Most people won't have access to you personally to set up with linux. Do you want to come over to my house and get me up and running in linux? Also, I'll be calling you frequently for tech support.
Sure, for $50/hour you can call me for all the tech support you want.
I don't listen to people whine about their Windows spyware problems for free, either.
Or you could just stop subsidizing food production. A lot of food, especially corn (used to make all those sweeteners) is very artifically low in price due to agribusiness subsidies.
Our neighbors-to-the-North, if no one else, will provide sufficient demand (and an easy place for us Northern US residents to go to get such products) to guarantee the existance of flagless TVs.
I wouldn't count on that. I'm sure the CRTC will mandate the same broadcast flag on behalf of the same media lobbies. This is the land of the blank-CD tax, after all.
A police state would allow all of the secret things you've mentioned in every case
Hardly. Even the Nazis had public trials. The knowledge that bad things _can_ happen to you if you offend someone in power is enough to stifle freedom in most cases.
But if people in my town decide we should have a town ISP, who are you, that lives elsewhere in the state, to tell us we can't?
The people who want it should probably get together and build it, then. Why involve the government at all? Oh right, because you want to force other people to pay for it...
While I don't think the state legislatures have any right to do legislate on behalf of the telcos, I also don't see the point of municipal government trying to compete with ISP's. Form a co-op. Do it yourself.
Did you even read the link I gave? Silly question, your response proves you didn't
Actually I did, but since it was a DoE article, and since the government is the one handing out the subsidies, and since it contradicts other sources I have read recently, I didn't believe it.
but I wouldn't be surprised if the replacement of gasoline burned in a car engine at 17% efficiency by coal burned in a conventional powerplant at 33% is a pure win already
Supposedly, it can reach up to about 20% overall efficiency, as opposed to maybe 14% for a car, so yes.
33% from burning coal, 95% after transmission, 80% after charging, 80% from motor to wheel.
I don't think _anyone_ holds up Canada as having a better climate than the UK. Hot w/bugs in the summer, colder than Wisconsin in winter. You have to go to the west coast to find a climate worth living in (much like the US, actually).
Actually there are very few areas in the US with air quality as bad as southern Ontario. LA, Houston, maybe a couple of others. Certainly not affecting a majority of the population, though.
I don't understand why programs like this are not being pursued more aggressively.
Because crop production depends heavily on fossil fuels (for tractors, transportation and fertilizers). It takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than you get back in energy from it.
Ethanol is a big subsidy program for corn farmers, not an energy source.
I don't know: show me the ape which has conquered the planet, which has tamed the forces of nature, which thinks, and maybe I'll consider him my equal...
We ARE that ape.
We killed off every other hominid on the way up, so competitors are a little hard to come by right now.
No, but it's far different from stuffing your own population into gas chambers, or forcibly starving them by the millions. Europeans are generally the ones trying to pretend they're better than others, these days, so it helps to remind them of their recent past.
The problem is that there are more volcanic eruptions. Volcanic activity is increasing very fast and is a major symptom of the planets approaching death.
I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at the stupidity of this.
Native Americans were not the American's own population. They were the target of invaders. Same as indigenous populations the world over - when the farmers come, everyone else dies. The North American experience just happened recently enough for us to remember it.
At least in this case there is data to support the view that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns can lower the crime rate.
Anti-gun proponents generally use the "common-sense" argument, with absolutely no data.
Please tell me, where in the world have guns been restricted or even completely criminalized and then the crime rate actually drops? Crime rates in most of the western world have been climbing along with increased gun control. I don't believe it's causal (I think people are just not being raised with respect for others), but I don't think taking more of people's rights away will help, either.
The makers of plasma TV's aren't sabotaging their products
They don't need to. Electronics manufacturers have changed tactics. They just change all the standards every 5 years or so, so your old gear won't work anymore.
Congress had that opportunity, but instead enacted the CAN-SPAM act, which the DMA bought and paid for to ensure that spamming is not made illegal, only "bad" spam is. Then they made it so only the US AG could go after the "bad" spammers, which essentially guaranteed that absolutely nothing would happen.
I'd be happy if they actually had to prove competency before they got their license in the first place. The number of people around here that can't even handle merging onto a freeway is astounding.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people won't have access to you personally to set up with linux. Do you want to come over to my house and get me up and running in linux? Also, I'll be calling you frequently for tech support.
Sure, for $50/hour you can call me for all the tech support you want.
I don't listen to people whine about their Windows spyware problems for free, either.
The problem is, the US government keeps turning around and passing their harebrained schemes into laws.
Or you could just stop subsidizing food production. A lot of food, especially corn (used to make all those sweeteners) is very artifically low in price due to agribusiness subsidies.
Our neighbors-to-the-North, if no one else, will provide sufficient demand (and an easy place for us Northern US residents to go to get such products) to guarantee the existance of flagless TVs.
I wouldn't count on that. I'm sure the CRTC will mandate the same broadcast flag on behalf of the same media lobbies. This is the land of the blank-CD tax, after all.
Or Reagan. Or Eisenhower. Or even Lincoln. Come to think of it, has any President ever managed to shrink government, ever?
A police state would allow all of the secret things you've mentioned in every case
Hardly. Even the Nazis had public trials. The knowledge that bad things _can_ happen to you if you offend someone in power is enough to stifle freedom in most cases.
But if people in my town decide we should have a town ISP, who are you, that lives elsewhere in the state, to tell us we can't?
...
The people who want it should probably get together and build it, then. Why involve the government at all? Oh right, because you want to force other people to pay for it
While I don't think the state legislatures have any right to do legislate on behalf of the telcos, I also don't see the point of municipal government trying to compete with ISP's. Form a co-op. Do it yourself.
Did you even read the link I gave? Silly question, your response proves you didn't
Actually I did, but since it was a DoE article, and since the government is the one handing out the subsidies, and since it contradicts other sources I have read recently, I didn't believe it.
but I wouldn't be surprised if the replacement of gasoline burned in a car engine at 17% efficiency by coal burned in a conventional powerplant at 33% is a pure win already
Supposedly, it can reach up to about 20% overall efficiency, as opposed to maybe 14% for a car, so yes.
33% from burning coal, 95% after transmission, 80% after charging, 80% from motor to wheel.
I don't think _anyone_ holds up Canada as having a better climate than the UK. Hot w/bugs in the summer, colder than Wisconsin in winter. You have to go to the west coast to find a climate worth living in (much like the US, actually).
Awesome. We should be able to dump so much carbon into the air that humans won't even be able to breath. That's really great news.
Actually there are very few areas in the US with air quality as bad as southern Ontario. LA, Houston, maybe a couple of others. Certainly not affecting a majority of the population, though.
I don't understand why programs like this are not being pursued more aggressively.
Because crop production depends heavily on fossil fuels (for tractors, transportation and fertilizers). It takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than you get back in energy from it.
Ethanol is a big subsidy program for corn farmers, not an energy source.
China and India can become the factories of the West, which will help reduce Global CO2 emissions how
...
Well, China actually has the good sense to build nuclear plants, which will help a lot. OTOH, they also burn rather a lot of coal, which won't
I don't know: show me the ape which has conquered the planet, which has tamed the forces of nature, which thinks, and maybe I'll consider him my equal...
We ARE that ape.
We killed off every other hominid on the way up, so competitors are a little hard to come by right now.
No, but it's far different from stuffing your own population into gas chambers, or forcibly starving them by the millions. Europeans are generally the ones trying to pretend they're better than others, these days, so it helps to remind them of their recent past.
The problem is that there are more volcanic eruptions. Volcanic activity is increasing very fast and is a major symptom of the planets approaching death.
I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at the stupidity of this.
Native Americans were not the American's own population. They were the target of invaders. Same as indigenous populations the world over - when the farmers come, everyone else dies. The North American experience just happened recently enough for us to remember it.
At least in this case there is data to support the view that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns can lower the crime rate.
Anti-gun proponents generally use the "common-sense" argument, with absolutely no data.
Please tell me, where in the world have guns been restricted or even completely criminalized and then the crime rate actually drops? Crime rates in most of the western world have been climbing along with increased gun control. I don't believe it's causal (I think people are just not being raised with respect for others), but I don't think taking more of people's rights away will help, either.
The makers of plasma TV's aren't sabotaging their products
They don't need to. Electronics manufacturers have changed tactics. They just change all the standards every 5 years or so, so your old gear won't work anymore.
Congress had that opportunity, but instead enacted the CAN-SPAM act, which the DMA bought and paid for to ensure that spamming is not made illegal, only "bad" spam is. Then they made it so only the US AG could go after the "bad" spammers, which essentially guaranteed that absolutely nothing would happen.
Well, over 60 million people did vote for Bush. Not that Kerry would have been much of an improvement.
Or, hell, just make everyone live inside a box for their whole life. That'll keep'em safe.
Geez, live a little. Driving is fun.
I'd be happy if they actually had to prove competency before they got their license in the first place. The number of people around here that can't even handle merging onto a freeway is astounding.
Um no, if someone comes to take your stuff or hurt you, you shoot it. Libertarians don't go looking for fights.