Reasonable alternatives would not be priced at $27 a pop
whoa. Home depot has Cree (excellent brand) LEDs, 60w equivalent (800 lumens, 25k hours) for about $13.00 -- that's half what you're assuming. You can get them for even less if you buy them a 1/2 dozen at a time. And they will save you a LOT of money as compared to an incandescent, and a reasonable amount compared to a CFL.
We went to all CFLs here (large home, lots of lights) a few years ago, went through the usual spate of infant mortality problems and finally ended up with an installed set that were dependable after spending WAY more than we planned on replacement CFLs. When home depot hit $13/LED-bulb, we began to replace those CFLs with Cree LEDs. No dead ones yet, they're all working fine and output is steady. They can be dimmed. Zero RFI. Great color, too. There's one over my desk as I type this. We expect to have the entire house done other than speciality lights by the end of 2014.
The numbers are highly compelling: Any geek who hasn't actually looked at the cost savings should be ashamed. If for no other reason than you can use that money for something else, but the environmental issues are significant, not to mention it's really nice not to have to worry about changing bulbs all the time.
They argue that if the new ones really are so good, people will buy them on their own without being forced to do so."
This assumes that the consumers will make smart choices with regard to the value of money now, and the value of money in the future. Looking at the use of credit cards in the USA, it is blindingly obvious that consumers do not make smart choices in this way.
I'm not a fan of legislating things off the shelves, but the argument that good products will succeed just because they're good, especially when the goodness drizzles in over some long time period... that's just not going to fly.
we simply are not allowed to swear out warrants or make arrests in Pakistan
JFC. I don't give the south end of a northbound horse what happens in Pakistan. Further, we have NO AUTHORITY to interfere with, or monitor, what happens in Pakistan, any more than the Pakistanis have authority to interfere with or monitor what happens here. But when something happens here, that's when our various apparatus should swing into action.
clandestine surveillance (since US constitutional protections don't apply there).
No, the laws of the invaded country apply there, and one hopes they hang the malefactor when they catch them.
The constitution doesn't work. Specifically because there is no penalty for the legislators and judges who violate its terms -- and their oaths. This has led directly to such legislative absurdisms as "intrastate" effectively becoming "interstate", the implementation of ex post facto laws where punishments are increased retroactively, the almost complete subversion of the 2nd and 4th amendments (among others), and the usurpation of article three powers by the judiciary.
Without completely honorable legislators and judges (and that's not going to happen, power attracts the dishonest like crap attracts flies), the only constitution that will work is one that has the teeth to keep the greedy and power-mad in line. Until or unless we can get to such a constitution, things are going to continue to go downhill just as rapidly. Or in other words, you're wasting your time.
This means nuns and monks were or should be very learned.
No, it doesn't. No amount of studying bogus superstition will make you "learned" about anything but bogus superstition. Further, within the environment of the church, the roles of monks and nuns were (and remain) very different; and even beyond that, the education they received was very different based on sex. Again, you're oversimplifying and that's leading you to blase, naive conclusions.
Should men call that chauvinism or backwards feminism?
In fact, if women were truly wired better for this, men would not have been able to do anything about it.
By and large, men are physically more powerful -- by a very large margin. Over the vast majority of history, that physical power has been both a key factor in survival, making the male indispensable to the household, and consequently a means to dominate the family unit that could not be excised -- at the same time, it isn't something that depends upon superior cognitive function.
It is only (very) recently that females have become broadly able to support a household without benefit of a male presence. If women are to dominate due to any particular cognitive advantage, they've only just entered the race and it'll most likely be some time yet before we see the results, both due to cultural inertia and learning curves.
There's no telling what women may be capable of as yet in terms of exceeding male performance; they've barely had a few decades to try things on, and they're still being held back by religion, chauvinism, and the divisive backwards ride that sexual-role focused feminism took them on.
Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells.
There is no SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS let a (very bad) state decision stand. Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states. Federal taxes are bad enough (for their over-reach and the incredible misuses the money is put to and the inability of the citizen to have actual effective representation in any tax matter) but add my state wanting new highways and taxing your purchase in your state to enable that, or any variation thereto... now you have well and truly screwed the pooch.
We (here in the USA) already had a mechanism to reign in the bad actors. It's called probable cause, which in turn is used to get a warrant, which then enables examination of the thing in question, and subsequent action if indeed the cause is found to be as described.
This whole "look at everyone all the time" is a blatant fishing expedition implemented by unauthorized government legislators in violation of their oaths to the constitution.
And frankly -- if the "harm" done by the "bad actors" is so subtle that one can't even find it -- then I question if it is all that much harm after all. I *really* question if it's enough harm to justify screwing everyone else in the nation over and over again.
Reminds me (very much) of the harm done by smoking a joint. No one finds out? No harm done. Government finds out? Lives are ruined. Where's the harm? Out of control government, that's where.
If the reporting threshold is arbitrary based on suspicion
No. The reporting threshold is completely arbitrary, based upon gross violation of the 4th amendment. Also, purest bullshit including save the children, drug war, "terrists", and so forth. Same with every other government invasion of your papers and finances without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and backed by a judicially issued warrant.
But hey. It's the US government. Totally out of control, far outside the bounds of legitimate authorization, and way, way more powerful than anyone else. And willing to prove it. On your ass.
Coming soon to a laptop near you: Newton recognition (fig model for initial release, apricot and whole grain planned with kickstarter funding, if whoever (now) holds the rights to Commodore's IP releases the rights to "kickstart" in time.)
Well, It was impressive to me how the claim that SSL "work really well" was dropped as if it was actually the truth. Obviously truth is not a concern for you. That's ok. I'm not looking to change any dug-in mindsets.
The flaws of SSL are well-known, but the fact is that in practice it mostly works really well
The flaws of SSL are well-known, but the fact is that [the system cripples those who object] really well [via a conspiracy among browser authorship implementing bogus scare-the-user dialogs for perfectly normal implementations of SSL]
So what's the point of a different Facebook if it's not libre?
How about a "different Facebook" where they didn't censor the things you write and post, but instead, your content is judged, and viewed (or not viewed) based on the opinions of those you've invited to share your pages? How about a "different Facebook" where anyone can join? How about a "different Facebook" where you can cleanly choose ads, or paid presence? How about a "different Facebook" where you control how your personal information is accessed, instead of having control assumed by the social network?
Your focus on "libre" is incomprehensible to me. Of all the myriad things wrong with Facebook -- and by that I mean things directly harmful to its users and potential users, and unchangeable by them -- "libre" is far down any list ranked by importance.
Well, first of all, they grew. They started out little, and they got bigger. One stopped growing at 6'5". So clothes that used to fit, eventually didn't. That happened over and over again, one kid after another. It's not the same as clothing an adult, where your sizes and self-image remain (relatively) static. Second, kids are sensitive to fashion. To a kid, it makes a difference, generally speaking, if they go to school in clothing their peers find easy to mock and otherwise use as a lever to separate them from the herd, which in turn causes social discomfort and which in turn again, can affect learning. My kids played sports. Uniforms, etc. Skates. Helmets. Then there were dances, proms, drama events, letter jackets, sunglasses, hats, bathing suits... It goes on and on. Sure, you can dress a kid for $200/year. Is that what's best for them? I sincerely doubt it. Not in this country, anyway. No, under average circumstances, kids are going to require quite a bit more to clothe (and then there are doctors, food, medication, time off, child care... nope, you're not going to get away cheap if you spawn.)
Clothing, frequently cheap because of second-hand, but another $200 a year is not uncommon, so $3600 total.
ha. ha hah. hah hah hah hah. [chokes] $200/year. Brother, you're lucky to get off with $200 per visit to the store (and that's assuming you're not buying shoes, roller/ice skates, uniforms, hats, sunglasses, prom/special occasion wear, etc.)
I've actually raised kids. Five of 'em. The pressures they are under to dress in particular ways come right home with them, and if you won't or can't respond to those pressures, your kids will catch the social short end every time. It may not be "right", but it's a fact.
but skepticism because of the font is understandable
No. It isn't. It's an insanely trivial matter of absolutely no merit.
Justice is about facts and the most fact-related evaluation of guilt possible. Making judgements based on a font is sheer incompetence unless the font is so unreadable as to make reading impossible. And in which case the reaction needs to be "prepare this again, this time using a font I can read" and nothing else.
maybe reassignment on appeal is reasonable.
Firing the hearing officer would also be eminently reasonable, as would formally re-evaluating every judgement they've made in pursuit of their job. Due to the profoundly obvious fact that said hearing officer is an incompetent boob who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near decisions that affect other people's lives.
And frankly, if slashdot would allow me to, I'd have written this entire post in comic sans.
Game's still not even. They can rendition you, beat you silly with a pipe wrench, waterboard you, electrify your genitals, etc. You may not return from this little exercise, either. If they don't want to go to that much effort, they can simply charge you with any one of a huge variety of crimes you may or may not have committed, and then use jail (or release from jail) as leverage to ensure you go back to behaving in such a manner as pleases them, in the process ruining you financially almost as an afterthought.
It's all about power. They have it. Oodles and oodles of it. You don't have any. As long as that situation remains stable, you can't fix this.
Slashdot Mirror
whoa. Home depot has Cree (excellent brand) LEDs, 60w equivalent (800 lumens, 25k hours) for about $13.00 -- that's half what you're assuming. You can get them for even less if you buy them a 1/2 dozen at a time. And they will save you a LOT of money as compared to an incandescent, and a reasonable amount compared to a CFL.
We went to all CFLs here (large home, lots of lights) a few years ago, went through the usual spate of infant mortality problems and finally ended up with an installed set that were dependable after spending WAY more than we planned on replacement CFLs. When home depot hit $13/LED-bulb, we began to replace those CFLs with Cree LEDs. No dead ones yet, they're all working fine and output is steady. They can be dimmed. Zero RFI. Great color, too. There's one over my desk as I type this. We expect to have the entire house done other than speciality lights by the end of 2014.
The numbers are highly compelling: Any geek who hasn't actually looked at the cost savings should be ashamed. If for no other reason than you can use that money for something else, but the environmental issues are significant, not to mention it's really nice not to have to worry about changing bulbs all the time.
This assumes that the consumers will make smart choices with regard to the value of money now, and the value of money in the future. Looking at the use of credit cards in the USA, it is blindingly obvious that consumers do not make smart choices in this way.
I'm not a fan of legislating things off the shelves, but the argument that good products will succeed just because they're good, especially when the goodness drizzles in over some long time period... that's just not going to fly.
By one person. One time. After which, distribution of that expertise in the form of software is relatively trivial.
JFC. I don't give the south end of a northbound horse what happens in Pakistan. Further, we have NO AUTHORITY to interfere with, or monitor, what happens in Pakistan, any more than the Pakistanis have authority to interfere with or monitor what happens here. But when something happens here, that's when our various apparatus should swing into action.
No, the laws of the invaded country apply there, and one hopes they hang the malefactor when they catch them.
The constitution doesn't work. Specifically because there is no penalty for the legislators and judges who violate its terms -- and their oaths. This has led directly to such legislative absurdisms as "intrastate" effectively becoming "interstate", the implementation of ex post facto laws where punishments are increased retroactively, the almost complete subversion of the 2nd and 4th amendments (among others), and the usurpation of article three powers by the judiciary.
Without completely honorable legislators and judges (and that's not going to happen, power attracts the dishonest like crap attracts flies), the only constitution that will work is one that has the teeth to keep the greedy and power-mad in line. Until or unless we can get to such a constitution, things are going to continue to go downhill just as rapidly. Or in other words, you're wasting your time.
No, it doesn't. No amount of studying bogus superstition will make you "learned" about anything but bogus superstition. Further, within the environment of the church, the roles of monks and nuns were (and remain) very different; and even beyond that, the education they received was very different based on sex. Again, you're oversimplifying and that's leading you to blase, naive conclusions.
Men should call that "a trap."
By and large, men are physically more powerful -- by a very large margin. Over the vast majority of history, that physical power has been both a key factor in survival, making the male indispensable to the household, and consequently a means to dominate the family unit that could not be excised -- at the same time, it isn't something that depends upon superior cognitive function.
It is only (very) recently that females have become broadly able to support a household without benefit of a male presence. If women are to dominate due to any particular cognitive advantage, they've only just entered the race and it'll most likely be some time yet before we see the results, both due to cultural inertia and learning curves.
There's no telling what women may be capable of as yet in terms of exceeding male performance; they've barely had a few decades to try things on, and they're still being held back by religion, chauvinism, and the divisive backwards ride that sexual-role focused feminism took them on.
There is no SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS let a (very bad) state decision stand. Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states. Federal taxes are bad enough (for their over-reach and the incredible misuses the money is put to and the inability of the citizen to have actual effective representation in any tax matter) but add my state wanting new highways and taxing your purchase in your state to enable that, or any variation thereto... now you have well and truly screwed the pooch.
We (here in the USA) already had a mechanism to reign in the bad actors. It's called probable cause, which in turn is used to get a warrant, which then enables examination of the thing in question, and subsequent action if indeed the cause is found to be as described.
This whole "look at everyone all the time" is a blatant fishing expedition implemented by unauthorized government legislators in violation of their oaths to the constitution.
And frankly -- if the "harm" done by the "bad actors" is so subtle that one can't even find it -- then I question if it is all that much harm after all. I *really* question if it's enough harm to justify screwing everyone else in the nation over and over again.
Reminds me (very much) of the harm done by smoking a joint. No one finds out? No harm done. Government finds out? Lives are ruined. Where's the harm? Out of control government, that's where.
No. The reporting threshold is completely arbitrary, based upon gross violation of the 4th amendment. Also, purest bullshit including save the children, drug war, "terrists", and so forth. Same with every other government invasion of your papers and finances without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and backed by a judicially issued warrant.
But hey. It's the US government. Totally out of control, far outside the bounds of legitimate authorization, and way, way more powerful than anyone else. And willing to prove it. On your ass.
SCOTUS fails to act against government's financial overreach! We could NEVER have predicted THIS!
Coming soon to a laptop near you: Newton recognition (fig model for initial release, apricot and whole grain planned with kickstarter funding, if whoever (now) holds the rights to Commodore's IP releases the rights to "kickstart" in time.)
You mean, your palms. No reason they can't take an interest in the *rest* of your hands.
You'll feel better if you get some tail.
RIMSHOT
Nav system was using meters. Navigator was using feet.
So, every hair color looks crazy to outsiders. Including bald.
Wait, what?
Oh, right. It's that whole (lack_of_belief IS_NOT_EQUAL_TO any_superstition) thing again.
XKCD has the last word on this subject
Well, It was impressive to me how the claim that SSL "work really well" was dropped as if it was actually the truth. Obviously truth is not a concern for you. That's ok. I'm not looking to change any dug-in mindsets.
The flaws of SSL are well-known, but the fact is that [the system cripples those who object] really well [via a conspiracy among browser authorship implementing bogus scare-the-user dialogs for perfectly normal implementations of SSL]
FTFY.
How about a "different Facebook" where they didn't censor the things you write and post, but instead, your content is judged, and viewed (or not viewed) based on the opinions of those you've invited to share your pages? How about a "different Facebook" where anyone can join? How about a "different Facebook" where you can cleanly choose ads, or paid presence? How about a "different Facebook" where you control how your personal information is accessed, instead of having control assumed by the social network?
Your focus on "libre" is incomprehensible to me. Of all the myriad things wrong with Facebook -- and by that I mean things directly harmful to its users and potential users, and unchangeable by them -- "libre" is far down any list ranked by importance.
Well, first of all, they grew. They started out little, and they got bigger. One stopped growing at 6'5". So clothes that used to fit, eventually didn't. That happened over and over again, one kid after another. It's not the same as clothing an adult, where your sizes and self-image remain (relatively) static. Second, kids are sensitive to fashion. To a kid, it makes a difference, generally speaking, if they go to school in clothing their peers find easy to mock and otherwise use as a lever to separate them from the herd, which in turn causes social discomfort and which in turn again, can affect learning. My kids played sports. Uniforms, etc. Skates. Helmets. Then there were dances, proms, drama events, letter jackets, sunglasses, hats, bathing suits... It goes on and on. Sure, you can dress a kid for $200/year. Is that what's best for them? I sincerely doubt it. Not in this country, anyway. No, under average circumstances, kids are going to require quite a bit more to clothe (and then there are doctors, food, medication, time off, child care... nope, you're not going to get away cheap if you spawn.)
ha. ha hah. hah hah hah hah. [chokes] $200/year. Brother, you're lucky to get off with $200 per visit to the store (and that's assuming you're not buying shoes, roller/ice skates, uniforms, hats, sunglasses, prom/special occasion wear, etc.)
I've actually raised kids. Five of 'em. The pressures they are under to dress in particular ways come right home with them, and if you won't or can't respond to those pressures, your kids will catch the social short end every time. It may not be "right", but it's a fact.
No. It isn't. It's an insanely trivial matter of absolutely no merit.
Justice is about facts and the most fact-related evaluation of guilt possible. Making judgements based on a font is sheer incompetence unless the font is so unreadable as to make reading impossible. And in which case the reaction needs to be "prepare this again, this time using a font I can read" and nothing else.
Firing the hearing officer would also be eminently reasonable, as would formally re-evaluating every judgement they've made in pursuit of their job. Due to the profoundly obvious fact that said hearing officer is an incompetent boob who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near decisions that affect other people's lives.
And frankly, if slashdot would allow me to, I'd have written this entire post in comic sans.
Game's still not even. They can rendition you, beat you silly with a pipe wrench, waterboard you, electrify your genitals, etc. You may not return from this little exercise, either. If they don't want to go to that much effort, they can simply charge you with any one of a huge variety of crimes you may or may not have committed, and then use jail (or release from jail) as leverage to ensure you go back to behaving in such a manner as pleases them, in the process ruining you financially almost as an afterthought.
It's all about power. They have it. Oodles and oodles of it. You don't have any. As long as that situation remains stable, you can't fix this.