But even if your are not a religions rightest, there are better choices than McCain/Guiliani. Like Bunch who supports the fair tax or Paul who was the libertarian candidate in 1988. McCain and Guiliani only stand for small government (from what I see) when they talk about cutting taxes, not mentioning what spending will have to be cut - Paul scored points (with me) when he pointed out that McCain's line item pork-barrel veto plan would be ineffectual with all the mandatory spending we do.
I'm not a conservative, and prior to McCain backing the troop surge I probably would have voted for him over someone like Clinton. I never really liked Guiliani, but his convenient reversal on gay issues really turned me off. Besides shouldn't a rightest candidate who's not a religious nut job be for less government intervention in things like marriage and abortion? (Don't get me started on the logical inconsistency of a no-abortions-ever candidate who would not ban embryonic stem cell research outright.) For my tastes the best GOP candidate today is Romney. I think he showed well in the debate last night, and could pick up some swing votes. But hey, like I said, I'm not a conservative so I'm rooting for Brownback. No other republican candidate would be so easy to beat in a general election.
Good for you. I recently filed a patent application for actually using a kludge. When it is granted all you guys will be tripping over yourselves to pay my licensing fee.
I was a little worried about prior art, but I figured whats the chance of somebody actually denying this thing.
P.S. This is notice that if you use any kludge between now and the date the patent is granted (2015 I figure) you will be willingly infringing and owe me treble damages.
Muhahaha
Re:Read it! That was taken way out of context.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
Ok, you might be right, and I'm no grammar expert, I just had a hard time understanding what refered to what in that section. It seems to me though if "mentioning or implying" referred back to "relating to" you wouldn't need the "or" in there. I see the "or" and think that the "mentioning or implying" clause is one of the things you agree not to do (which is a tense problem - I think).
So maybe I'm wrong, or maybe the document might just be completely unintelligible, so that it means whatever they want it to mean.
Re:Read it! That was taken way out of context.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
Well it does say:
Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the name of Google
Now, that may mean not to say I signed a NDA with Google, but it could easily be read that you should permenently strike the word google from your vocabulary. Maybe that's why its gmail, not googlemail...
It also looks to the grammar police in me that they have a bit of a tense problem there, but maybe it is some kind of nefarious lawyer code that I'm not privy to.
If they really wanted to be dicks (which is what we deserve) they'd levy a 10% export tax on goods going to the US. We still couldn't compete on cost, we still don't care about quality, and China would pad its coffers.
Yeah but if a BnM (I like that acronym) were to write a sign manufacturer a blank check based on the promise that his sign will increase traffic x% then he's just as big a moron, and deserves to suffer the consequences when he gets the 30' tall neon sign that says FREE LAPDANCES (with the purchase of a diamond engagement ring values at $7500 or more)
No, what google understands is that there isn't any such thing as a "free market" so their doing their best to squeeze dollars out of their market. Which means to return relevant search results more often than their competitors. They do this by punishing people who try to game the system to seem more relevant than they really are.
Besides who made google the "free market" police? Google can do whatever they want, and as long as it makes searchers happy they are doing the right thing. They could easily redirect every search to auction.google.com, and it wouldn't be unethical, but they don't because they know people want to find what their looking for.
A class action lawsuit would be interesting. If the judge were sane (which I wouldn't bank on) he'd laugh the plaintiffs out of court. Google is under no obligation to index your site. That they do is a happy bonus, but if they stop you have no recourse. Does this make hitching your wagon to google a little risky? Sure, but there are worse bets out there.
On top of all this google offers a great way to increase your visibility - buy ads.
Let me break it down for you. Stealing an iPod is petty theft
For example, California consolidated a variety of common law crimes into theft in 1927, and now distinguishes between two types of theft, grand theft and petty theft.[1] Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $400 (it can be money, labor or property),[2] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[3] Both are felonies, but grand theft is punishable by a year in jail or prison,[4] while petty theft is punishable by a fine or six months in jail.[5] As for the older crimes of larceny, embezzling, and stealing, any references to them now mean theft instead.[6]
Now the since the legitimate owner of the iPod filled it with pirate music, he is guilty of criminal copyright infringment
a noncommercial willful infringer is subject to up to a one-year prison term and $100,000 in fines.
So clearly we aren't concerned with the theft of the device, but rather with the theft of the material on the device. If we have fingerprint authentication we can clearly determine the person who should be punished for the copyright infringement.
Strangest question I've ever got: "How would you determine How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
I'm a mechanical engineer, so I gave some answer about measuring hardness and whatnot. The interview told me the last guy wanted to put strain gauges on the woodchucks teeth, I got the impression he wasn't getting called back due to ethical concerns...
Yes I understand this. Read your article. Step 2 -> Cellulose hydrolysis (cellulolysis), to break down the molecules into sugars.
It takes energy to go from cellulose to sucrose which isn't free. It is technically feasible, and it may become economically feasible, but (IMO) it will never be the most attractive path from biologicals to fuel because of that extra step.
The fact that there isn't switchgrass beer (or bread for that matter) is relevant because it speaks to the caloric content of the feedstock. The fewer calories, the less fuel you can make.
I'll freely admit that I haven't thought this threw entirely, and there are certainly some, uh, issues. I guess what I'd like to see is that the first time the kid gets caught doing whatever they're doing they receive a warning. The warning is more to let the parents know than anything.
I think my feeling is that a child cannot be a criminal, because they cannot adequately differentiate right from wrong. If they cannot be a criminal than they should not be persecuted.
Not that their aren't problems with this - but I really don't think that sending a 10 year old to juvie for shoplifting, or prosecuting a 14 year old for murder as an adult results in any kind of justice.
And a golden opportunity for a new political platform uniting liberal social policy, conservative economic policy and a sensitive, principled and coherent foreign policy. Can the Libertarians grow up or will it fall to the Greens? Neither major party seems capable of adjusting at the
I wouldn't count on either of the "third parties" to grow up and have some actual rational policies. They like being radicals too much. I honestly think in the next 15 years the republican party is going to schism and give birth to a neo-con party and a fiscally conservative party.
Say there is a total of 1 lb of copper in the entire world. If I buy a 1/2 lb of a copper ingot for $1MM and turn it into a wire I can then sell it for $1.5MM. The wire is worth more than whatever state the copper was in before. If someone else decides there is a better use for copper than wire he can buy it for $1.5MM work it, and then turn around and sell it for $2MM.
Therefore, as long as labor exists wealth is non-zero sum.
South Carolina wasn't following both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, I've yet to see a state that has come any closer!
I almost agree with you, but I think that it is important to realize that the framers were required to make some less than ideal compromises in order to get the constitution ratified. The most obvious of which revolves around slavery. While the rebellion might have been legal, it certainly wasn't seeking to overthrow a corrupt government, rather it was seeking to maintain the souths preferred status quo. It was also an important opportunity to improve the constitution with the thirteenth amendment. I would put forth the counter argument that Lincoln was following if not the letter, than the spirit of the Constitution in overthrowing, by force of arms, the clearest anathema to a free society the US has ever seen.
Honestly, I think that the federal government is a bit to big for its britches, but just because the interstate commerce clause has been repeatedly abused, doesn't mean that handing power over to the states is a better options. Yes I know about the ninth and tenth amendments, yes I think the "War on Drugs" is idiotic, and no I don't think that MADD and the US DOT should be able to hold state highway money hostage contingent upon puritanical drinking laws. On the other hand, we cannot have a successful country if we take the teeth out of the federal government. The articles of confederation adequately demonstrates that.
If I were re-writing the constitution, I'd explicitly give the federal government the power to regulate trade (full stop). It might not be perfect, but it would be honest.
I think I'm with geekoid on this one. A minor under a certain age (I like 13) should not prosecuted on any for any civil or criminal charges.
At some point children don't have the capacity to make rational decisions. In cases like copyright infringement and shoplifting the child should get a warning and a pass the first time. If there is a second or third time the parents could be held liable. If the parents can't or won't prevent their kid from continuing to do something illegal there should be some intervention (perhaps by child services). If the kid commits crimes specifically to hurt their parents there should be some other resolution.
In criminal matters like arson, assault, and murder no one under 15 should ever be tried as an adult. The should have mandatory counseling, and their home environment should be examined. I don't believe for a second that anyone under 15 is truly incorrigible. The right social pressures should be able to straighten out even the worst children. After 15 we can start considering juvenile detention, but even that should only be for "hardened" child criminals.
Gerrymandering is no doubt a very serious problem, especially in states like Texas, California, and Ohio. It is interesting to note that of the three examples I just gave, one is a red state, another a blue state, and the third a swing state, so everyone is doing it.
However, a big part of the reason that so few house races are close is because large swaths of the country vote the same. It's a fact of life that a Dem isn't going to be elected to the house in Nebraska unless he's a football player or something. It doesn't always matter how you draw the districts.
Cellulosic EtOH is not (IMO) the way forward. The reason we use corn is because there is a moderate amount of available sucrose, which is easily convertible into ethanol - we've been doing it since the dawn of civilization. The reason we're not going to succeed in making switchgrass ethanol (from an economic perspective) is the same reason no one has made a switchgrass beer. There just isn't enough delicious sugar.
The was forward (IMO) is diesel. Turn soybeans, or better yet algae into oil. Note that making soybean oil is already a viable commercial venture.
It's actually pretty simple the more filling (calories/lb) something is the more energy it contains, and the more viable a fuel source it is. It goes something like this algae>sugar cane>soy>corn>wheat>rice>>switchgrass
Slashdot Mirror
But even if your are not a religions rightest, there are better choices than McCain/Guiliani. Like Bunch who supports the fair tax or Paul who was the libertarian candidate in 1988. McCain and Guiliani only stand for small government (from what I see) when they talk about cutting taxes, not mentioning what spending will have to be cut - Paul scored points (with me) when he pointed out that McCain's line item pork-barrel veto plan would be ineffectual with all the mandatory spending we do.
I'm not a conservative, and prior to McCain backing the troop surge I probably would have voted for him over someone like Clinton. I never really liked Guiliani, but his convenient reversal on gay issues really turned me off. Besides shouldn't a rightest candidate who's not a religious nut job be for less government intervention in things like marriage and abortion? (Don't get me started on the logical inconsistency of a no-abortions-ever candidate who would not ban embryonic stem cell research outright.) For my tastes the best GOP candidate today is Romney. I think he showed well in the debate last night, and could pick up some swing votes. But hey, like I said, I'm not a conservative so I'm rooting for Brownback. No other republican candidate would be so easy to beat in a general election.
You must be unfamiliar with stand-up comedy.
Good for you. I recently filed a patent application for actually using a kludge. When it is granted all you guys will be tripping over yourselves to pay my licensing fee.
I was a little worried about prior art, but I figured whats the chance of somebody actually denying this thing.
P.S. This is notice that if you use any kludge between now and the date the patent is granted (2015 I figure) you will be willingly infringing and owe me treble damages.
Muhahaha
Ok, you might be right, and I'm no grammar expert, I just had a hard time understanding what refered to what in that section. It seems to me though if "mentioning or implying" referred back to "relating to" you wouldn't need the "or" in there. I see the "or" and think that the "mentioning or implying" clause is one of the things you agree not to do (which is a tense problem - I think).
So maybe I'm wrong, or maybe the document might just be completely unintelligible, so that it means whatever they want it to mean.
unless you right a law that makes them legal...
It also looks to the grammar police in me that they have a bit of a tense problem there, but maybe it is some kind of nefarious lawyer code that I'm not privy to.
Reminds me of business quarterly reports. Earnings were up $0.56/share less one time items (our headquarters burning down).
Or, Earnings were up $0.56/share less one time items (that seem to happen every year for some reason).
INTERNET DOWN! THE experimental INTERNET that nobody uses WENT DOWN, in a fire that killed three people and did millions of damager to property.
For me, the most obnoxious repeat UAC trigger is winrar. I figure that is somewhere between "normal" and "power" user.
If they really wanted to be dicks (which is what we deserve) they'd levy a 10% export tax on goods going to the US. We still couldn't compete on cost, we still don't care about quality, and China would pad its coffers.
Yeah but if a BnM (I like that acronym) were to write a sign manufacturer a blank check based on the promise that his sign will increase traffic x% then he's just as big a moron, and deserves to suffer the consequences when he gets the 30' tall neon sign that says FREE LAPDANCES (with the purchase of a diamond engagement ring values at $7500 or more)
No, what google understands is that there isn't any such thing as a "free market" so their doing their best to squeeze dollars out of their market. Which means to return relevant search results more often than their competitors. They do this by punishing people who try to game the system to seem more relevant than they really are.
Besides who made google the "free market" police? Google can do whatever they want, and as long as it makes searchers happy they are doing the right thing. They could easily redirect every search to auction.google.com, and it wouldn't be unethical, but they don't because they know people want to find what their looking for.
A class action lawsuit would be interesting. If the judge were sane (which I wouldn't bank on) he'd laugh the plaintiffs out of court. Google is under no obligation to index your site. That they do is a happy bonus, but if they stop you have no recourse. Does this make hitching your wagon to google a little risky? Sure, but there are worse bets out there.
On top of all this google offers a great way to increase your visibility - buy ads.
Let me break it down for you. Stealing an iPod is petty theft
Now the since the legitimate owner of the iPod filled it with pirate music, he is guilty of criminal copyright infringment So clearly we aren't concerned with the theft of the device, but rather with the theft of the material on the device. If we have fingerprint authentication we can clearly determine the person who should be punished for the copyright infringement.
Strangest question I've ever got: "How would you determine How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
I'm a mechanical engineer, so I gave some answer about measuring hardness and whatnot. The interview told me the last guy wanted to put strain gauges on the woodchucks teeth, I got the impression he wasn't getting called back due to ethical concerns...
Yes I understand this. Read your article.
Step 2 -> Cellulose hydrolysis (cellulolysis), to break down the molecules into sugars.
It takes energy to go from cellulose to sucrose which isn't free. It is technically feasible, and it may become economically feasible, but (IMO) it will never be the most attractive path from biologicals to fuel because of that extra step.
The fact that there isn't switchgrass beer (or bread for that matter) is relevant because it speaks to the caloric content of the feedstock. The fewer calories, the less fuel you can make.
I'll freely admit that I haven't thought this threw entirely, and there are certainly some, uh, issues. I guess what I'd like to see is that the first time the kid gets caught doing whatever they're doing they receive a warning. The warning is more to let the parents know than anything.
I think my feeling is that a child cannot be a criminal, because they cannot adequately differentiate right from wrong. If they cannot be a criminal than they should not be persecuted.
Not that their aren't problems with this - but I really don't think that sending a 10 year old to juvie for shoplifting, or prosecuting a 14 year old for murder as an adult results in any kind of justice.
I wouldn't count on either of the "third parties" to grow up and have some actual rational policies. They like being radicals too much. I honestly think in the next 15 years the republican party is going to schism and give birth to a neo-con party and a fiscally conservative party.
The basis of wealth is labor.
Say there is a total of 1 lb of copper in the entire world. If I buy a 1/2 lb of a copper ingot for $1MM and turn it into a wire I can then sell it for $1.5MM. The wire is worth more than whatever state the copper was in before. If someone else decides there is a better use for copper than wire he can buy it for $1.5MM work it, and then turn around and sell it for $2MM.
Therefore, as long as labor exists wealth is non-zero sum.
I almost agree with you, but I think that it is important to realize that the framers were required to make some less than ideal compromises in order to get the constitution ratified. The most obvious of which revolves around slavery. While the rebellion might have been legal, it certainly wasn't seeking to overthrow a corrupt government, rather it was seeking to maintain the souths preferred status quo. It was also an important opportunity to improve the constitution with the thirteenth amendment. I would put forth the counter argument that Lincoln was following if not the letter, than the spirit of the Constitution in overthrowing, by force of arms, the clearest anathema to a free society the US has ever seen.
Honestly, I think that the federal government is a bit to big for its britches, but just because the interstate commerce clause has been repeatedly abused, doesn't mean that handing power over to the states is a better options. Yes I know about the ninth and tenth amendments, yes I think the "War on Drugs" is idiotic, and no I don't think that MADD and the US DOT should be able to hold state highway money hostage contingent upon puritanical drinking laws. On the other hand, we cannot have a successful country if we take the teeth out of the federal government. The articles of confederation adequately demonstrates that.
If I were re-writing the constitution, I'd explicitly give the federal government the power to regulate trade (full stop). It might not be perfect, but it would be honest.
I think I'm with geekoid on this one. A minor under a certain age (I like 13) should not prosecuted on any for any civil or criminal charges.
At some point children don't have the capacity to make rational decisions. In cases like copyright infringement and shoplifting the child should get a warning and a pass the first time. If there is a second or third time the parents could be held liable. If the parents can't or won't prevent their kid from continuing to do something illegal there should be some intervention (perhaps by child services). If the kid commits crimes specifically to hurt their parents there should be some other resolution.
In criminal matters like arson, assault, and murder no one under 15 should ever be tried as an adult. The should have mandatory counseling, and their home environment should be examined. I don't believe for a second that anyone under 15 is truly incorrigible. The right social pressures should be able to straighten out even the worst children. After 15 we can start considering juvenile detention, but even that should only be for "hardened" child criminals.
Gerrymandering is no doubt a very serious problem, especially in states like Texas, California, and Ohio. It is interesting to note that of the three examples I just gave, one is a red state, another a blue state, and the third a swing state, so everyone is doing it.
However, a big part of the reason that so few house races are close is because large swaths of the country vote the same. It's a fact of life that a Dem isn't going to be elected to the house in Nebraska unless he's a football player or something. It doesn't always matter how you draw the districts.
Hey I still consider Libertarians to be bug-fuck insane, thank you very much.
Cellulosic EtOH is not (IMO) the way forward. The reason we use corn is because there is a moderate amount of available sucrose, which is easily convertible into ethanol - we've been doing it since the dawn of civilization. The reason we're not going to succeed in making switchgrass ethanol (from an economic perspective) is the same reason no one has made a switchgrass beer. There just isn't enough delicious sugar.
The was forward (IMO) is diesel. Turn soybeans, or better yet algae into oil. Note that making soybean oil is already a viable commercial venture.
It's actually pretty simple the more filling (calories/lb) something is the more energy it contains, and the more viable a fuel source it is. It goes something like this algae>sugar cane>soy>corn>wheat>rice>>switchgrass