After Jodie Foster turned down the chance to reprise her Oscar-winning role of Clarice Starling in Hannibal (2001), several actresses were considered for the part - Moore triumphed over such contenders as Helen Hunt, Gillian Anderson and Cate Blanchett
OK last one.
I also don't really see why you bothered to mention my persistence, you are matching it..
I was actually surprised by it, and was admiring it.
if profit can be turned without a subsidy or tariff, that makes the subsidy or tariff more stupid.
Ok, I'll separate it for you. Without the tariff, there is no incentive not to buy ethanol (made from Sugar) from Brazil. With it there is one. That incentive helps start a process which over time refines processing and reduces cost, in the end making it competitive with Brazil when the tariff is lifted.
Opening a processing plant is a rather large investment. If Brazil wanted to bottom the cost of its ethanol substantially to increase its market share, it could make that initial investment seem foolish and that perceived danger is exactly what stops the private sector from investing in it. Subsidies offer a guaranteed bottom price with which you can calculate return on investment at a worst case scenario. Remember it is the Government's stated goal to reduce the dependence on foreign fuel for transportation. Do you have a non "stupid" idea that the government has not been alerted to, I'm sure they would love to hear it. They have decided to bet on many horses to help solve the problem. Hybrid and Electric Vehicle tax breaks and credits, Flex Fuel initiatives and Fuel efficiency standards, R&D, Loans, as well as subsidies and tariffs. (none of it is really enough but all of it is needed, and hardly stupid.) I'm of the opinion that we need more of these programs not less as your original post indicated.
also, why would I spend time on Google when there is apparently somebody who knows where to look?
This is the same excuse my son uses as to why he doesn't look up something. I tell him just because I know something does not automatically give him reason not to find out and verify the information I have. I'm not looking for a partner, so I have no incentive to do your research for you. You have plenty to read just from the few paltry links I sent you to read cross linked articles for the next year (and I hope you do, it really is interesting stuff)
It comes down to this. My other son said it best. If you can cut your lawn and take the clippings and make "gasoline", then why don't we? Well I have and We will.
has cellulosic on the verge of the mainstream(yes, it's two years old, but I am somewhat past a 'quick' google at this point). And on and on.
My you are persistent. Your definition of a quick Google search and mine are obviously different. But I am an engineer and some of my Google searches can last a week or more. Anyway Half a page down results. http://www.switchgrass.nl/photo_gallery.htm
These are comparatively small and that is a good thing.
Great ideas, but will be badly implemented. Trucking in stocks and ethanol out to everywhere. Small Local operations are better in the long run(IMHO). ONSite Production. I could site source after source of reports, studies conclusions of many smart people who have, you know, actually studied this area. But to what end? So you could cite the first 3 links of your Google search. I've already convinced me. and I don't need to reread it all to get the proper URLs to convince you. This thread started with your insistence that "subsidies and tariffs are stupid" and I've tried to explain why that is not so. Obviously I have failed. Pity, I thought I was getting somewhere. Even if the subsidies disappeared tomorrow it still turns a profit. Just not as much as quickly and not as attractive to investors. (They love that Government money)
If products aren't 'worth' what people pay for them, then the whole field of economics is complete nonsense
You were in on the PS3 Pricing meeting weren't you? Or you bought one?
> 'Worth' is obviously subjective as it is perceived value.
In this context $ price is not the only cost. If you reduce all but the $ cost by switching processes but keep the same product "fuel" it is a win-win situation.
I wish you luck, but I will remain skeptical until somebody stands up and announces that they are producing ethanol that is cheaper than gas.
Skepticism is almost always warranted and I applaud you for it. As long as you keep buying that gas that is already blended with 10% ethanol, I don't need you to be convinced. And if you get a FlexFuel E85 Vehicle all the better. Or better yet put this on your Christmas List.
why would vista take forever to move delete (permanently and moving to recycle bin) and copying files. it's not really the operation that's slow but the calculating time remaining stays up forever after the operation is complete and keeps it from starting for a long time? anyone have any ideas
because many handles and processes are working simaltiousely, your hard disk activity is so busy with all processes, so it should need so long time for this, add to this, you need UAC to be on and shows you prompt message for file operations.
Good luck
Ahmed Mahdy | MSDN & TechNet Forums Moderator | Blogs for Microsoft Tech. http://www.ahmed-mahdy.com/
And from Steven in response.
Your statement can be boiled down to:
The O/S is so horribly written and bloated with un-needed features that no matter how fast your computer is it can never possibly process the system calls and manage file handles fast enough for Windows Vista to provide the user with a timely interaction experience.
This is just a smoke and mirrors tactic. Basically, you're making a statement that the person's computer isn't powerful enough to do a simple operation such as a file system table modification (moves and deletes are simply table modifications if they are on the same fixed disk and logical partition), without even asking for hardware specifications. Your argument here is vacuous.
I notice you are the moderator of this forum, do you hold any offical position with Microsoft? Can you tell us concreately what will be done about this issue?
Thank you,
--Steven
Note that the two parties to a trade are always better off after the trade(or they wouldn't do it), so your 'helping the local economy' is a straw man
I submit this is not true in all cases. One party is better off in a trade or they would not engage in it. Turns out most products aren't "worth" what you pay for them. You just happen to require said product. I submit that money spent here is usually re-spent here. Not so with foreign trade. Millions of US dollars into another countries economy may be great for said country, but not necessarily good for the US. When I say local economy I mean really local, city by city. ie. Kentucky Gas from Kentucky Grass is bought by Kentuckians from Kentuckians and re-spent most likely in Kentucky. You see? As opposed to KY citizens sending their hard earned cash overseas or out of state.
I'm not a protectionist by any means, just a realist. If you can grow energy and process to fuel on site, you reduce the cost of the end product by the fuel cost of shipping and trucking (not to mention labor cost of loading unloading) it all over the world. This has cost benefits outweighing any trade arguments.
Do you somehow think that I would not prefer secure, cheap, renewable and efficient energy production?
I believe you stated, hold on let me copy paste here: I want cheap fuel, mkay. I don't give a fuck where it comes from.
Sounds like you 'had' no preference. Good to see you can modify your opinions.
If switchgrass makes sense, some greedy son of a bitch will make it happen, simply because he is a greedy son of a bitch.
Well that certainly sounds like a good strategy. Wait for a greedy son of a bitch to pay. Myself, I'm taking a different approach. Production, on a moderate scale to supply a given community. Why wait for some greedy megacorp to do whats right? (they won't) But if you want to call me a greedy son of a bitch, go ahead. Sure I will make money, but its not my motivation. The motivation ought to be to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil (by any percentage), create jobs, boost the local economy, and reduce greenhouse emissions. The fact that it happens to also be profitable (according to my calculations over a 5 yr period) is an added benefit.
There are switchgrass operations throughout the world. In the Netherlands and other EU countries (a quick googling is in informative), I would not exactly call the people who run these programs greedy sons a bitches, but smart ones.
The reason there exists NO cellulosic ethanol processing plants in the US (I will change that, this year.) is directly related to the Food vs Fuel issues being raised during this conversation. The lobbyist already exist for the corn growers. Laws are crafted under their direction in their favor.
And yes, rational people do tend to cause unrest, they have a nasty habit of pointing the rather dire reality that other people want to ignore.
When you come up with dire reality rationally thought out, you will let me know.
So far, you have. "It must not work because nobody is doing it" & "tarrifs and subsidies are stupid."
I will give you this one dire reality though.The real problem is that it doesn't make economic sense to grow corn for ethanol
I concede this up front as it is the whole basis of my argument.
While I don't mean to inject facts into a Slashdot discussion (so passe').
It may be instructive.
http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/graphs/oilimport.ht ml
This chart depicts the sources of American oil imports. While the United States gets about 45% of its oil from the Middle East and North Africa, these regions hold over two thirds of the oil reserves worldwide.
The insufficient supply (in YOUR estimation) basically comes from a flawed assumption "FOOD to Ethanol" Land usage. If you were to substitute CORN and SUGAR for switchgrass or similar, this argument is warrantless. Why can Brazil do it efficiently and we cannot? Oh I see, because sugar can be grown there. If only we had suitable plant material easily convertible to Ethanol, oh wait we do.
I would rather shoot for cheap than 'more secure' or whatever.
It's people like you what cause unrest. And it really comes down to "shooting" for it in the long run, doesn't it? (Or Bombing, or whatever).
I would prefer Secure, Cheap, Renewable, efficient energy production done state by state. But hey, thats just me. I have this weird theory that if you pay American farmers to grow energy, that money doesn't leave the country so quickly to become artificial Luxury islands in the middle east or Brazil. No offense to those countries or their Royalty. I just think the local economy is better served. Told you it was weird.
'Cellulosic' holds some promise, but until somebody is doing it cheaper than someone else can pump oil out of the ground, all it does is hold some promise.
Well I'm sure everybody is going to just jump on this problem and solve because you want cheaper gas. There is a role for the government here. To help stimulate reseacrch and development so we can all get cheaper gas.
Personally I do care where the fuck it comes from. Your trip to the 7-11 isn't worth another 9-11.
Wow I'm astounded at the cleverness and repulsed by how easy it is to bring up.
I'm a little surprised they think they can sue just based on a gut feeling and expect to get away with it, but then again, it is Diebold. They seem to get away with just about anything.
Maybe, just maybe, They think someone high up owes them one.
There are sugar and ethanol tariffs. Until they are gone, ethanol subsidies are stupid.
I don't think you understand the process and politics as well as you think you do.
Currently we import foreign oil for fuel. This is bad, mkay. You do not want to replace the amount used for gasoline with a different foreign import. You want to create it here in this country. If you cant grow "Sugar" here. You Subsidize the end product and keep the tarrifs to prevent us from buying sugar to turn into ethanol. Sugar is relatively easy to produce from everything from wood chips to beets. If you want to stimulate the industry you keep tarrifs and add subsidies. This gives incentives to ethanol producers here.
Of all the things I've heard to be the iPod Killer this is the dumbest.
iPhone, "An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator. An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator.... these are NOT three separate devices!"
You'd need some crazy suicide theory to explain how it is an iPod Killer.
If taxpayers were not paying farmers extra money to make ethanol, there wouldn't be food supply issues.
Let me correct that for you. If taxpayers were not paying farmers extra money to make ethanol AND CORN, there wouldn't be food supply issues.
The real problem is they are getting double subsidies. Ethanol should be subsidized and some Foods should be subsidized but ADM and the few private farmers should only be allowed one exclusive subsidy. Choose Corn Taxpayers money per bushel or ethanol Taxpayers.61 per gallon. Not both.
This is why Expending all this energy for growing food to turn into fuel is wrong. There are non food alternatives. Keep watching this space http://egroculture.org/.
Check the Tonnage to Gallons conversion figures and it will be readily apparent why it is not a viable direct fuel.
There are also leftover bits (bits might be a small understatement) that cannot be converted unlike ethanol which is totally consumed.
So can we build a battery out of fat and give it caffeine to stimulate energy output? That would make for one disgusting battery. But we'd have a virtually unlimited natural resource!
We have already have this for transportation, it is called a Bicycle.
Ethanol Subsidies should be exclusive of corn subsidies. If you get federal money for corn you are ineligible for ethanol credits.
Problem solved. Of course we would have never got the subsidies in the first place it wasn't for the ADM lobbyist.
Now that we got them making them exclusive solves the issue.
Research has shown ethanol produced from corn is less efficient and carbon positive. Alternative stock materials that require less fertilizing planting, etc. are the answer.
Growing food is hard. Growing grass is hard not to do.
Thats the whole point of being an elitist though isn't it? Never gaining the maturity to grow beyond childish behavior into adulthood.
I don't know the point of being an elitist. But I do know the point of having convictions and standing by them.
Standing firm on freedom is not an elitist attitude.
I sure as hell don't equate adulthood with losing ones values. Your values should be based on truth and unttil discovered to be untrue held firm. Adulthood would be better described as being better able to recognize when your values are no longer valuable.
In the context of this discussion I think Debian's values are every bit as valuable (if not more valuable) than they were when they were conceived.
One only has to look across at the distributions who have "comprimised" their values. Have you seen the latest Novel cosponsored FUD?
Adults compromise.
Children never will.
Maybe you are right though and I haven't "grown up" enough to sell out my fellow users to the highest bidders, Maybe give me another 32 years, then I will understand. Never know, maybe senility will help.
Slashdot Mirror
He was playing it when I went to bed.
He was still playing when I left for work this morning.
If thats not a positive review I dunno what is.
Hmmm.
Psst, I didn't wanna say anything man, but since you brought it up.
Have you seen/tried GimpShop? http://gimpshop.blogspot.com/
For windows users (especially PhotoShop people) it is a nice comprimise.
I was actually surprised by it, and was admiring it.
if profit can be turned without a subsidy or tariff, that makes the subsidy or tariff more stupid.
Ok, I'll separate it for you. Without the tariff, there is no incentive not to buy ethanol (made from Sugar) from Brazil. With it there is one. That incentive helps start a process which over time refines processing and reduces cost, in the end making it competitive with Brazil when the tariff is lifted. Opening a processing plant is a rather large investment. If Brazil wanted to bottom the cost of its ethanol substantially to increase its market share, it could make that initial investment seem foolish and that perceived danger is exactly what stops the private sector from investing in it. Subsidies offer a guaranteed bottom price with which you can calculate return on investment at a worst case scenario. Remember it is the Government's stated goal to reduce the dependence on foreign fuel for transportation. Do you have a non "stupid" idea that the government has not been alerted to, I'm sure they would love to hear it. They have decided to bet on many horses to help solve the problem. Hybrid and Electric Vehicle tax breaks and credits, Flex Fuel initiatives and Fuel efficiency standards, R&D, Loans, as well as subsidies and tariffs. (none of it is really enough but all of it is needed, and hardly stupid.) I'm of the opinion that we need more of these programs not less as your original post indicated.
also, why would I spend time on Google when there is apparently somebody who knows where to look?
This is the same excuse my son uses as to why he doesn't look up something. I tell him just because I know something does not automatically give him reason not to find out and verify the information I have. I'm not looking for a partner, so I have no incentive to do your research for you. You have plenty to read just from the few paltry links I sent you to read cross linked articles for the next year (and I hope you do, it really is interesting stuff)
It comes down to this. My other son said it best. If you can cut your lawn and take the clippings and make "gasoline", then why don't we? Well I have and We will.
My you are persistent. Your definition of a quick Google search and mine are obviously different. But I am an engineer and some of my Google searches can last a week or more. Anyway Half a page down results. http://www.switchgrass.nl/photo_gallery.htm These are comparatively small and that is a good thing.
Oh look, here is your greedy sons a bitches now. There is funding for 6 new Cellulosic Ethanol plants in the US http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/ doe_selects_six.html
Great ideas, but will be badly implemented. Trucking in stocks and ethanol out to everywhere. Small Local operations are better in the long run(IMHO). ONSite Production. I could site source after source of reports, studies conclusions of many smart people who have, you know, actually studied this area. But to what end? So you could cite the first 3 links of your Google search. I've already convinced me. and I don't need to reread it all to get the proper URLs to convince you. This thread started with your insistence that "subsidies and tariffs are stupid" and I've tried to explain why that is not so. Obviously I have failed. Pity, I thought I was getting somewhere. Even if the subsidies disappeared tomorrow it still turns a profit. Just not as much as quickly and not as attractive to investors. (They love that Government money)
If products aren't 'worth' what people pay for them, then the whole field of economics is complete nonsense
You were in on the PS3 Pricing meeting weren't you? Or you bought one?
> 'Worth' is obviously subjective as it is perceived value.
In this context $ price is not the only cost. If you reduce all but the $ cost by switching processes but keep the same product "fuel" it is a win-win situation.
I wish you luck, but I will remain skeptical until somebody stands up and announces that they are producing ethanol that is cheaper than gas.
Skepticism is almost always warranted and I applaud you for it. As long as you keep buying that gas that is already blended with 10% ethanol, I don't need you to be convinced. And if you get a FlexFuel E85 Vehicle all the better. Or better yet put this on your Christmas List.
E100 baby.
It was a pleasure discussing it with you.
Oh man, you think our prisons are crowded now.
why would vista take forever to move delete (permanently and moving to recycle bin) and copying files. it's not really the operation that's slow but the calculating time remaining stays up forever after the operation is complete and keeps it from starting for a long time? anyone have any ideas
because many handles and processes are working simaltiousely, your hard disk activity is so busy with all processes, so it should need so long time for this, add to this, you need UAC to be on and shows you prompt message for file operations.
Good luck
Ahmed Mahdy | MSDN & TechNet Forums Moderator | Blogs for Microsoft Tech. http://www.ahmed-mahdy.com/
And from Steven in response.
Your statement can be boiled down to:
The O/S is so horribly written and bloated with un-needed features that no matter how fast your computer is it can never possibly process the system calls and manage file handles fast enough for Windows Vista to provide the user with a timely interaction experience.
This is just a smoke and mirrors tactic. Basically, you're making a statement that the person's computer isn't powerful enough to do a simple operation such as a file system table modification (moves and deletes are simply table modifications if they are on the same fixed disk and logical partition), without even asking for hardware specifications. Your argument here is vacuous.
I notice you are the moderator of this forum, do you hold any offical position with Microsoft? Can you tell us concreately what will be done about this issue?
Thank you, --Steven
No thank YOU Steven.
I submit this is not true in all cases. One party is better off in a trade or they would not engage in it. Turns out most products aren't "worth" what you pay for them. You just happen to require said product. I submit that money spent here is usually re-spent here. Not so with foreign trade. Millions of US dollars into another countries economy may be great for said country, but not necessarily good for the US. When I say local economy I mean really local, city by city. ie. Kentucky Gas from Kentucky Grass is bought by Kentuckians from Kentuckians and re-spent most likely in Kentucky. You see? As opposed to KY citizens sending their hard earned cash overseas or out of state.
I'm not a protectionist by any means, just a realist. If you can grow energy and process to fuel on site, you reduce the cost of the end product by the fuel cost of shipping and trucking (not to mention labor cost of loading unloading) it all over the world. This has cost benefits outweighing any trade arguments.
Do you somehow think that I would not prefer secure, cheap, renewable and efficient energy production?
I believe you stated, hold on let me copy paste here :
I want cheap fuel, mkay. I don't give a fuck where it comes from.
Sounds like you 'had' no preference. Good to see you can modify your opinions.
If switchgrass makes sense, some greedy son of a bitch will make it happen, simply because he is a greedy son of a bitch.
Well that certainly sounds like a good strategy. Wait for a greedy son of a bitch to pay. Myself, I'm taking a different approach. Production, on a moderate scale to supply a given community. Why wait for some greedy megacorp to do whats right? (they won't) But if you want to call me a greedy son of a bitch, go ahead. Sure I will make money, but its not my motivation. The motivation ought to be to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil (by any percentage), create jobs, boost the local economy, and reduce greenhouse emissions. The fact that it happens to also be profitable (according to my calculations over a 5 yr period) is an added benefit.
There are switchgrass operations throughout the world. In the Netherlands and other EU countries (a quick googling is in informative), I would not exactly call the people who run these programs greedy sons a bitches, but smart ones.
The reason there exists NO cellulosic ethanol processing plants in the US (I will change that, this year.) is directly related to the Food vs Fuel issues being raised during this conversation. The lobbyist already exist for the corn growers. Laws are crafted under their direction in their favor.
And yes, rational people do tend to cause unrest, they have a nasty habit of pointing the rather dire reality that other people want to ignore.
When you come up with dire reality rationally thought out, you will let me know.
So far, you have. "It must not work because nobody is doing it" & "tarrifs and subsidies are stupid."
I will give you this one dire reality though.The real problem is that it doesn't make economic sense to grow corn for ethanol
I concede this up front as it is the whole basis of my argument.
http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/press/articles/0511 25sbtrib.html
The insufficient supply (in YOUR estimation) basically comes from a flawed assumption "FOOD to Ethanol" Land usage. If you were to substitute CORN and SUGAR for switchgrass or similar, this argument is warrantless. Why can Brazil do it efficiently and we cannot? Oh I see, because sugar can be grown there. If only we had suitable plant material easily convertible to Ethanol, oh wait we do.
I would rather shoot for cheap than 'more secure' or whatever.
It's people like you what cause unrest. And it really comes down to "shooting" for it in the long run, doesn't it? (Or Bombing, or whatever).
I would prefer Secure, Cheap, Renewable, efficient energy production done state by state. But hey, thats just me. I have this weird theory that if you pay American farmers to grow energy, that money doesn't leave the country so quickly to become artificial Luxury islands in the middle east or Brazil. No offense to those countries or their Royalty. I just think the local economy is better served. Told you it was weird.
Well I'm sure everybody is going to just jump on this problem and solve because you want cheaper gas. There is a role for the government here. To help stimulate reseacrch and development so we can all get cheaper gas.
Personally I do care where the fuck it comes from. Your trip to the 7-11 isn't worth another 9-11.
Wow I'm astounded at the cleverness and repulsed by how easy it is to bring up.
as opposed to : Dead 'Hacking' Clarified as PostTexting.
Maybe, just maybe, They think someone high up owes them one.
I'm just sayin.
I don't think you understand the process and politics as well as you think you do.
Currently we import foreign oil for fuel. This is bad, mkay. You do not want to replace the amount used for gasoline with a different foreign import. You want to create it here in this country. If you cant grow "Sugar" here. You Subsidize the end product and keep the tarrifs to prevent us from buying sugar to turn into ethanol. Sugar is relatively easy to produce from everything from wood chips to beets. If you want to stimulate the industry you keep tarrifs and add subsidies. This gives incentives to ethanol producers here.
iPhone, "An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator. An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator.... these are NOT three separate devices!"
You'd need some crazy suicide theory to explain how it is an iPod Killer.
Let me correct that for you. If taxpayers were not paying farmers extra money to make ethanol AND CORN, there wouldn't be food supply issues.
The real problem is they are getting double subsidies. Ethanol should be subsidized and some Foods should be subsidized but ADM and the few private farmers should only be allowed one exclusive subsidy. Choose Corn Taxpayers money per bushel or ethanol Taxpayers .61 per gallon. Not both.
This is why Expending all this energy for growing food to turn into fuel is wrong. There are non food alternatives. Keep watching this space http://egroculture.org/.
Check the Tonnage to Gallons conversion figures and it will be readily apparent why it is not a viable direct fuel. There are also leftover bits (bits might be a small understatement) that cannot be converted unlike ethanol which is totally consumed.
We have already have this for transportation, it is called a Bicycle.
Only one good way to find out. Read it.
Virtualized Windows sales market.
Some of us deploy Linux everywhere possible and even run our old apps in a VM Windows. Sale is a sale is a sale.
You are not going to convert us by touting Trusted Computing.
Problem solved. Of course we would have never got the subsidies in the first place it wasn't for the ADM lobbyist. Now that we got them making them exclusive solves the issue.
Research has shown ethanol produced from corn is less efficient and carbon positive. Alternative stock materials that require less fertilizing planting, etc. are the answer.
Growing food is hard. Growing grass is hard not to do.
I can't seem to find any on the store shelves, and I check weekly.
Have you played it?
Seriously were you at any of the meeting discussing price points? Why cripple your sales with this burden. We all suspect a two prong reasoning.
1. BluRay included. To increase BluRay Adoption,
2. PS2 Sales. PS2 sales are by comparison incredible.And the bundles available at launch were great.
Any truth to this.
I don't know the point of being an elitist. But I do know the point of having convictions and standing by them.
Standing firm on freedom is not an elitist attitude.
I sure as hell don't equate adulthood with losing ones values. Your values should be based on truth and unttil discovered to be untrue held firm. Adulthood would be better described as being better able to recognize when your values are no longer valuable.
In the context of this discussion I think Debian's values are every bit as valuable (if not more valuable) than they were when they were conceived.
One only has to look across at the distributions who have "comprimised" their values. Have you seen the latest Novel cosponsored FUD?
Adults compromise. Children never will.
Maybe you are right though and I haven't "grown up" enough to sell out my fellow users to the highest bidders, Maybe give me another 32 years, then I will understand. Never know, maybe senility will help.