True, they can just used tiered pricing. Make the heaviest consumers pay more progressively. Normal people running some appliances won't get hit much or at all, but assholes like Al Gore in huge power-draining mansions will have an incentive to lower their usage. Similarly, corporations/factories/etc... will have an incentive to cut energy consumption.
Really - this isn't complicated stuff. Increase price and drive down demand. I'm going to be laughing as California continues to flounder under their own weight. They really, really are stupid people.
Sorry, but government artificially keeps the price of power too low (obviously). It's not a tax, it's charging a price for something that reflects its actual costs to provide. They could even do it by tiers so the bleeding hearters don't cry about the poor. The cost of power goes up on a tiered schedule as you use more power. John Smith, Poor Guy, won't be hit because his needs will be X KWh, but George Stephens III, Much Hated Rich Fat Cat, will pay more and have an incentive to use less power because he uses 5X KWh.
This is really basic stuff. I'm not at all surprised California is in all the trouble they are.
I've been kicking around this theory. I think I'll unveil it on SlashDot first, then maybe go for wider publication and peer validation. It could revolutionize _everything_.
OK, stick with me. What if... man I'm sweating about this, it's so monumental. OK, hold it together RightSaidFred99, hold it together.
Ready. OK. What if we charge more for goods and services, including power delivery, when we have an interest in seeing those goods and services used less. I think this came to me in a fevered peyote dream or something, but I am willing to bet (just a small amount of money - it's only a theory) that if California raised the price of power just a little bit that usage would go down. They could find the "sweet spot" (new term I coined) between price and availability of the resource and find some sort of balance.
Now the really crazy thing about this radical, revolutionary, mind-blowing idea of raising the price to quell demand is that it affects not only large TVs but _everything_! It might make people turn off their lights and lower their utilization of other power-using appliances!
Can someone explain how this is different from a normal OS with kernel level threads and not userland threads? What can this do that e.g. Windows threading, native posix threading (NPTL) in Linux, etc... Is this just apple "inventing" kernel level threads or is it something new?
So... the developer has to release his code before he develops it to license something under GPL? No.
[quote]Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,[/quote]
I'm not too up on GPL, but reading the v2 license what's to stop someone from including an offer for the source valid for at least three years, and then dragging their feet for a year or two on delivering it?
Meh. You're wrong, that's all. No shame in that. It was already found (Uston vs. Resorts) that it's not legal to forbid good players (card counting is not considered cheating unless a device is used, please stick to facts) from playing blackjack.
We'll see what happens if/when this goes to court. They throw you out but if you care enough to sue and can prove you weren't cheating by using a device, you'll probably win. It's happened already.
These games are heavily regulated. There doesn't even need to be a law - the gaming commission can just say "if you kick out players who count cards using only their minds and no other device, we will shut you down". And this is the way it should be. Without regulation, this becomes a crazy thing called "fraud".
We, the people, prevent large bands of armed thugs from robbing casinos by our "police". In return, they, the casinos agree to abide by our rules. If they don't like it they can, as you would say, choose not to do business.
Nonsense. The casinos exist through government largess. The government should apply the same logic - when casinos start discriminating based on people being too good at the games (without using aids) then the government is free to walk away and shut down the casino. Laissez faire at its finest!
Makes sense. How about the fairness of the Nevada gaming commission shutting down said casinos? The casinos are free to kick successful gamblers who don't cheat out of their business, and the gaming commission is free to shut down the casino. Win-win!
See, gambling is largely illegal. Vegas has legalized it and puts restrictions on it. For example, you can't have slot machines that never pay out, or use loaded dice at craps, or have a trick ball in roulette. Similarly, it makes sense that you can't "kick out people who win using no unnatural aid".
If the gaming commission isn't all over this I will fucking _laugh_ as Vegas slowly declines in popularity and becomes just another sad fucking Reno.
Bullshit. There is a gaming commission and they have specific rules to follow. I'm sure you think you're Captain Libertarian, but even the most over-the-top retarded Libertarians recognize this thing called "fraud".
Meh. "Any publicity is good publicity" is simply not true. It can be true if you're not widely known, as it gets name recognition out there. See e.g. reality TV "stars". But for a large multinational corporation that almost everyone already knows it's just that - bad publicity.
They really need to rewrite some of these old sayings people take for granted. Another one is that "the victor writes the histories". Yeah - not anymore. Teh Interwebs pretty much ruined that idea, and it's fairly easy to point to some incidents that happened 50-60 years ago where someone clearly tried to whitewash history but the facts are plain as could be for anyone willing to spend 20 minutes googling.
I read this before but haven't seen jack shit in terms of details. What was in the actual mail? Was it obviously fake/advertising or was it real-seaming? Why anyone would pay attention to random shit they get in email I'll never know, but does anyone have a link to the actual mails?
Maybe. I think it still takes balls to make that gamble. Part of our wiring as humans is to avoid death, and going to it willingly for any reasons goes against that wiring. There are some people so fucking insane that what you say is probably true, but I think if you could look into the mind of most suicide bombers before they do it they are scared beyond shitless but still go through with it. Takes balls, and certainly not cowardly but as I said depending on situation certainly evil.
I don't disagree. I'm not a neo-con by any stretch. By enemy I meant "non-US or US-ally actors", including Iran and Hezbullah. I wouldn't even really call them enemies, so you're right it was a poor choice of words. How about potential enemies?
Good old rugged individualism, the hallmark of American success. Now it's come down to some ridiculous concept that we're all here to "contribute to society".
I see. You think capitalism is supposed to reward hard work. Hence all those millionaire construction workers and gardeners.
What I'm saying is that your premise is flawed. Capitalism is not supposed to reward "hard work". It's supposed to reward success, and if that seems nonsensical it's because your point and implied question are stupid - Capitalism isn't "supposed" to do anything but allow individual actors the ability to engage in consensual business.
Bullshit. They're evil for killing civilians, not cowards. Attacking the enemy where he is strong isn't bravery, it's fucking stupidity. Sometimes killing civilians is justified either as collateral damage or intentionally. e.g. had German families started settling in France during WWII occupation you can bet your ass they would have been fair targets.
In the case of blowing up some random people in a bazaar for some obscure religious difference then it's evil - but it's not cowardly. Giving your life for something intentionally is the very opposite of cowardly. But if you think dramatic terms like "coward's way out" make it sound worse, go for it.
Yeah... no. Suicide bombers aren't cowards, whatever else you want to call them. It seems people just think calling someone a "coward" is about the worst thing you can call them, so they just call all kinds of people cowards who by the meaning of the word _aren't_.
"wrestle with the thought..."? Seriously? What kind of meaningless tripe is that?
They're talking about Outlook Express. Not only isn't Outlook 2007 "bad", it's one of the best mail clients there is most particularly if you're in a corporate environment.
Wouldn't you call allowing your personal religious beliefs to dominate your "concerns" for the well-being of your patients a bit of a right-wing tenet? She thought suffering brought you closer to god, and imposed (by inactivity) that suffering on others when should could have eased their pain instead.
But what difference does that make really? Let's say there were 3 different mainframe vendors, with 33% market share. You can still suffer from lock-in.
Slashdot Mirror
True, they can just used tiered pricing. Make the heaviest consumers pay more progressively. Normal people running some appliances won't get hit much or at all, but assholes like Al Gore in huge power-draining mansions will have an incentive to lower their usage. Similarly, corporations/factories/etc... will have an incentive to cut energy consumption.
Really - this isn't complicated stuff. Increase price and drive down demand. I'm going to be laughing as California continues to flounder under their own weight. They really, really are stupid people.
I find your sarcasm bewildering and capricious. What in God's name are you talking about?
Sorry, but government artificially keeps the price of power too low (obviously). It's not a tax, it's charging a price for something that reflects its actual costs to provide. They could even do it by tiers so the bleeding hearters don't cry about the poor. The cost of power goes up on a tiered schedule as you use more power. John Smith, Poor Guy, won't be hit because his needs will be X KWh, but George Stephens III, Much Hated Rich Fat Cat, will pay more and have an incentive to use less power because he uses 5X KWh.
This is really basic stuff. I'm not at all surprised California is in all the trouble they are.
I've been kicking around this theory. I think I'll unveil it on SlashDot first, then maybe go for wider publication and peer validation. It could revolutionize _everything_.
OK, stick with me. What if... man I'm sweating about this, it's so monumental. OK, hold it together RightSaidFred99, hold it together.
Ready. OK. What if we charge more for goods and services, including power delivery, when we have an interest in seeing those goods and services used less. I think this came to me in a fevered peyote dream or something, but I am willing to bet (just a small amount of money - it's only a theory) that if California raised the price of power just a little bit that usage would go down. They could find the "sweet spot" (new term I coined) between price and availability of the resource and find some sort of balance.
Now the really crazy thing about this radical, revolutionary, mind-blowing idea of raising the price to quell demand is that it affects not only large TVs but _everything_! It might make people turn off their lights and lower their utilization of other power-using appliances!
Can someone explain how this is different from a normal OS with kernel level threads and not userland threads? What can this do that e.g. Windows threading, native posix threading (NPTL) in Linux, etc... Is this just apple "inventing" kernel level threads or is it something new?
So... the developer has to release his code before he develops it to license something under GPL? No.
[quote]Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,[/quote]
I'm not too up on GPL, but reading the v2 license what's to stop someone from including an offer for the source valid for at least three years, and then dragging their feet for a year or two on delivering it?
Meh. You're wrong, that's all. No shame in that. It was already found (Uston vs. Resorts) that it's not legal to forbid good players (card counting is not considered cheating unless a device is used, please stick to facts) from playing blackjack.
We'll see what happens if/when this goes to court. They throw you out but if you care enough to sue and can prove you weren't cheating by using a device, you'll probably win. It's happened already.
Ahh, another misguided "Libertarian" chimes in.
These games are heavily regulated. There doesn't even need to be a law - the gaming commission can just say "if you kick out players who count cards using only their minds and no other device, we will shut you down". And this is the way it should be. Without regulation, this becomes a crazy thing called "fraud".
We, the people, prevent large bands of armed thugs from robbing casinos by our "police". In return, they, the casinos agree to abide by our rules. If they don't like it they can, as you would say, choose not to do business.
Nonsense. The casinos exist through government largess. The government should apply the same logic - when casinos start discriminating based on people being too good at the games (without using aids) then the government is free to walk away and shut down the casino. Laissez faire at its finest!
Makes sense. How about the fairness of the Nevada gaming commission shutting down said casinos? The casinos are free to kick successful gamblers who don't cheat out of their business, and the gaming commission is free to shut down the casino. Win-win!
Yeah... about that. No.
See, gambling is largely illegal. Vegas has legalized it and puts restrictions on it. For example, you can't have slot machines that never pay out, or use loaded dice at craps, or have a trick ball in roulette. Similarly, it makes sense that you can't "kick out people who win using no unnatural aid".
If the gaming commission isn't all over this I will fucking _laugh_ as Vegas slowly declines in popularity and becomes just another sad fucking Reno.
Bullshit. There is a gaming commission and they have specific rules to follow. I'm sure you think you're Captain Libertarian, but even the most over-the-top retarded Libertarians recognize this thing called "fraud".
Meh. "Any publicity is good publicity" is simply not true. It can be true if you're not widely known, as it gets name recognition out there. See e.g. reality TV "stars". But for a large multinational corporation that almost everyone already knows it's just that - bad publicity.
They really need to rewrite some of these old sayings people take for granted. Another one is that "the victor writes the histories". Yeah - not anymore. Teh Interwebs pretty much ruined that idea, and it's fairly easy to point to some incidents that happened 50-60 years ago where someone clearly tried to whitewash history but the facts are plain as could be for anyone willing to spend 20 minutes googling.
I read this before but haven't seen jack shit in terms of details. What was in the actual mail? Was it obviously fake/advertising or was it real-seaming? Why anyone would pay attention to random shit they get in email I'll never know, but does anyone have a link to the actual mails?
Yes, they would have been. You're naive if you think otherwise. If you occupy people under force, the occupying civilians are fair game.
But if you think the world is some pathetic fucking romance with white knights and childlike morality you just have fun with that fantasy.
Maybe. I think it still takes balls to make that gamble. Part of our wiring as humans is to avoid death, and going to it willingly for any reasons goes against that wiring. There are some people so fucking insane that what you say is probably true, but I think if you could look into the mind of most suicide bombers before they do it they are scared beyond shitless but still go through with it. Takes balls, and certainly not cowardly but as I said depending on situation certainly evil.
I don't disagree. I'm not a neo-con by any stretch. By enemy I meant "non-US or US-ally actors", including Iran and Hezbullah. I wouldn't even really call them enemies, so you're right it was a poor choice of words. How about potential enemies?
Good old rugged individualism, the hallmark of American success. Now it's come down to some ridiculous concept that we're all here to "contribute to society".
I see. You think capitalism is supposed to reward hard work. Hence all those millionaire construction workers and gardeners.
What I'm saying is that your premise is flawed. Capitalism is not supposed to reward "hard work". It's supposed to reward success, and if that seems nonsensical it's because your point and implied question are stupid - Capitalism isn't "supposed" to do anything but allow individual actors the ability to engage in consensual business.
Bullshit. They're evil for killing civilians, not cowards. Attacking the enemy where he is strong isn't bravery, it's fucking stupidity. Sometimes killing civilians is justified either as collateral damage or intentionally. e.g. had German families started settling in France during WWII occupation you can bet your ass they would have been fair targets.
In the case of blowing up some random people in a bazaar for some obscure religious difference then it's evil - but it's not cowardly. Giving your life for something intentionally is the very opposite of cowardly. But if you think dramatic terms like "coward's way out" make it sound worse, go for it.
Did you read the article? This is brought up - others already have them, including the enemy.
Yeah... no. Suicide bombers aren't cowards, whatever else you want to call them. It seems people just think calling someone a "coward" is about the worst thing you can call them, so they just call all kinds of people cowards who by the meaning of the word _aren't_.
"wrestle with the thought..."? Seriously? What kind of meaningless tripe is that?
They're talking about Outlook Express. Not only isn't Outlook 2007 "bad", it's one of the best mail clients there is most particularly if you're in a corporate environment.
Wouldn't you call allowing your personal religious beliefs to dominate your "concerns" for the well-being of your patients a bit of a right-wing tenet? She thought suffering brought you closer to god, and imposed (by inactivity) that suffering on others when should could have eased their pain instead.
But what difference does that make really? Let's say there were 3 different mainframe vendors, with 33% market share. You can still suffer from lock-in.