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid dictating to the president what to do.
I could be wrong, but I believe that much of the "flip-flopping" criticism from the right has come because Obama's changes of opinion have happened over the course of the last few months, and have followed public opinion polls. This suggests that Obama is changing his position to whatever is likely to get the most votes, rather than from a true change of heart.
Not being clairvoyant, I can't claim to know which it is, but the evidence seems to point towards pandering.
Oh, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it were only one or two things, and if he was right on the rest to begin with.
Putting the government in charge of healthcare is outright idiotic, considering the success (or utter lack thereof) of other government welfare systems (Social Security, Medicare, the entire welfare system). Setting a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq is naive, since there are important factors over which we don't have control. Refusing to open up domestic oil reserves for drilling is basically punishing the entire country for the sake of the ignorant environmentalist vote, and saying we'll eliminate the need for Middle East oil imports in 10 years is bonkers unrealistic.
This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do.
There are quite a few economists who would care to differ with that statement. A progressive tax (and welfare) system such as the one we have provides a degree of disincentive against earning more money, because the more money you earn, the greater percentage of it you pay to the government. In some places, such as France, it's so bad that for many people, it's more profitable to live off welfare than to work.
While the main purpose of taxes is to fund government, it should also be structured so as to encourage people to become more productive and contribute more to the economy. Unbalancing the tax system beyond its current state will do precisely the opposite.
but what can I do but vote for the candidate that at least (for now) is saying what I want my Commander in Chief to say?
I'd rather take a candidate that'll tell me the honest truth, even if it isn't popular. Setting a timeline for withdrawl pretty much tells Iran/Al Qaida/whoever else "just lay low for a year and a half, then you'll have free rein." It's naive foreign policy.
I would counter your 'gas tax holiday' argument (about which you're entirely correct) with everything else Obama wants to do with respect to gas prices. Windfall tax on oil companies? That'll drive prices up. Preventing drilling for domestic oil reserves? That won't help either. Pull oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? That won't last long. Force the oil companies to drill the leases they already own? Gee, you'd think they would already be doing that if it would make them money. But it wouldn't, in large part due to government interference.
Obama claims that he will eliminate our dependence on middle-east oil in 10 years. Anyone who believes that is deluding themselves. At least McCain is willing to admit it's a weakness, rather than pretend he knows better.
[H]ard|OCP is actually based in Dallas, so the comma is indeed a thousands separator. However, the unit is watt-seconds (Joules), not watts, so it's still correct.
While that may be true of PDAs, it's not true for laptops. The battery charge controller keeps very careful track of exactly how much current is flowing out of the battery pack. It doesn't estimate remaining charge based on voltage, but rather on how much current the device has consumed for how long.
RE: #1, battery meters, at least on laptops, do not gauge "remaining charge" based on voltage. They actually measure and keep track of the total amount of charge that has left the battery. They communicate this to the rest of the laptop via SMBus. The capability for quite good accuracy is there. Whether the manufacturer decides to utilize it, or ignore it, or fake it...that's another matter.
For the purposes of preventing music/movie piracy, however, it only takes a single compromised computer. Assuming the music or movie is protected all the way to the TPM, once the TPM is compromised and the movie is decrypted, the game is up. As the MPAA have already seen (though not yet learned), once a single unprotected copy of a movie is out there, there's no closing the barn door.
The MP3's on Amazon aren't DRM'ed. They're unprotected MP3s. Whether or not there is some form of watermarking included is another issue.
So yeah, you pay your $0.99, download the file, and it's yours to enjoy as many times/wherever you like.
I think you have just listed pretty much all of my biggest annoyances with Windows. The problem Microsoft have exhibited is that they have focussed on "adding value" to Windows purely by adding features. What someone in upper management has failed to recognize is that removing deficiencies also adds value to a product.
Unfortunately, fixes like the ones you've suggested don't look very good in the glossy brochure, and definitely don't look good to the folks forcing WGA, activation, and OEM bios locks on us.
No kidding. I'm starting to wonder if one can really know where Obama stands on a lot of issues. He used to be for an immediate pull-out from Iraq, now he's backing away from it. He used to be against telecom immunity, and now he's backing away from that, too.
Granted, McCain has switched sides on some issues, but at least the waffling has been over the course of years (or decades!), rather than months. He at least can plausibly claim "I know more now than I did then"
Who says the environmental impact isn't improving, and that R&D isn't happening? It's happening on its own, without additional government subsidies and taxation, thanks to high gas oil prices. We've heard of lots of cost-reducing and efficiency-improving developments in solar lately. When they become economically viable, we'll see the demand for oil drop.
See? No additional taxes or government spending needed.
Ok, all those localized, distributed technologies aren't economically viable right now. In order to deploy them, a lot of money will need to be pumped in. Who's going to pay *that* subsidy? I hope you're not thinking that taxpayers should pay it. Because that includes me. And I already think my taxes are too high.
While Chernobyl was a huge disaster, Three-mile Island was nothing of the sort. Yes, the reactor core melted down. But everything was contained within the reactor vessel, and only a small amount of contaminated gas was released into the atmosphere. In fact, there hasn't been a single confirmed case of anyone being harmed by the effects of the TMI meltdown. The political climate at the time, however, turned a "aw, this stinks" situation into "OMG THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END" scandal.
The reason they may not be economic isn't anything intrinsic in the cost of building one. It's primarily due to government regulation and red tape. If the government were to ease the restrictions (as McCain is apparently advocating), you'd see a lot more nuclear plants go up.
You apparently don't realize exactly how much energy this country uses, particularly with respect to oil. For example, if we diverted the entire US corn production into ethanol, it would supply about 13% of the demand.
The reality is that energy demand isn't going to go away, current alternative energy technology is nowhere near capable of alleviating the demand, and that even at full production, it couldn't be in the time frames we're talking about.
And by the way, it's more like 5 years to production if we were to drill in ANWR and offshore.
Both parties' candidates are making multi-decade promises on the energy front. And while neither of them would be in power long enough to take it to fruition, they can at least start programs that last a long time.
For better or worse, we've already seen the same thing happen many times (interstate system, social security, etc)
A lot of electricity comes from gas turbine generators, which run on the natural gas that gets produced along with oil. Right now, there are a couple gas-to-liquids refineries in the world, which turn natural gas into very clean diesel. With the current high price of natural gas, it's not economic to build more, but if we reduce our need for natural gas, you'll see more GTL plants built. That means a larger supply of (very high-quality) diesel, and lower prices.
I believe McCain also supports a cap-and-trade system, so both candidates are off-the-mark on that point. Imposing a cap-and-trade system would effectively place all US companies at a disadvantage to their overseas competitors, who would not be subject to such regulations.
What most "environmental" issues ignore is the reason why things like deforestation are happening. The logging companies aren't just cutting down trees for fun. That wood goes places--building houses for us, producing paper, etc. Oil companies aren't producing oil to just dump it--that oil's used for products that people want and need.
Slashdot Mirror
While SCO's demise brings a smile to the faces of nearly all of us, I would argue that the impact of Groklaw will far outlive the SCO vs. Linux cases. Groklaw has also brought to light (and made easily accessible and searchable) the flaws in the OOXML comedy, the testing of open source licenses, and some of the intricacies of the piracy and DRM debates. SCO is done, but Groklaw will continue to provide a valuable service, hopefully for years to come. Yes, Thanks, PJ.
Ok, google helps here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
McCain has also switched positions on several issues, but in general, those have been over the course of years, rather than months. Yes, they're both politicians, and their views have changed.
I pose this as a rhetorical question, not as an attack, but as a seed for further discussion:
Considering the amount of overhead in the current welfare system, would the money spent on welfare do more good if it were left in the taxpayers' hands?
Preventing offshore drilling for the reasons you mention isn't a bad thing, but the reasons being stated by the politicians (primarily environmental) are disingenuous. Let's take ANWR for example. It's something like 19 million acres, of which drilling is proposed on 2000. That's one hundredth of a percent. We won't be destroying ANWR by drilling there. ANWR gets something like 1000 visitors per year, and the wildlife there is extremely sparse. What's more, the Alaskans are the ones most in favor of tapping it.
Secondly, I'd like to take issue with your statement that saving our oil reserves for later is a good idea. Implicit in that argument is the assumption that the value of oil in 20/30/50 years will be astronomically more than it is now. If alternative energy continues to progress as rapidly as it has been, oil will become much less valuable in the future because a better alternative will be available. In other words, we will have made ourselves suffer for nothing.
While it is true that we would not see the benefits from renewed drilling for probably five years, the statement that it is a "short-term solution" isn't true. A typical life for an oil field is 30 years at least, and there are tons of oil fields that have been in operation for 50 years or more.
The impression I'm getting of Obama is beginning to trend toward "weak". Despite winning a clear majority of delegates in the primaries, he bowed to Hillary Clinton for a roll-call vote at the convention. Those cases where he has changed his stance appear to follow popular opinion. I still haven't heard him give any straight answers to the "tough questions".
This really worries me. If he really is as weak-kneed as he seems, it means that he'll be more subject to influence than a president should be. Considering their recent actions, I would really hate to see Nancy Pelosi and Henry Reid dictating to the president what to do.
I could be wrong, but I believe that much of the "flip-flopping" criticism from the right has come because Obama's changes of opinion have happened over the course of the last few months, and have followed public opinion polls. This suggests that Obama is changing his position to whatever is likely to get the most votes, rather than from a true change of heart.
Not being clairvoyant, I can't claim to know which it is, but the evidence seems to point towards pandering.
Oh, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it were only one or two things, and if he was right on the rest to begin with.
Putting the government in charge of healthcare is outright idiotic, considering the success (or utter lack thereof) of other government welfare systems (Social Security, Medicare, the entire welfare system). Setting a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq is naive, since there are important factors over which we don't have control. Refusing to open up domestic oil reserves for drilling is basically punishing the entire country for the sake of the ignorant environmentalist vote, and saying we'll eliminate the need for Middle East oil imports in 10 years is bonkers unrealistic.
This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do.
There are quite a few economists who would care to differ with that statement. A progressive tax (and welfare) system such as the one we have provides a degree of disincentive against earning more money, because the more money you earn, the greater percentage of it you pay to the government. In some places, such as France, it's so bad that for many people, it's more profitable to live off welfare than to work.
While the main purpose of taxes is to fund government, it should also be structured so as to encourage people to become more productive and contribute more to the economy. Unbalancing the tax system beyond its current state will do precisely the opposite.
but what can I do but vote for the candidate that at least (for now) is saying what I want my Commander in Chief to say?
I'd rather take a candidate that'll tell me the honest truth, even if it isn't popular. Setting a timeline for withdrawl pretty much tells Iran/Al Qaida/whoever else "just lay low for a year and a half, then you'll have free rein." It's naive foreign policy.
I would counter your 'gas tax holiday' argument (about which you're entirely correct) with everything else Obama wants to do with respect to gas prices. Windfall tax on oil companies? That'll drive prices up. Preventing drilling for domestic oil reserves? That won't help either. Pull oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? That won't last long. Force the oil companies to drill the leases they already own? Gee, you'd think they would already be doing that if it would make them money. But it wouldn't, in large part due to government interference.
Obama claims that he will eliminate our dependence on middle-east oil in 10 years. Anyone who believes that is deluding themselves. At least McCain is willing to admit it's a weakness, rather than pretend he knows better.
[H]ard|OCP is actually based in Dallas, so the comma is indeed a thousands separator. However, the unit is watt-seconds (Joules), not watts, so it's still correct.
While that may be true of PDAs, it's not true for laptops. The battery charge controller keeps very careful track of exactly how much current is flowing out of the battery pack. It doesn't estimate remaining charge based on voltage, but rather on how much current the device has consumed for how long.
RE: #1, battery meters, at least on laptops, do not gauge "remaining charge" based on voltage. They actually measure and keep track of the total amount of charge that has left the battery. They communicate this to the rest of the laptop via SMBus. The capability for quite good accuracy is there. Whether the manufacturer decides to utilize it, or ignore it, or fake it...that's another matter.
For the purposes of preventing music/movie piracy, however, it only takes a single compromised computer. Assuming the music or movie is protected all the way to the TPM, once the TPM is compromised and the movie is decrypted, the game is up. As the MPAA have already seen (though not yet learned), once a single unprotected copy of a movie is out there, there's no closing the barn door.
The MP3's on Amazon aren't DRM'ed. They're unprotected MP3s. Whether or not there is some form of watermarking included is another issue. So yeah, you pay your $0.99, download the file, and it's yours to enjoy as many times/wherever you like.
I think you have just listed pretty much all of my biggest annoyances with Windows. The problem Microsoft have exhibited is that they have focussed on "adding value" to Windows purely by adding features. What someone in upper management has failed to recognize is that removing deficiencies also adds value to a product. Unfortunately, fixes like the ones you've suggested don't look very good in the glossy brochure, and definitely don't look good to the folks forcing WGA, activation, and OEM bios locks on us.
No kidding. I'm starting to wonder if one can really know where Obama stands on a lot of issues. He used to be for an immediate pull-out from Iraq, now he's backing away from it. He used to be against telecom immunity, and now he's backing away from that, too.
Granted, McCain has switched sides on some issues, but at least the waffling has been over the course of years (or decades!), rather than months. He at least can plausibly claim "I know more now than I did then"
Who says the environmental impact isn't improving, and that R&D isn't happening? It's happening on its own, without additional government subsidies and taxation, thanks to high gas oil prices. We've heard of lots of cost-reducing and efficiency-improving developments in solar lately. When they become economically viable, we'll see the demand for oil drop.
See? No additional taxes or government spending needed.
Ok, all those localized, distributed technologies aren't economically viable right now. In order to deploy them, a lot of money will need to be pumped in. Who's going to pay *that* subsidy? I hope you're not thinking that taxpayers should pay it. Because that includes me. And I already think my taxes are too high.
While Chernobyl was a huge disaster, Three-mile Island was nothing of the sort. Yes, the reactor core melted down. But everything was contained within the reactor vessel, and only a small amount of contaminated gas was released into the atmosphere. In fact, there hasn't been a single confirmed case of anyone being harmed by the effects of the TMI meltdown. The political climate at the time, however, turned a "aw, this stinks" situation into "OMG THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END" scandal.
The reason they may not be economic isn't anything intrinsic in the cost of building one. It's primarily due to government regulation and red tape. If the government were to ease the restrictions (as McCain is apparently advocating), you'd see a lot more nuclear plants go up.
You apparently don't realize exactly how much energy this country uses, particularly with respect to oil. For example, if we diverted the entire US corn production into ethanol, it would supply about 13% of the demand.
The reality is that energy demand isn't going to go away, current alternative energy technology is nowhere near capable of alleviating the demand, and that even at full production, it couldn't be in the time frames we're talking about.
And by the way, it's more like 5 years to production if we were to drill in ANWR and offshore.
Both parties' candidates are making multi-decade promises on the energy front. And while neither of them would be in power long enough to take it to fruition, they can at least start programs that last a long time.
For better or worse, we've already seen the same thing happen many times (interstate system, social security, etc)
A lot of electricity comes from gas turbine generators, which run on the natural gas that gets produced along with oil. Right now, there are a couple gas-to-liquids refineries in the world, which turn natural gas into very clean diesel. With the current high price of natural gas, it's not economic to build more, but if we reduce our need for natural gas, you'll see more GTL plants built. That means a larger supply of (very high-quality) diesel, and lower prices.
I believe McCain also supports a cap-and-trade system, so both candidates are off-the-mark on that point. Imposing a cap-and-trade system would effectively place all US companies at a disadvantage to their overseas competitors, who would not be subject to such regulations.
What most "environmental" issues ignore is the reason why things like deforestation are happening. The logging companies aren't just cutting down trees for fun. That wood goes places--building houses for us, producing paper, etc. Oil companies aren't producing oil to just dump it--that oil's used for products that people want and need.