No. There is nothing in the law that could be reasonably construed to be a ban on incandescent bulbs. Unfortunately, it was played that way by the press, and even here on Slashdot. I remember being irate when the law came out because that is how it was presented because I fell for it.
There are plenty of bulbs that meet the energy efficiency standard, including incandescent bulbs. It is not logical to call it a ban on incandescent bulbs when there are incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. It bans inefficient bulbs, regardless of type. That would include some incandescent bulbs, some halogen bulbs, and probably others. It could just as easily have been called a halogen ban, except that would not have caused an uproar.
I think Slashdot should jsut be banned from posting links to Technologizer. I generally don't complain about article formats, but this is the worst I've ever seen. The article is 15 pages long, with 2 paragraphs of text on each page, and a picture of Donkey Kong that is bigger than the article text. At first, I couldn't even find the article because the page layout is so dumb I had to scroll to the right to see it.
Some people seem to be conflating this with the TSA searching laptops at checkpoints. This is entirely different. The prosecutor has sufficient evidence to go to a judge to get a warrant compelling the person to reveal their files. This is not a violation of their rights like a search without probable cause. This is part of the normal discovery process.
Now I am curious how this compares to a physical key to a safe. If a person can be compelled to provide a physical key, or to open a safe without providing the key itself, can they be forced to do the virtual equivalent? Or is the virtual key self-incrimination but the physical key is not?
Wisdom would dictate that the author is incapable of judging when it is good enough. Ergo, even if it is already good enough, the code review is necessary in order to make that determination. Fortunately, good code is relatively easy to review.
That's fine, but first the wireless and broadband carriers must be made common carriers like they are over telephone. That is one of the biggest differences between the systems. Telephone companies are not permitted to delay, degrade, alter, or record telephone conversations or modem signals. But no such protections exist over broadband or wireless. They have no requirements for call quality, nothing stops them from inserted advertisements or charging you differently depending on who you call.
Those same protections need to apply to other services, in addition to deregulating them so we have choices.
On the other hand I'm not sure how much I'd want to drive this thing on the road
If we had the infrastructure for a vehicle like this, you wouldn't need to drive far. You might fly to school or work in the morning, and there might be an airstrip 1/2 kilometer away so you don't have to drive very far to get to the parking garage.
This was above and beyond that. This was *after* I was already approved by the bank. The documents I was signing clearly stated "Due to new provisions in the Patriot Act" and cited relevant sections. The loan officer basically said that she had no need for all these statements and the bank doesn't want them since you are already approved, but that they legally couldn't give me the loan without collecting them.
So why does the linked article show US nuclear at 8%? Something is amiss here.
My guess is that we shut down a bunch of nuclear plants for upgrades as a result of Fukushima just long enough for a statistician to claim we reached some meaningless milestone.
I learned a bit about the Patriot Act when buying a house. Prior to the Patriot Act you had to disclose sufficient financial information to the bank for them to take the risk of the loan. You had to prove you had the down payment, provide a credit report, and appraise the house. But they didn't really care where or how you got the money. But under the Patriot Act you have to provide an audit trail for all of your assets. For example, you must show where you got your down payment from and where it was for the past 6 months, etc. In my case I sold stocks so I had to show tons of statements prove that the money really came from those stocks, not some other place.
It was fairly creepy. I felt like I was depositing money in a bank and the government required proof that I didn't get the money by selling drugs. It really slowed things down and complicated it. I used to watch TV shows where the police had ridiculous access to people's information, but I see now how that is happening. I can imagine a time when the government can track every dollar - where it goes and where it came from.
The problem is that such systems will never pay for themselves given the launch costs. We would be better-off to burn the rocket fuel for electricity. In order to make some of these large-scale things work, we need some kind of breakthrough in launch technology (space elevator, slingshot, etc.)
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids
I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior
The supreme court ruling refers to articles on both those points. They stated that in California, 20% of retailers will sell violent games to children, which compares to the 18% of liquor stores that sell alcohol to minors. The justices also commented on various studies, basically concluding that they are all very subject and totally inconclusive. The actual opinions are full of interesting facts.
I was in a similar situation, here is what I suggest:
1) Take the Comp Sci AP test to get you out of the introductory CS courses and get you some credits from the start. The gen-ed courses weren't that bad to take: It may be the CS 101 classes that drive you nuts. "This is a for loop... this is a while loop..." and looking around at all the Art majors who think they can go into Comp Sci for the money and don't understand the concept of a variable.
2) Take any other AP test you think you can. Worst-case you lose money, best case you skip some courses. There is nothing wrong with getting a poor score on an AP test other than the loss of money. But talk to someone who has taken and/or teaches AP courses to get an idea of what you need to know. If you are still in high-school then taking the AP courses is the best approach.
3) Use community college to breeze through gen-eds. I decided on my final college and picked a community college to take my Gen-Ed classes. (I did it for financial reasons though). Pick the schools and classes so you guarantee a transfer. Then take nothing but gen-ed courses in the community college because they will be really easy. If you are as smart as you think, you might be able to do 2 years of gen-ed classes in 1 year. Most of those community college classes will be designed for slackers.
4) Grow up. Those gen-ed courses are actually some of the best parts of college. I am a geek to the core, but I loved discussing Descartes' meditations, studying economics, learning how the eye communicates images to the brain, and debugging why various wars started. If you think you can survive in the world knowing only what is in the computer you will be unable to accurately measure the world around you and efficiently apply what you have learned to your field. You won't be young forever so at some point you will wake-up and realize you aren't the best of the best of the best anymore, and you will want your niche in the real world. Computers are a tool - a means. True success requires more than just the means (your C.S.) to fulfill.
I wasn't actually aware that it expires and is renewed each year. Should I be getting some kind of notice about that? They bill me monthly so I don't see a start/end date on the coverage period other than the billing period. I suppose that means they could cancel me on a monthly basis if they wanted to. Thanks for bringing that up. Food for thought.
So it sounds like only trademark owners can purchase a TLD. That seems like the exact mirror opposite of how it should work. Instead of making the purchaser prove that they own the trademark in order to get a TLD, they should prove that they are completely unaffiliated with any of the trademark owners. That basically solves all the problems people are bringing up.
For example: who gets.Apple? Apple music? Apple computers? Apple growers? Apple aficionados? How about none of them get it. Better: You can't register any TLD that has a trademark on it.
So instead you could have apple.com, apple.computers, apple.music, apple.growers, apple.eaters. That preserves the hierarchical nature of TLDs.
But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates
This is not always so.
My wife and I have been self employed for years and both pay for our own health care. I now work for a Fortune 500 company, and we still stay with our individual plans because they are cheaper. Here is the key difference: Companies provide high-end health care, while individual care has more gradations. My employer's healthcare has a $100 deductible, a low co-pay, and pays for every random doctor visit, dental appointment, or band-aid. My individual coverage has $1000 deductible but an out-of-pocket maximum. So it doesn't cover well visits, dental appointments, band-aids, and I have a $10 co-pay. But it does cover me if I get in an accident or have cancer. Isn't *that* what insurance is for?
The difference in the premiums pays for that $1000 deductible by the end of the year. Employer-sponsored health care is very expensive because they cannot vary the cost based on your age, demographics, life-style, etc. They do not require a check-up to get the insurance, and sometimes they have to cover pre-existing conditions. So the insurance companies are stuck with whoever they get, so they charge more for those plans.
Do not read this article, it makes C++0x look bad by giving terrible examples of the new features. Even features I've been excited about look stupid after reading this. The article shows how *not* to use a lambda expression. A regular for loop would be better here. Using "auto" on int and long does work, but defeats the purpose. The second example of auto doesn't even make sense since it doesn't actually include the word auto. It should be something more like: auto ci=vi.begin();
I am confused by the article. It could mean one of two very different things:
1) The states passed laws requiring the corporations to cut their emissions even further than what the EPA required. The companies did not comply so the states sued. The Supreme Court ruled that the state laws do not trump the federal law, so they cannot be enforced.
-- OR --
2) The states sued the companies for damages, even though the companies complied with the federal law.
The implications are very different. The first one would surprise me: it seems like a states rights issue. States often times impose local environmental restrictions that may be beyond the federal requirements. If it was the latter, then I am not surprised. This happens all the time with anything where there is any form of regulation or standard practice. If the entity is following the regulation or best practice, they are generally immune from suits. Ex: Suppose a boat captain requires everyone to wear a life jacket, properly maintains the boat according to all the rules, has coast guard inspections, training, certificates, etc.... the captain is probably not liable if the boat catches fire and kills someone . Often times the regulatory body gets sued instead. In the above example, the coast guard may be sued for having lax rules.
Not so. Civil suits are not bound by whether or not the activity is legal. They are bound by the ability to prove damages. It is legal to throw rocks, but if you damage my car when doing so I can sue you for the damage.
Formats also should not be patented. Back in 2000, I worked for a company that tried to patent their particular XML schema to prevent a competitor from making a product that consumed the same schema. The patent filing was written so broadly that even the developers of the format could not recognize it. Fortunately, the patent filing was rejected and the company gave up. If I had my name on that monstrosity it would haunt me.
From what I can tell, the preponderance of research out there indicates that corn ethanol is not viable. At this point, the USDA report is in question since all the others agree. They are also the only one who has a potential bias. Obviously the subsidies benefit the US agriculture lobby (albeit indirectly). At this point, the burden of proof goes to proving their numbers, not disproving everyone else's.
Now I'm confused. I've read countless articles from reliable sources explaining how and why ethanol is either energy negative, or close enough to be useless. A quick Google search gives so many articles, all of which agree, that it isn't worth listing any individual ones. Many speculate that it could be viable in the future though. So why do the USDA numbers disagree with every other scientific journal out there? And your claim goes another step further claiming that it is energy positive, but that it does not impact the corn feedstocks and it did not account for the rise in corn prices. This would be wonderful if true, and would change my stance on the issue.
For now, I can't change my stance based on a single source that disagrees with the vast majority. I speculate that the USDA figures are self-serving since they do have a conflict of interest, but that would be disturbing since their job is to evaluate these types of things to make policy.
I am curious what your thoughts on this are. You started the post pointing out that the discussion is "uneducated" and citing a source - that's great. Now can you explain why that source disagrees with everyone else? That would certainly make me more open to changing my mind, for what that is worth.
Slashdot Mirror
No. There is nothing in the law that could be reasonably construed to be a ban on incandescent bulbs. Unfortunately, it was played that way by the press, and even here on Slashdot. I remember being irate when the law came out because that is how it was presented because I fell for it.
There are plenty of bulbs that meet the energy efficiency standard, including incandescent bulbs. It is not logical to call it a ban on incandescent bulbs when there are incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. It bans inefficient bulbs, regardless of type. That would include some incandescent bulbs, some halogen bulbs, and probably others. It could just as easily have been called a halogen ban, except that would not have caused an uproar.
I think Slashdot should jsut be banned from posting links to Technologizer.
I generally don't complain about article formats, but this is the worst I've ever seen. The article is 15 pages long, with 2 paragraphs of text on each page, and a picture of Donkey Kong that is bigger than the article text. At first, I couldn't even find the article because the page layout is so dumb I had to scroll to the right to see it.
Some people seem to be conflating this with the TSA searching laptops at checkpoints. This is entirely different. The prosecutor has sufficient evidence to go to a judge to get a warrant compelling the person to reveal their files. This is not a violation of their rights like a search without probable cause. This is part of the normal discovery process.
Now I am curious how this compares to a physical key to a safe. If a person can be compelled to provide a physical key, or to open a safe without providing the key itself, can they be forced to do the virtual equivalent? Or is the virtual key self-incrimination but the physical key is not?
having the wisdom to know the difference is key.
Wisdom would dictate that the author is incapable of judging when it is good enough. Ergo, even if it is already good enough, the code review is necessary in order to make that determination. Fortunately, good code is relatively easy to review.
That's fine, but first the wireless and broadband carriers must be made common carriers like they are over telephone. That is one of the biggest differences between the systems. Telephone companies are not permitted to delay, degrade, alter, or record telephone conversations or modem signals. But no such protections exist over broadband or wireless. They have no requirements for call quality, nothing stops them from inserted advertisements or charging you differently depending on who you call.
Those same protections need to apply to other services, in addition to deregulating them so we have choices.
On the other hand I'm not sure how much I'd want to drive this thing on the road
If we had the infrastructure for a vehicle like this, you wouldn't need to drive far. You might fly to school or work in the morning, and there might be an airstrip 1/2 kilometer away so you don't have to drive very far to get to the parking garage.
This was above and beyond that. This was *after* I was already approved by the bank. The documents I was signing clearly stated "Due to new provisions in the Patriot Act" and cited relevant sections. The loan officer basically said that she had no need for all these statements and the bank doesn't want them since you are already approved, but that they legally couldn't give me the loan without collecting them.
According to every source on the internet the US produces
~20% of it's energy from nuclear. My own power company says it is 33% with 8% renewable (mostly wood burning).
So why does the linked article show US nuclear at 8%? Something is amiss here.
My guess is that we shut down a bunch of nuclear plants for upgrades as a result of Fukushima just long enough for a statistician to claim we reached some meaningless milestone.
I learned a bit about the Patriot Act when buying a house. Prior to the Patriot Act you had to disclose sufficient financial information to the bank for them to take the risk of the loan. You had to prove you had the down payment, provide a credit report, and appraise the house. But they didn't really care where or how you got the money. But under the Patriot Act you have to provide an audit trail for all of your assets. For example, you must show where you got your down payment from and where it was for the past 6 months, etc. In my case I sold stocks so I had to show tons of statements prove that the money really came from those stocks, not some other place.
It was fairly creepy. I felt like I was depositing money in a bank and the government required proof that I didn't get the money by selling drugs. It really slowed things down and complicated it. I used to watch TV shows where the police had ridiculous access to people's information, but I see now how that is happening. I can imagine a time when the government can track every dollar - where it goes and where it came from.
The problem is that such systems will never pay for themselves given the launch costs. We would be better-off to burn the rocket fuel for electricity. In order to make some of these large-scale things work, we need some kind of breakthrough in launch technology (space elevator, slingshot, etc.)
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids
I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior
The supreme court ruling refers to articles on both those points. They stated that in California, 20% of retailers will sell violent games to children, which compares to the 18% of liquor stores that sell alcohol to minors. The justices also commented on various studies, basically concluding that they are all very subject and totally inconclusive. The actual opinions are full of interesting facts.
I've never heard of that interpretation of the GPL. Can you explain that line of thinking or maybe provide a link?
I was in a similar situation, here is what I suggest:
1) Take the Comp Sci AP test to get you out of the introductory CS courses and get you some credits from the start. The gen-ed courses weren't that bad to take: It may be the CS 101 classes that drive you nuts. "This is a for loop... this is a while loop..." and looking around at all the Art majors who think they can go into Comp Sci for the money and don't understand the concept of a variable.
2) Take any other AP test you think you can. Worst-case you lose money, best case you skip some courses. There is nothing wrong with getting a poor score on an AP test other than the loss of money. But talk to someone who has taken and/or teaches AP courses to get an idea of what you need to know. If you are still in high-school then taking the AP courses is the best approach.
3) Use community college to breeze through gen-eds. I decided on my final college and picked a community college to take my Gen-Ed classes. (I did it for financial reasons though). Pick the schools and classes so you guarantee a transfer. Then take nothing but gen-ed courses in the community college because they will be really easy. If you are as smart as you think, you might be able to do 2 years of gen-ed classes in 1 year. Most of those community college classes will be designed for slackers.
4) Grow up. Those gen-ed courses are actually some of the best parts of college. I am a geek to the core, but I loved discussing Descartes' meditations, studying economics, learning how the eye communicates images to the brain, and debugging why various wars started. If you think you can survive in the world knowing only what is in the computer you will be unable to accurately measure the world around you and efficiently apply what you have learned to your field. You won't be young forever so at some point you will wake-up and realize you aren't the best of the best of the best anymore, and you will want your niche in the real world. Computers are a tool - a means. True success requires more than just the means (your C.S.) to fulfill.
I wasn't actually aware that it expires and is renewed each year. Should I be getting some kind of notice about that? They bill me monthly so I don't see a start/end date on the coverage period other than the billing period. I suppose that means they could cancel me on a monthly basis if they wanted to. Thanks for bringing that up. Food for thought.
I wasn't arguing one way or another on that issue. But I am curious: please explain.
So it sounds like only trademark owners can purchase a TLD. That seems like the exact mirror opposite of how it should work. Instead of making the purchaser prove that they own the trademark in order to get a TLD, they should prove that they are completely unaffiliated with any of the trademark owners. That basically solves all the problems people are bringing up.
For example: who gets .Apple? Apple music? Apple computers? Apple growers? Apple aficionados? How about none of them get it. Better: You can't register any TLD that has a trademark on it.
So instead you could have apple.com, apple.computers, apple.music, apple.growers, apple.eaters. That preserves the hierarchical nature of TLDs.
All words are foreign to someone.
But, if you have ever seen what even basic healthcare costs in the U.S., you will realize this is impractical for anyone who isn't Bill Gates
This is not always so.
My wife and I have been self employed for years and both pay for our own health care. I now work for a Fortune 500 company, and we still stay with our individual plans because they are cheaper. Here is the key difference: Companies provide high-end health care, while individual care has more gradations. My employer's healthcare has a $100 deductible, a low co-pay, and pays for every random doctor visit, dental appointment, or band-aid. My individual coverage has $1000 deductible but an out-of-pocket maximum. So it doesn't cover well visits, dental appointments, band-aids, and I have a $10 co-pay. But it does cover me if I get in an accident or have cancer. Isn't *that* what insurance is for?
The difference in the premiums pays for that $1000 deductible by the end of the year. Employer-sponsored health care is very expensive because they cannot vary the cost based on your age, demographics, life-style, etc. They do not require a check-up to get the insurance, and sometimes they have to cover pre-existing conditions. So the insurance companies are stuck with whoever they get, so they charge more for those plans.
Do not read this article, it makes C++0x look bad by giving terrible examples of the new features. Even features I've been excited about look stupid after reading this. The article shows how *not* to use a lambda expression. A regular for loop would be better here. Using "auto" on int and long does work, but defeats the purpose. The second example of auto doesn't even make sense since it doesn't actually include the word auto. It should be something more like: auto ci=vi.begin();
Just ignore this and go to Wikipedia or Google.
I am confused by the article. It could mean one of two very different things:
1) The states passed laws requiring the corporations to cut their emissions even further than what the EPA required. The companies did not comply so the states sued. The Supreme Court ruled that the state laws do not trump the federal law, so they cannot be enforced.
-- OR --
2) The states sued the companies for damages, even though the companies complied with the federal law.
The implications are very different. The first one would surprise me: it seems like a states rights issue. States often times impose local environmental restrictions that may be beyond the federal requirements. If it was the latter, then I am not surprised. This happens all the time with anything where there is any form of regulation or standard practice. If the entity is following the regulation or best practice, they are generally immune from suits. Ex: Suppose a boat captain requires everyone to wear a life jacket, properly maintains the boat according to all the rules, has coast guard inspections, training, certificates, etc.... the captain is probably not liable if the boat catches fire and kills someone . Often times the regulatory body gets sued instead. In the above example, the coast guard may be sued for having lax rules.
Not so. Civil suits are not bound by whether or not the activity is legal. They are bound by the ability to prove damages. It is legal to throw rocks, but if you damage my car when doing so I can sue you for the damage.
Formats also should not be patented. Back in 2000, I worked for a company that tried to patent their particular XML schema to prevent a competitor from making a product that consumed the same schema. The patent filing was written so broadly that even the developers of the format could not recognize it. Fortunately, the patent filing was rejected and the company gave up. If I had my name on that monstrosity it would haunt me.
My apologies - now I can't recall where I read that.
From what I can tell, the preponderance of research out there indicates that corn ethanol is not viable. At this point, the USDA report is in question since all the others agree. They are also the only one who has a potential bias. Obviously the subsidies benefit the US agriculture lobby (albeit indirectly). At this point, the burden of proof goes to proving their numbers, not disproving everyone else's.
Now I'm confused. I've read countless articles from reliable sources explaining how and why ethanol is either energy negative, or close enough to be useless. A quick Google search gives so many articles, all of which agree, that it isn't worth listing any individual ones. Many speculate that it could be viable in the future though. So why do the USDA numbers disagree with every other scientific journal out there? And your claim goes another step further claiming that it is energy positive, but that it does not impact the corn feedstocks and it did not account for the rise in corn prices. This would be wonderful if true, and would change my stance on the issue.
For now, I can't change my stance based on a single source that disagrees with the vast majority. I speculate that the USDA figures are self-serving since they do have a conflict of interest, but that would be disturbing since their job is to evaluate these types of things to make policy.
I am curious what your thoughts on this are. You started the post pointing out that the discussion is "uneducated" and citing a source - that's great. Now can you explain why that source disagrees with everyone else? That would certainly make me more open to changing my mind, for what that is worth.