The Australian court system isn't crooked and corrupt, so what's the problem with having the trial in Australia under Australian law?
That is precisely the problem. How would we violate Australian citizen's constitutional rights (and make no mistake, our constitution does apply those rights to their citizens) if the trial were to take place in Australia? It is critical that the trial be held here so that we can bring to bear any of our ex post facto, section one, or 1st, 2nd and 4th to 10th amendment rights tramplings. Do they think it's easy taking people's rights away? Our congress critters work night and day to ensure that the Australian people have equal opportunity to be abused. It takes treaties, payola, and more. Australians should thank the corporations that see to it that our congress critters are elected. Those... those ungrateful wretches.
I would like to formally request that you vacate the house that is impinging upon my root system, and subsequently, remove the house as well. Also stop breathing the air that I make and restrain your jackassed kids from carving things into my bark.
Ok, that's twice. Please accept a little help: "Site" means "location." Web site, drill site, construction site. "Cite" means to quote, praise, or summon. In this case you want "the evidence that you cite" as in "quote."
Not everyone can attend a performance for a number of reasons.
That doesn't mean that it follows that they should get to enjoy them anyway. Not everyone can own or use a yacht, either. Sometimes we just have to say it's out of our league.
I am too. I said society should bear the cost. Not the government. I meant to imply that perhaps the charging for recordings of live or studio entertainment isn't something we should support as a business model; this disenfranchises the entrenched interests such as the RIAA, but I believe their window has closed in any case, and the current copyright model is just beating a dead horse. Anyone can put a studio together in their basement.
Believe me, I know; I am a musician and I own a music studio, less than ten year old equipment and infrastructure capitalization at well over two million dollars, and I have astoundingly good equipment at home that didn't even run $2500.00; You can put the essence of 24-track recording on your desktop for under a grand by tomorrow. Just go to Musician's Friend or American Musical Supply and take a look at the Korg, Tascam and Yamaha recording products.
This means that the only remaining scarcity resides in performance. If a band chooses to perform in the studio, they are essentially giving away that performance. Not by law, not by intent, but nonetheless, in fact, they are. This was an inherent problem for recorded entertainment when studios cost what mine did, but those times are gone. Now the problem, if you can call it that, is that the niche the middlemen carved out - recording, mastering, replication - has closed just as surely as the niche for the horse carriage vanished with the advent of cars.
The implications for the film industry are quite serious; it may not survive in the form we know it today. Perhaps advertiser sponsoring via a television-like medium is all that is practical now.
No. That's not feedback. That's just choosing a different party-selected, pre-qualified person to provide the precise same service to industry. Wouldn't change a thing. See this post.
Voting at the congressional selection level is completely without effect upon that portion of the legal system that provides the working legislation for industry.
Quite the contrary, in many cases adequate food and housing is provided by the government for free to the student; we pay, they don't. Often, discounts are provided by the institution. Sometimes private individuals and companies provide outright grants. In other cases, there are loans. The bottom line is that yes, we do provide for learning, we do allow relief from cost, and we do have a stake in how well that course is pursued. In fact, the better the student does, the more likely we are to give them their education for free. Scholarships, etc.
...quite a social damper can be put on by a remark such as "yeah, I've heard/seen that tons of times... got anything new?"
For little kids, I think your argument has merit. They don't know if what they are seeing is "old", they just know if it is entertaining. Unfortunately, with socialization comes competition, and that means chasing the leading edge as they hit the age where brands, labels, and fashion matter. Just my opinion, but I think you'll find I'm not too far off the mark.
The privilege can be taken away at the whim of a plurality of the citizens.
No. Only congress can do that, and congress doesn't respond to the input of the citizens, it responds to the input of industry. Who will most certainly not encourage congress to remove said privilege.
And not having free music hurts the college students in what way?
Without arguing with you directly, I still think it is safe to say that state of mind affects how much, and how well, one learns. There are more ways to affect state of mind than music, but then again, that doesn't mean that music won't serve.
I think if all of a sudden, works from 10-20 or even 50 years ago were suddenly fair game to do with what we please, there would be an explosion of creativity.
Going a little further, if copyrights and patents were discarded altogether, you'd very likely see an even greater explosion of creativity - the renaissance wasn't impeded in the least by the lack of IP law, that's for certain. Nor has the lack of immediate profit stopped the authors of linux, the gimp, apache, postgresql, vi, or any of the myriad inventions that come out of universities.
However, as industry controls the lawmaking process, you're not going to see any such thing.
If copyright expired after 5 or 10 years, they could download legal movies and TV shows made recently enough to be culturally relevent
I really don't think that "culturally relevant" means the same thing to you as it does to your average young person. They want the latest and greatest; even if they didn't, marketing does its best to see that they do. It takes many years to develop the patience required to say "I'll see that in five years, when it is cheap / on my preferred format / part of a collection that includes the entire series." Much less something abstract and not of personal immediate benefit like becoming free of copyright. So much so that I can honestly say I've only met a couple of people like that in my entire lifetime (and I am 50+.) When something new, and apparently exciting (you've not seen or heard it, so how can you be sure?) comes out, the inclination is to go after it. New and exciting means, in this context at least, "culturally relevant."
Congress is a product of a process controlled by the political parties. The political parties are in turn controlled by monied and powerful interests who let the parties know who they will back, and who they will not. The parties pick from candidates that can get backing, of course, otherwise they will be picking candidates who cannot advertise, campaign and travel freely - in other words, losing candidates. Once acceptable candidates are chosen, then they let the people vote on which one of these hand-picked people is to continue in the (very, very expensive) process. Once elected, carrying out any promises made during the political campaign is strictly optional.
In this way, congress (and the senate, and the presidency) end up being 100% made up of people selected by those same monied and powerful interests. "the people" do not control the type of person, or the obligations of that person. Once in power, the usual currency of politics - being supported to run again by the party, junkets, "fact-finding" trips, dinners, appointments to powerful committees, visits to the white house, campaign contributions, rubbing elbows with the powerful, pork for their district, commitments for speaking engagements, returning as a lobbyist, employment at a think tank, tips on everything from stocks to escorts - these, and more, are the "currency" of "elected" government service. It also doesn't hurt to remember Orwell's assertion that "the purpose of power - is power."
Aside from those people, there is a vast army of unelected, but very powerful individuals who manipulate our daily lives with absolutely no requirement to, or evidence of electing to, pay any attention to public input. Not that such input is lacking; they just don't listen. Examples abound; the FCC with its censorship and pandering to the rich for broadcast (broadcast speech belongs to the rich - period), the FDA with its holding back of therapies even to those who are about to die, the US park service which takes homes from people by force (eminent domain), the Supreme Court, with its topsy-turvy interpretation of the commerce clause, disingenuous support for ex post facto laws, craven ducking of the religion issue, and of course, just generally trampling the constitution left and right. And of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
So when you talk about the government - any of it - as being "the people" - you're speaking of a situation that doesn't exist in the United States of America. Our federal and state governments are operating broadly outside the bounds of its constituting authority, within a cycle that is entirely controlled by special interests who have money and power. There are absolutely no signs that this situation is going to change. In the specific case of music and video, the people have already made it quite clear what they want, and they are being roundly ignored by government. Business is showing some movement because their hand is being forced, but legislatively speaking, it is only getting worse on all fronts - patents, copyrights and IP law in general. These laws are not made to benefit the people, and sure enough, they generally don't. As soon as you look to see how they benefit industry, however, the light will begin to dawn.
You may wonder why free speech is allowed with a government gone so catastrophically wrong. The answer is simple: It is far better for them to let you vent than it is have you smolder and suddenly show up on some politician's doorstep with what used to be your second amendment rights in hand. Between that and making sure you achieve a general level of complacency, while being distracted by the current round of boogymen (Terrorists! Pedophiles! Immigrants! Global Warming!), they can keep the population from getting out of hand, even as they trample constitutional rights, engage in broad repression of personal, victimless choices, and pursue military adventures on sovereign foreign soil for the benefit of industry.
If you think that NeoOffice runs fine on your Powerbook G4, then you are either more patient than I, or you are not being honest with yourself. I mean, I can sit there watch the text from a freshly opened Writer document redraw, sometimes two or three times. Scrolling is slow, and halting.
So I have a question about your laptop; I apologize in advance if you've already posted this. How much memory do you have in it? OSX, like every swapping OS I've ever encountered, slows down a lot when there isn't enough memory. I have a 1.42 GHz G4 Mac mini with a gig of RAM, and Neo doesn't fall behind my typing or anything remotely like that. If you've got lots of RAM, how about concurrent applications - got anything you usually run that is a memory eater?
This experience has led me to real-word realization that most of what passes for law is just bullshit designed to keep someone rich.
...another function is to maintain a powerbase, partially religious, partially straight power. Sorry to hear you were a direct victim of the war against personal liberty.
"I don't steal"... I do copy software. I do it at work if it can improve my personal productivity... Ditto my graphics image processing software.
what kind of power bills do get and what part of the country are you in?
We're in northeast Montana, out in a region the USGS classifies as "desert", though the residents like to call it "high plains." This particular building is in the middle of a (very) small town. Power bills aren't an issue — what can be made efficient without annoyance has been, we put in a new high efficiency furnace, demand water heating, and a ground source heating/cooling system. The building itself (an old church which we rehabilitated) has been insulated to a fare-thee-well. My concern is getting off grid in a reliable way. I'm tired of dealing with power outages and brownouts, which sometimes come 2-3x a week in the summer. They're hard on everything, as well as inconvenient.
PV seems to me to be kind of a problem because we have serious hail (golf-ball and sometimes larger) every few years, as well as fairly high winds (plains thunderstorms.) I have the distinct impression these things would be very tough on PV panels, or at least the ones I've looked at thus far. Have to cover them with lexan or something, and making sure the wind couldn't get under the assemblies would be a big deal, too.
Water heating would be easy, the units are very tough, very heavy, and we've got tons of roof space oriented east/west... but as I've already got a great demand system so the need just isn't there.
The rules are there for several valid reasons. Not the least of which is to cut down on sex between enlisted members (as well as rape).
You know what? That is one of the most nonsensical answers I have ever gotten on slashdot. As if some gay fellow is going to RAPE a hetero guy in a group made of a majority of heteros. You know how those gay guys are, they'll just rape anything is sight, because, um, because they're GAY! Yeah, I'm sure that'd happen. Not. The sex thing isn't very sensible, either, as most guys are hetero and there are plenty of women in the army, sometimes in very close quarters indeed. That hasn't wrecked the army, nor has the presence of females on warships, in aircraft, and so on.
how do you think a straight man would react to a gay man leering at him sexually while in the showers? Why he'd kill him of course.
Well, speaking as a straight man, I'd react by saying "sorry, don't swing that way, but thanks for the complement." Kill him, eh? That's not what a "straight" guy would do, that's what a fucking moron bonehead who (a) couldn't follow orders and (b) is WAY too irresponsible to be in any armed force and (c) should NEVER be in control of a weapon, would do. You should react the same way as you would if some chick you weren't interested in looked at you in the shower. Anything else just shows you're a sick puppy and should be discharged forthwith. As if some person looking at your body did you any harm. How backwoods moronic.
They don't bunk male and female members together for the same reasons. You have a bunch of very young men at the height of their sexuality. It's a powderkeg
If this was a real problem - which of course it isn't, there's nothing wrong with sex - the answer would obviously be, bunk the gays with the gays. But the real problem underlying all this is that the military is trying to regulate sexuality, and of course, they can't. Tons of sex goes on between members, and between members and non-members. Including gay sex. Aside from trying to regulate it, they're trying to define it as hetero OK, other not, and that's not going to make sense no matter how long they keep the rules in place. They're stupid rules, made by stupid, small minded people.
What if the gay men outnumbered the straight men in a unit? Possible Rape situation.
For crying out loud. Do you have a head injury? I'm looking for some excuse for your 16th-century witch burning behavior, but you're not making it easy!
One more thing: There are plenty of closeted gays in the military. They're closeted because of these stupid, stupid attitudes. So you can count on the fact that gays are looking at straights in the shower; but... no rapes! Think that through, if you can. I know it's a challenge.
As for the peter principle, well in war time militaries, peter gets shot and dies. Peter only survies in peacetime militaries.
Nah. Peter becomes a REMF and pushes paper, not getting the soldier the resources needed to do the soldier's job on time, in the correct quantity, or even the right supplies. Or making dimwitted rules about sexuality, or piling Iraqis into a naked heap and taking pictures of them. Remember: the support ratio is about 10 people behind the lines for every warm body out there ducking ordinance. That's 10:1 in favor of people rising to the level of their incompetence. Pretty good odds. It's always like that. We saw it without cease in Vietnam, and I would be very surprised if it was any different today in Iraq.
You can mod that post troll all you want. Those are all facts, and no amount of politically correct moaning - or modding - will change those facts. Anyone who isn't taken in by the groupthink can check those facts and they'll find they are 100% accurate. The conclusion says "most likely candidate" and that too is a reasonable statement given the facts at hand.
2 kW isn't that much so maybe for my house I need 6 kW
Do you need 6 kw while you sleep? Do you need 6kw while you're at work? If not, that same system might serve to give you 6kw for 8 hours by storing the other 4 kw generated during the 16 or so hours of low duty time periods. Storage makes all the difference in the world. Some people might actually consume 6kw all the time, but that seems like an awful lot. I don't, and I live in a pretty big home with a whole slew of electronic gear.
The whole CO2 thing is just total FUD. Mars is warming just as fast as we are. In the historical record, CO2 lags warming, it doesn't lead it, and no surprise, with the water vapor cycle running at many times the speed of the CO2 cycle and directly tied to temperature, which our current CO2 generation is not. Global warming is real, all right, but it sure as heck isn't CO2 that is causing it. Look up. See that yellow thing? That's a free-running fusion reaction, and it makes a lot of heat at rates that are known to vary, and that is by far the most likely candidate for what is causing the warming we (and mars) are experiencing.
Or 200 10 watt compact florescent bulbs, which is all we use. Not 200 of them, of course. But in a 5000 square foot home, we do have quite a few.
More importantly, that's an average rate, so storage during off hours could yield considerably more output. If you sleep 8 hours of a 24 hour day and aren't home for another 8 while you work, that leaves 8 hours at 6 kilowatts if you control your inactive power consumption decently, and even if you don't, you could still end up with a great deal more than 2KW available to you. Storage also allows for short peak usage (startup of furnace blowers, refrigerator motors, air conditioners and so on... takes a lot more to start most motors than it does to keep them turning, even under load.
I would definitely be willing to make room for a 700 gallon or so tank; I wonder what the feeding, cleaning, and environmental requirements for a production version will be. I've been seriously considering solar, but the high installation cost and the relatively short lifetime of silicon cells (20 years or less) doesn't work out very well. If this thing can run long term and isn't a maintenance nightmare, I'd jump on that puppy instantly.
I know because I submitted one that I carefully checked for accuracy, for proper placement of the linked text, and for spelling and grammar... and the editor who posted it edited my entry to link misleading text instead of the correct text.
Oy. Just when I thought they were relatively harmless.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
That is precisely the problem. How would we violate Australian citizen's constitutional rights (and make no mistake, our constitution does apply those rights to their citizens) if the trial were to take place in Australia? It is critical that the trial be held here so that we can bring to bear any of our ex post facto, section one, or 1st, 2nd and 4th to 10th amendment rights tramplings. Do they think it's easy taking people's rights away? Our congress critters work night and day to ensure that the Australian people have equal opportunity to be abused. It takes treaties, payola, and more. Australians should thank the corporations that see to it that our congress critters are elected. Those... those ungrateful wretches.
I would like to formally request that you vacate the house that is impinging upon my root system, and subsequently, remove the house as well. Also stop breathing the air that I make and restrain your jackassed kids from carving things into my bark.
Sincerely, Tree.
Ok, that's twice. Please accept a little help: "Site" means "location." Web site, drill site, construction site. "Cite" means to quote, praise, or summon. In this case you want "the evidence that you cite" as in "quote."
If the text don't fit, you must delete it!
That doesn't mean that it follows that they should get to enjoy them anyway. Not everyone can own or use a yacht, either. Sometimes we just have to say it's out of our league.
I am too. I said society should bear the cost. Not the government. I meant to imply that perhaps the charging for recordings of live or studio entertainment isn't something we should support as a business model; this disenfranchises the entrenched interests such as the RIAA, but I believe their window has closed in any case, and the current copyright model is just beating a dead horse. Anyone can put a studio together in their basement.
Believe me, I know; I am a musician and I own a music studio, less than ten year old equipment and infrastructure capitalization at well over two million dollars, and I have astoundingly good equipment at home that didn't even run $2500.00; You can put the essence of 24-track recording on your desktop for under a grand by tomorrow. Just go to Musician's Friend or American Musical Supply and take a look at the Korg, Tascam and Yamaha recording products.
This means that the only remaining scarcity resides in performance. If a band chooses to perform in the studio, they are essentially giving away that performance. Not by law, not by intent, but nonetheless, in fact, they are. This was an inherent problem for recorded entertainment when studios cost what mine did, but those times are gone. Now the problem, if you can call it that, is that the niche the middlemen carved out - recording, mastering, replication - has closed just as surely as the niche for the horse carriage vanished with the advent of cars.
The implications for the film industry are quite serious; it may not survive in the form we know it today. Perhaps advertiser sponsoring via a television-like medium is all that is practical now.
That's precisely my point. Perhaps society should bear the cost of media for students.
No. That's not feedback. That's just choosing a different party-selected, pre-qualified person to provide the precise same service to industry. Wouldn't change a thing. See this post.
Voting at the congressional selection level is completely without effect upon that portion of the legal system that provides the working legislation for industry.
Quite the contrary, in many cases adequate food and housing is provided by the government for free to the student; we pay, they don't. Often, discounts are provided by the institution. Sometimes private individuals and companies provide outright grants. In other cases, there are loans. The bottom line is that yes, we do provide for learning, we do allow relief from cost, and we do have a stake in how well that course is pursued. In fact, the better the student does, the more likely we are to give them their education for free. Scholarships, etc.
For little kids, I think your argument has merit. They don't know if what they are seeing is "old", they just know if it is entertaining. Unfortunately, with socialization comes competition, and that means chasing the leading edge as they hit the age where brands, labels, and fashion matter. Just my opinion, but I think you'll find I'm not too far off the mark.
No. Only congress can do that, and congress doesn't respond to the input of the citizens, it responds to the input of industry. Who will most certainly not encourage congress to remove said privilege.
Without arguing with you directly, I still think it is safe to say that state of mind affects how much, and how well, one learns. There are more ways to affect state of mind than music, but then again, that doesn't mean that music won't serve.
Going a little further, if copyrights and patents were discarded altogether, you'd very likely see an even greater explosion of creativity - the renaissance wasn't impeded in the least by the lack of IP law, that's for certain. Nor has the lack of immediate profit stopped the authors of linux, the gimp, apache, postgresql, vi, or any of the myriad inventions that come out of universities.
However, as industry controls the lawmaking process, you're not going to see any such thing.
I really don't think that "culturally relevant" means the same thing to you as it does to your average young person. They want the latest and greatest; even if they didn't, marketing does its best to see that they do. It takes many years to develop the patience required to say "I'll see that in five years, when it is cheap / on my preferred format / part of a collection that includes the entire series." Much less something abstract and not of personal immediate benefit like becoming free of copyright. So much so that I can honestly say I've only met a couple of people like that in my entire lifetime (and I am 50+.) When something new, and apparently exciting (you've not seen or heard it, so how can you be sure?) comes out, the inclination is to go after it. New and exciting means, in this context at least, "culturally relevant."
Congress is a product of a process controlled by the political parties. The political parties are in turn controlled by monied and powerful interests who let the parties know who they will back, and who they will not. The parties pick from candidates that can get backing, of course, otherwise they will be picking candidates who cannot advertise, campaign and travel freely - in other words, losing candidates. Once acceptable candidates are chosen, then they let the people vote on which one of these hand-picked people is to continue in the (very, very expensive) process. Once elected, carrying out any promises made during the political campaign is strictly optional.
In this way, congress (and the senate, and the presidency) end up being 100% made up of people selected by those same monied and powerful interests. "the people" do not control the type of person, or the obligations of that person. Once in power, the usual currency of politics - being supported to run again by the party, junkets, "fact-finding" trips, dinners, appointments to powerful committees, visits to the white house, campaign contributions, rubbing elbows with the powerful, pork for their district, commitments for speaking engagements, returning as a lobbyist, employment at a think tank, tips on everything from stocks to escorts - these, and more, are the "currency" of "elected" government service. It also doesn't hurt to remember Orwell's assertion that "the purpose of power - is power."
Aside from those people, there is a vast army of unelected, but very powerful individuals who manipulate our daily lives with absolutely no requirement to, or evidence of electing to, pay any attention to public input. Not that such input is lacking; they just don't listen. Examples abound; the FCC with its censorship and pandering to the rich for broadcast (broadcast speech belongs to the rich - period), the FDA with its holding back of therapies even to those who are about to die, the US park service which takes homes from people by force (eminent domain), the Supreme Court, with its topsy-turvy interpretation of the commerce clause, disingenuous support for ex post facto laws, craven ducking of the religion issue, and of course, just generally trampling the constitution left and right. And of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
So when you talk about the government - any of it - as being "the people" - you're speaking of a situation that doesn't exist in the United States of America. Our federal and state governments are operating broadly outside the bounds of its constituting authority, within a cycle that is entirely controlled by special interests who have money and power. There are absolutely no signs that this situation is going to change. In the specific case of music and video, the people have already made it quite clear what they want, and they are being roundly ignored by government. Business is showing some movement because their hand is being forced, but legislatively speaking, it is only getting worse on all fronts - patents, copyrights and IP law in general. These laws are not made to benefit the people, and sure enough, they generally don't. As soon as you look to see how they benefit industry, however, the light will begin to dawn.
You may wonder why free speech is allowed with a government gone so catastrophically wrong. The answer is simple: It is far better for them to let you vent than it is have you smolder and suddenly show up on some politician's doorstep with what used to be your second amendment rights in hand. Between that and making sure you achieve a general level of complacency, while being distracted by the current round of boogymen (Terrorists! Pedophiles! Immigrants! Global Warming!), they can keep the population from getting out of hand, even as they trample constitutional rights, engage in broad repression of personal, victimless choices, and pursue military adventures on sovereign foreign soil for the benefit of industry.
So I have a question about your laptop; I apologize in advance if you've already posted this. How much memory do you have in it? OSX, like every swapping OS I've ever encountered, slows down a lot when there isn't enough memory. I have a 1.42 GHz G4 Mac mini with a gig of RAM, and Neo doesn't fall behind my typing or anything remotely like that. If you've got lots of RAM, how about concurrent applications - got anything you usually run that is a memory eater?
You couldn't "steal" ours even if you wanted to, because we refuse to consider you a pirate. :)
Parent: underrated++, insightful++
We're in northeast Montana, out in a region the USGS classifies as "desert", though the residents like to call it "high plains." This particular building is in the middle of a (very) small town. Power bills aren't an issue — what can be made efficient without annoyance has been, we put in a new high efficiency furnace, demand water heating, and a ground source heating/cooling system. The building itself (an old church which we rehabilitated) has been insulated to a fare-thee-well. My concern is getting off grid in a reliable way. I'm tired of dealing with power outages and brownouts, which sometimes come 2-3x a week in the summer. They're hard on everything, as well as inconvenient.
PV seems to me to be kind of a problem because we have serious hail (golf-ball and sometimes larger) every few years, as well as fairly high winds (plains thunderstorms.) I have the distinct impression these things would be very tough on PV panels, or at least the ones I've looked at thus far. Have to cover them with lexan or something, and making sure the wind couldn't get under the assemblies would be a big deal, too.
Water heating would be easy, the units are very tough, very heavy, and we've got tons of roof space oriented east/west... but as I've already got a great demand system so the need just isn't there.
You know what? That is one of the most nonsensical answers I have ever gotten on slashdot. As if some gay fellow is going to RAPE a hetero guy in a group made of a majority of heteros. You know how those gay guys are, they'll just rape anything is sight, because, um, because they're GAY! Yeah, I'm sure that'd happen. Not. The sex thing isn't very sensible, either, as most guys are hetero and there are plenty of women in the army, sometimes in very close quarters indeed. That hasn't wrecked the army, nor has the presence of females on warships, in aircraft, and so on.
Well, speaking as a straight man, I'd react by saying "sorry, don't swing that way, but thanks for the complement." Kill him, eh? That's not what a "straight" guy would do, that's what a fucking moron bonehead who (a) couldn't follow orders and (b) is WAY too irresponsible to be in any armed force and (c) should NEVER be in control of a weapon, would do. You should react the same way as you would if some chick you weren't interested in looked at you in the shower. Anything else just shows you're a sick puppy and should be discharged forthwith. As if some person looking at your body did you any harm. How backwoods moronic.
If this was a real problem - which of course it isn't, there's nothing wrong with sex - the answer would obviously be, bunk the gays with the gays. But the real problem underlying all this is that the military is trying to regulate sexuality, and of course, they can't. Tons of sex goes on between members, and between members and non-members. Including gay sex. Aside from trying to regulate it, they're trying to define it as hetero OK, other not, and that's not going to make sense no matter how long they keep the rules in place. They're stupid rules, made by stupid, small minded people.
For crying out loud. Do you have a head injury? I'm looking for some excuse for your 16th-century witch burning behavior, but you're not making it easy!
One more thing: There are plenty of closeted gays in the military. They're closeted because of these stupid, stupid attitudes. So you can count on the fact that gays are looking at straights in the shower; but... no rapes! Think that through, if you can. I know it's a challenge.
Nah. Peter becomes a REMF and pushes paper, not getting the soldier the resources needed to do the soldier's job on time, in the correct quantity, or even the right supplies. Or making dimwitted rules about sexuality, or piling Iraqis into a naked heap and taking pictures of them. Remember: the support ratio is about 10 people behind the lines for every warm body out there ducking ordinance. That's 10:1 in favor of people rising to the level of their incompetence. Pretty good odds. It's always like that. We saw it without cease in Vietnam, and I would be very surprised if it was any different today in Iraq.
You can mod that post troll all you want. Those are all facts, and no amount of politically correct moaning - or modding - will change those facts. Anyone who isn't taken in by the groupthink can check those facts and they'll find they are 100% accurate. The conclusion says "most likely candidate" and that too is a reasonable statement given the facts at hand.
Do you need 6 kw while you sleep? Do you need 6kw while you're at work? If not, that same system might serve to give you 6kw for 8 hours by storing the other 4 kw generated during the 16 or so hours of low duty time periods. Storage makes all the difference in the world. Some people might actually consume 6kw all the time, but that seems like an awful lot. I don't, and I live in a pretty big home with a whole slew of electronic gear.
The whole CO2 thing is just total FUD. Mars is warming just as fast as we are. In the historical record, CO2 lags warming, it doesn't lead it, and no surprise, with the water vapor cycle running at many times the speed of the CO2 cycle and directly tied to temperature, which our current CO2 generation is not. Global warming is real, all right, but it sure as heck isn't CO2 that is causing it. Look up. See that yellow thing? That's a free-running fusion reaction, and it makes a lot of heat at rates that are known to vary, and that is by far the most likely candidate for what is causing the warming we (and mars) are experiencing.
Or 200 10 watt compact florescent bulbs, which is all we use. Not 200 of them, of course. But in a 5000 square foot home, we do have quite a few.
More importantly, that's an average rate, so storage during off hours could yield considerably more output. If you sleep 8 hours of a 24 hour day and aren't home for another 8 while you work, that leaves 8 hours at 6 kilowatts if you control your inactive power consumption decently, and even if you don't, you could still end up with a great deal more than 2KW available to you. Storage also allows for short peak usage (startup of furnace blowers, refrigerator motors, air conditioners and so on... takes a lot more to start most motors than it does to keep them turning, even under load.
I would definitely be willing to make room for a 700 gallon or so tank; I wonder what the feeding, cleaning, and environmental requirements for a production version will be. I've been seriously considering solar, but the high installation cost and the relatively short lifetime of silicon cells (20 years or less) doesn't work out very well. If this thing can run long term and isn't a maintenance nightmare, I'd jump on that puppy instantly.
Oy. Just when I thought they were relatively harmless. :-/