They could also put them downstream from chicken farms. I believe one of the biggest problems with the Chesapeake bay water shed is to much nitrogen in the water. If this could be used to produce fuel and clean up all the nitrogen run off from industrial agriculture it would be a double win.
Actually. Why not? Why can't you run your own crystal meth lab?
The reason it is so dangerous is because it is against the law. People have to use equipment in ways it wasn't designed for in places that should never be used as a chemical lab. They also have no way to properly dispose of hazardous waist and no means to properly vent their work space.
If you could legally buy proper lab equipment and the raw components for meth without having to "cook" the ingredients it wouldn't be dangerous. Not only that you could make it in a safe location, like an industrial office instead of some slum house.
The reason cooking meth is dangerous is because it is against the law.
Second your point is a little exaggerated. Marijuana is a plant, other than the stupid law there is nothing wrong with growing it. Read some of the history of growing marijuana in the US, it wasn't until the 1920-30's that it even became an issue. reference
The last three presidents of the United States have smoked more marijuana than I ever have. Logically the prohibition of marijuana is a bad law. Look at the research.
We only get to live one life. People should be free to live it as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others. It is a travesty that there are so many prohibitions in life because of closed minded people such as yourself.
Actually, if you look at Star Trek, you'll notice that they don't really have a one-device-does-it-all thing either.
Actually, they did... The enterprise. Computer make me a coffee. Computer make me a sex slave on holo-deck twelve. The computer was always there for them to interface with vocally at any time and was networked wirelessly with all the little pda devices they had on the ship.
My dad had a saying "Plain and simple its against the law." This would be when he was telling me not to do something. Usually it was him telling me not to speed.
Now that I'm the Dad I realize that that is the dumbest saying ever. Its not simple, idiots make stupid laws. People don't look at statistics, they become emotionally attached to a cause and throw all logic out the window and then pass a super restrictive law that really doesn't do any good. The majority of the population can break these dumb laws and everyone is safe; however a statistically insignificant number of people who are already ripe for a Darwin award break the law to deadly results. Therefore 10 people do something stupid and the other 6 billion people on the planet have to suffer.
Here is a listing of stupid laws:
Can't grow your own marijuana.
Can't go faster than 70mpg on the interstate, even when nobody is withing 10 miles of you.
Can't date a freshman as a senior in highschool, if you do you're stigmatized by law for life.
Can't copy a song off a CD and give it to your significant other (mix tapes are technically illegal).
Have to wear a seatbelt at ALL times. No sleeping on the floor of the SUV during 8 and 10 hour car trips. The instant that seatbelt unclicks, for whatever reason and the vehicle is in motion, you've broken the law.
Not to mention that the judicial system, which was designed to allow for exceptions based on circumstance, has had the feature removed. The law which is supposed to have grey areas where your peers could decide that in that particular case it would be ok, has had that power effectively removed. Yes in some extreme cases juries still have that power, but for common violations of the law it has become a cash crop for the state.
Oh and the local law enforcement isn't your friend. They serve a purpose and your friend isn't one of them. Always, Always do as little as possible to cooperate with them because you're probably breaking a law and don't even realize it. The officer will and will fine you or arrest you for it. And if you protest to the officer they'll add resisting arrest or a number of other trump charges. And even when they are wrong and proved so in court they'll still create some other lesser charge just so they save face.
Can you tell I'm bitter about the legal system? There was a great story on "This American Life" about someone who got arrested for grand theft auto because of one of those bait cars. They parked it in front of his apartment and he was trying to find the owner to get it removed. He even called the police about it repeatedly. The stupid bait car even leaves the doors unlocked with the keys in it. He didn't do anything wrong yet had to fight in court for years.
Then you add in technology which the Luddites can't understand and you get kids being brought up on charges for sexting. Its like they've completely forgotten what its like to be a kid. It is just the modern version of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" except in the digital age. And "they" are just so happy to ruin peoples lives beyond what their own stupidity has already done.
Except upon getting your drivers license you sign an agreement to let your car be searched or you forfeit your license. So yes you can refuse, but at that time you loose your license and then your car doesn't do much good.
However, even though your car can be searched, your person cannot. So if you are carrying drugs in your car, keep them on your person and refuse for your person to be searched.
I don't have anything to hide behind the curtains. The curtains are there to protect the people outside. I don't care if they see my genitals, they care and get upset.
What is it with you people and $1 a song. You've been duped. Many of my old CD's could be bought for $9 and have 15 to 20 songs on them. I'm sorry but that doesn't work out to $1 a song. When songs get to $0.10 a song call me and I'll start buying music again. If not I'll stick with Pandora and the Radio. I've been on a music boycott since they shut down Napster, before that I used to buy 2-3 CD's a month.
Honestly why do you care if he bots or not? He has to pay for three accounts to do it and it turns the MMO into a single player game for him. Other than manipulating the Auction House it doesn't affect your game play at all. I would love to be able to build my own three party wow group where I play my main character and the other two toons were bots. It just costs to much money to do it.
That stuff was awesome. I got one case and thats it. Haven't been able to find it since. You'd think with the way it is selling they would make it a permanent product.
Because the only cost to IP is time and experience. Which most places is a service not a good.
Humans evolved with something called "mirror neurons" where we see the actions of other creatures and can mimic their abilities. Imagine where we would be if Ug patented fire. For the first 14 years only Ug could make fire; and even though the other cave people saw Ug rub two sticks together to make it, they weren't allowed. IP is a recent fabrication of the government to grant special protections to the wealthy to keep them wealthy with little effort.
Now the other early Homo-sapiens saw Ug make fire and they too started making fire. Ug was very proficient at making fire and offered his service to help others make fire. However the others were free to make it themselves since it was pretty easy to teach others how to make it; however some were to lazy so Ug always had business.
Company in country A then sells its products in country A; where its laws are there to protect it. Another company in country B which doesn't have copyright/patent laws then produces an identical product at a reduced price, which the people in country B can afford. The government of country A blocks import of the protected product from country B. Both A and B benefit. Company A has a monopoly in Country A. Company B sells a product to the citizens of country B at a rate they can afford.
The rub is that the internet has destroyed international borders for IP.
As far as my view of IP. I believe that the IP market has moved from a good to a service. You create a piece of IP and you give it away for free. You make your money servicing the product you've created.
Companies like Intel will keep their market share because of the capital to enter the market. Not just anyone can create 30nm chips. The equipment and resources are too specialized. However if someone else entered the market and created a comparable chip Intel could still compete on "quality" or could mass produce and be competitive on economies of scale. Either way it is good for the consumer.
This reminded me of the joke (can't find it now - if you know it please link to it!). Some scientists in a lab though it was funny because they made a large molecule 30% larger than the other molecules like it. Everyone looking at the image of it though it was the funniest thing ever. I thought it was one of those intel commercials, but I couldn't find it.
Anyway, this reminded me of that. Also when you are talking about something that small, how do you prove that they are doing what they are saying they are doing? It is so specialized that hardly anybody else has the equipment to do what they are doing so how does anyone prove or disprove it?
Isn't part of it because we don't enforce the same rules on China? Where is the blocking of all the Chinese goods because they don't respect IP laws? If we held all countries to the same standard it probably wouldn't be news.
IP laws are a construct of the state. They artificially create a good that otherwise wouldn't exist. Free markets work great when you need to distribute a limited resource. They don't work so well when an artificial rule is used to keep an otherwise free and plentiful resource arbitrarily scarce to line the pockets of those with power.
Except now China is the biggest market, and like other imports we've blocked the Chinese market will absorb the surplus. Also like a poster above mentioned, what is keeping China from importing Costa Rican sugar and re-branding it as Chinese sugar? China doesn't care about IP law; it looks like a match made in heaven.
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, US troops could wait and not attack the compound either.
Ever civilian killed sets the cause back because it breeds resentment. Unless the target is an active threat, i.e. currently building a bomb. Then the loss of civilian life isn't worth the cost of the target. It may take longer to catch the target, but in the long term they'd be better off.
Building roads and infrastructure so a working police force could maintain order while building public trust would works so much better. Then when a terrorist blows up his own people and not a military drone, you have the support of the locals to drive on your newly paved roads and bust his door down. And when you bulldoze his house only killing him and his family you now have the support of the rest of the tribe who have lost lives to the terrorists bomb and not to a us drone attack.
Why has no one tried this experiment with naked female super models? I'm sure the results in the heterosexual male population would be close to 100% with or without a cell phone. However if his significant other was walking with him those results would very quick approach 0%.
Slashdot Mirror
They could also put them downstream from chicken farms. I believe one of the biggest problems with the Chesapeake bay water shed is to much nitrogen in the water. If this could be used to produce fuel and clean up all the nitrogen run off from industrial agriculture it would be a double win.
I don't mind living next to nuclear power plants. As a matter of fact I did. In fact it was the primary employer for my town.
NESoid, got the ROMs via sneakernet.
Actually. Why not? Why can't you run your own crystal meth lab?
The reason it is so dangerous is because it is against the law. People have to use equipment in ways it wasn't designed for in places that should never be used as a chemical lab. They also have no way to properly dispose of hazardous waist and no means to properly vent their work space.
If you could legally buy proper lab equipment and the raw components for meth without having to "cook" the ingredients it wouldn't be dangerous. Not only that you could make it in a safe location, like an industrial office instead of some slum house.
The reason cooking meth is dangerous is because it is against the law.
Second your point is a little exaggerated. Marijuana is a plant, other than the stupid law there is nothing wrong with growing it. Read some of the history of growing marijuana in the US, it wasn't until the 1920-30's that it even became an issue. reference
The last three presidents of the United States have smoked more marijuana than I ever have. Logically the prohibition of marijuana is a bad law. Look at the research.
We only get to live one life. People should be free to live it as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others. It is a travesty that there are so many prohibitions in life because of closed minded people such as yourself.
Actually, if you look at Star Trek, you'll notice that they don't really have a one-device-does-it-all thing either.
Actually, they did... The enterprise. Computer make me a coffee. Computer make me a sex slave on holo-deck twelve. The computer was always there for them to interface with vocally at any time and was networked wirelessly with all the little pda devices they had on the ship.
Funny, but I ran the same experiment and you owe me 11 replacement sharks.
As a side note, the squids at them both.
Boy Apple is behind the times. I've had them on my Droid for months.
My dad had a saying "Plain and simple its against the law." This would be when he was telling me not to do something. Usually it was him telling me not to speed.
Now that I'm the Dad I realize that that is the dumbest saying ever. Its not simple, idiots make stupid laws. People don't look at statistics, they become emotionally attached to a cause and throw all logic out the window and then pass a super restrictive law that really doesn't do any good. The majority of the population can break these dumb laws and everyone is safe; however a statistically insignificant number of people who are already ripe for a Darwin award break the law to deadly results. Therefore 10 people do something stupid and the other 6 billion people on the planet have to suffer.
Here is a listing of stupid laws:
Can't grow your own marijuana.
Can't go faster than 70mpg on the interstate, even when nobody is withing 10 miles of you.
Can't date a freshman as a senior in highschool, if you do you're stigmatized by law for life.
Can't copy a song off a CD and give it to your significant other (mix tapes are technically illegal).
Have to wear a seatbelt at ALL times. No sleeping on the floor of the SUV during 8 and 10 hour car trips. The instant that seatbelt unclicks, for whatever reason and the vehicle is in motion, you've broken the law.
Not to mention that the judicial system, which was designed to allow for exceptions based on circumstance, has had the feature removed. The law which is supposed to have grey areas where your peers could decide that in that particular case it would be ok, has had that power effectively removed. Yes in some extreme cases juries still have that power, but for common violations of the law it has become a cash crop for the state.
Oh and the local law enforcement isn't your friend. They serve a purpose and your friend isn't one of them. Always, Always do as little as possible to cooperate with them because you're probably breaking a law and don't even realize it. The officer will and will fine you or arrest you for it. And if you protest to the officer they'll add resisting arrest or a number of other trump charges. And even when they are wrong and proved so in court they'll still create some other lesser charge just so they save face.
Can you tell I'm bitter about the legal system? There was a great story on "This American Life" about someone who got arrested for grand theft auto because of one of those bait cars. They parked it in front of his apartment and he was trying to find the owner to get it removed. He even called the police about it repeatedly. The stupid bait car even leaves the doors unlocked with the keys in it. He didn't do anything wrong yet had to fight in court for years.
Then you add in technology which the Luddites can't understand and you get kids being brought up on charges for sexting. Its like they've completely forgotten what its like to be a kid. It is just the modern version of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" except in the digital age. And "they" are just so happy to ruin peoples lives beyond what their own stupidity has already done.
Except upon getting your drivers license you sign an agreement to let your car be searched or you forfeit your license. So yes you can refuse, but at that time you loose your license and then your car doesn't do much good.
However, even though your car can be searched, your person cannot. So if you are carrying drugs in your car, keep them on your person and refuse for your person to be searched.
I don't have anything to hide behind the curtains. The curtains are there to protect the people outside. I don't care if they see my genitals, they care and get upset.
Whats even worse is when that website is your bank.
What is it with you people and $1 a song. You've been duped. Many of my old CD's could be bought for $9 and have 15 to 20 songs on them. I'm sorry but that doesn't work out to $1 a song. When songs get to $0.10 a song call me and I'll start buying music again. If not I'll stick with Pandora and the Radio. I've been on a music boycott since they shut down Napster, before that I used to buy 2-3 CD's a month.
Honestly why do you care if he bots or not? He has to pay for three accounts to do it and it turns the MMO into a single player game for him. Other than manipulating the Auction House it doesn't affect your game play at all. I would love to be able to build my own three party wow group where I play my main character and the other two toons were bots. It just costs to much money to do it.
That stuff was awesome. I got one case and thats it. Haven't been able to find it since. You'd think with the way it is selling they would make it a permanent product.
Exactly thank you!
Because the only cost to IP is time and experience. Which most places is a service not a good.
Humans evolved with something called "mirror neurons" where we see the actions of other creatures and can mimic their abilities. Imagine where we would be if Ug patented fire. For the first 14 years only Ug could make fire; and even though the other cave people saw Ug rub two sticks together to make it, they weren't allowed. IP is a recent fabrication of the government to grant special protections to the wealthy to keep them wealthy with little effort.
Now the other early Homo-sapiens saw Ug make fire and they too started making fire. Ug was very proficient at making fire and offered his service to help others make fire. However the others were free to make it themselves since it was pretty easy to teach others how to make it; however some were to lazy so Ug always had business.
Company in country A then sells its products in country A; where its laws are there to protect it. Another company in country B which doesn't have copyright/patent laws then produces an identical product at a reduced price, which the people in country B can afford. The government of country A blocks import of the protected product from country B. Both A and B benefit. Company A has a monopoly in Country A. Company B sells a product to the citizens of country B at a rate they can afford.
The rub is that the internet has destroyed international borders for IP.
As far as my view of IP. I believe that the IP market has moved from a good to a service. You create a piece of IP and you give it away for free. You make your money servicing the product you've created.
Companies like Intel will keep their market share because of the capital to enter the market. Not just anyone can create 30nm chips. The equipment and resources are too specialized. However if someone else entered the market and created a comparable chip Intel could still compete on "quality" or could mass produce and be competitive on economies of scale. Either way it is good for the consumer.
Because it is run by the Chinese government?
This reminded me of the joke (can't find it now - if you know it please link to it!). Some scientists in a lab though it was funny because they made a large molecule 30% larger than the other molecules like it. Everyone looking at the image of it though it was the funniest thing ever. I thought it was one of those intel commercials, but I couldn't find it.
Anyway, this reminded me of that. Also when you are talking about something that small, how do you prove that they are doing what they are saying they are doing? It is so specialized that hardly anybody else has the equipment to do what they are doing so how does anyone prove or disprove it?
Isn't part of it because we don't enforce the same rules on China? Where is the blocking of all the Chinese goods because they don't respect IP laws? If we held all countries to the same standard it probably wouldn't be news.
IP laws are a construct of the state. They artificially create a good that otherwise wouldn't exist. Free markets work great when you need to distribute a limited resource. They don't work so well when an artificial rule is used to keep an otherwise free and plentiful resource arbitrarily scarce to line the pockets of those with power.
Except now China is the biggest market, and like other imports we've blocked the Chinese market will absorb the surplus. Also like a poster above mentioned, what is keeping China from importing Costa Rican sugar and re-branding it as Chinese sugar? China doesn't care about IP law; it looks like a match made in heaven.
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, US troops could wait and not attack the compound either.
Ever civilian killed sets the cause back because it breeds resentment. Unless the target is an active threat, i.e. currently building a bomb. Then the loss of civilian life isn't worth the cost of the target. It may take longer to catch the target, but in the long term they'd be better off.
Building roads and infrastructure so a working police force could maintain order while building public trust would works so much better. Then when a terrorist blows up his own people and not a military drone, you have the support of the locals to drive on your newly paved roads and bust his door down. And when you bulldoze his house only killing him and his family you now have the support of the rest of the tribe who have lost lives to the terrorists bomb and not to a us drone attack.
Why has no one tried this experiment with naked female super models? I'm sure the results in the heterosexual male population would be close to 100% with or without a cell phone. However if his significant other was walking with him those results would very quick approach 0%.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If there is no factual source for news, someone will see an opportunity and create one.