Maybe your flex fuel vehicles are better, but here in the states, GM's "Flex Fuel" technology is completely crap.
Sure, you CAN run your flex fuel vehicle on E85, but doing so drops your fuel milage by 20%+. You wind up blowing through way more fuel to drive the vehicle like a gutless hog.
Ethanol engines can be incredibly efficient. All of our top fuel race cars are burning ethanol. But in order to get that efficiency they have to push much higher compression ratios. To change the compression ratio though, you have to change the chamber size or the stroke of the crank. Neither of which can be done on the fly. You can get around this with a variable controlled turbo charger or other forced air induction. But GM's flex fuel vehicles are just naturally aspirated. No turbos, no compression ratio changes. Just a different type of rubber tube that holds up to ethanol, different oxygen sensors, and a little bit of valve and timing control.
Heck, the last I saw, they had more invested in the marketing of Flex Fuel then they had in developing it.
And the point of health insurance is to protect everyone else.
As we've heard over and over, you can just go to the emergency room and default on your medical bills. But guess who get's screwed? Everyone else.
Not saying that this is the best solution, just that health care services are a social issue, not an individual issue. Trying to play pin-the-tail-on-the-individual doesn't work. It just privatizes the profits and socializes the risks.
"In an easily foreseeable move, US District Judge Henry E. Hudson issued a ruling today that the universal healthcare law that was voted for by super majorities in the House and Senate is unconstitutional. Specifically, he invalidated the section of the law that requires all citizens to purchase healthcare insurance, arguing that it does not fall under the purview of Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as has been asserted by the government. The ruling represents the latest setback for Senator McCain (R-AZ), who introduced the mandate, on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court. Two other courts have shot down challenges to the law."
After a series of unfortunate caps-lock incidents years ago, I've taken to popping off the caps lock key on any QWERTY (-- yes, I held the shift button to type that) keyboard I use regularly.
While it is annoying that the infrastructure guys keep asking me if I want a new keyboard, it beats dealing with the accidental capping, especially when working in languages that are case sensitive.
Well, if the Diplomats that wrote the cables that Wikileaks published claim copy rights over them, then the DoJ could shut down Wikileaks, and any other whistle blower site, based on copy right violations.
The pharma and entertainment industries get a boon, and send more cash in to campaign funds, which is critical to our elected multi-millionaire representatives who are going to easily crack $10 billion in spending for the 2012 election. And the feds give themselves more power. The only people who lose out are the citizens.
And Wikileaks has not published any highly classified mission material.
Heck, most of the stuff in the cables wasn't even classified! It was just tagged with "No internet distribution". And even the stuff that was sensitive/secret could have been obtained via a FOIA request.
This leak was entirely about promoting democracy, government accountability, and building a historical context for a point in time where we are engaged in two wars with active military operations in 4 or more countries.
But it changes nothing for Comcast's network load.
If 100,000 Comcast customers were streaming Netflix movies before, 100,000 Comcast customers will be streaming Netflix movies now.
The only difference is that Comcast can now pull that data from local CDN connections from Level 3 instead of having to go out to their back bone provider/peers.
They wind up with a better peering ratio on the backbone, their customers enjoy better streaming, and they get a huge up pipe for free from Level 3.
Your car analogy is flawed, let me restructure it to illustrate the situation:
Lets say I own a road and lease out access to that road to a video game store, and you own a road and run a video game store.
Your 'road' customers pay a toll to use your road.
Our roads are not currently connected. If people want to get from your road to my road, they have to get on interstate. Which takes them out of their way, makes for a slower trip, and increase the cost for everyone as we have to maintain the interstate.
To reduce the costs and improve the drive, I build a new road that connects directly to your road.
Your 'road' customers can now use your road to get to both your store and to my road and the video game store leased there. It's faster and cheaper than before and everyone is happy.
It has no effect over your road's congestion. All of the people that had been taking your road to the interstate to get to my store are now just going to take your road to my road. The same people are still doing the same thing.
Everyone is happy, except for your video game store. Your video game store is now losing sales because the customers who used to go there can now go to my video game store.
So you use your power over the road to charge me a fee for allowing your customers to get to my road with out using the interstate. You do this not because I am increasing the traffic on your network, but because I am taking sales from your video game store.
And there in lies the rub. An ISP that charges/alters traffic based on competition in other markets has an unfair business advantage and is exploiting their government mandated monopoly.
Peering agreements are what we typically see at back bone and transport level connections.
The bandwidth going either way is roughly even.
For example, if Level 3 wanted to get packets to an AT&T customer, and Comcast owned a network between those two points, Level 3 and Charter could have a peering agreement so that Level 3 could send data over Comcast's network and vice-verse. If Comcast is sending a lot more data out for transport over Comcast's network than Comcast is sending back, then there may be a fee included.
That's all fine and good. But, in this case, Level 3 isn't sending data to AT&T customers. They are sending data to Comcast's customers. Customers that requested the data. Level 3, being proactive for Netflix, is trying to get a direct connection to Comcast's network to reduce backbone data transfers. Even if this agreement falls apart, Level 3 will still be routing the data to Netflix, but it will be coming over an existing back bone connection. It will offer worse performance for Comcast's customers, and it would waste more bandwidth on the back bone.
This is a pretty clear case of Comcast taking two dips from the coffers. Once from the users who are paying for data to be transferred to them via Comcast's network, and again from Level 3 that is providing the requested data to Comcast.
If 75% of the leaked material you have is dealing with or from the US, 75% of your publishing is likely going to be leaks about or from the US.
I mean, Wikileaks primary target and sources are all English speaking western European and North American countries. His sources are entirely self selecting. I would love to see more information from around the globe, but lets face it, Assange isn't a spy. He's not breaking into secured American communications and harvesting this stuff. Americans are going to him with stuff.
Should he have not published the cables because he had recently published the war docs? Should he not publish stuff on Goldmen Sachs because he's about to publish stuff on Bank of America?
Last I checked, as soon as a person is 18 years old, they are free to model naked. Also, once a person is 18 years old, they are free to observe naked models.
Interpol doesn't create "arrest warrants". They handle international police cooperation in the enforcement of law. Sweeden or Australia may have a warrant out for him, and they are working with Interpol to have a "Red Notice" filed. The notice may be recognized as merit for arrest in some countries, but it's a bit of a crap shoot.
There was a lot of misinformation spread about Interpol a few months ago. They don't have judges, they don't have cops, they don't detain people. They just facilitate communication and interaction between police forces from different countries.
In short, while copying a work illegally may not deprive the original holder of a copy, it most certainly can deprive them of their ability to use it.
You make that argument a number of times, but you never put any explanation or argument behind it.
If you were to record a new song, and enjoy listening to it, and I were to copy that song, and enjoy listening to it with out your knowledge, would you cease to enjoy listening to it?
Now, you have a federally protected monopoly on the distribution of that song. These are generally called "Intellectual Property Rights", in this case specifically, Copy Rights.
By making a copy with out your permissions, I have infringed on your Copy Rights. While there are criminal codes for such infringements, they have never been used in US (or world) history.
But there are also Tort rules about copy right infringement. And they are used all the time, quite successfully, to deal with this specific issue.
So here's my question: You have a perfectly acceptable solution already. You have tort laws to get money for infringement, and you have the DMCA to handle taking your protected materials down when online. Along with a host of court history and industry professionals to make the process quite streamlined.
With all those tools in YOUR hands to protect YOUR materials, why do you demand that I as a tax payer subsidize YOUR profits even more?
I'm already footing the bill for the Feds to hand you a monopoly over a piece of music for what, 140 years now? I'm already footing the bill for your music. I'm already footing the bill for your lawyer (as part of the cost of your music). And now you want me to pay for the Feds to do what YOU are already capable and responsible for?
Who's the freeloader here? The guy who is infringing on your property? Or you, demanding that us tax payers subsidize your profits because you are too lazy to do the work yourself?
You are NOT stealing. You are infringing on their copy rights.
It's not difficult to understand. It is not "more complex".
The federal government has established them as the sole entity in a monopoly over the distribution of the intellectual property.
There are actually criminal laws about IP violations, but they have NEVER been used. The government has always treated IP infringement as a civil issue.
You don't go to jail for civil issues. You don't get arrested. You can still vote. You can still join the military. You aren't found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are found liable based on a preponderance of the evidence.
So by all means, attack the freeloaders in a civil court. Use the tort system to exact any lost revenues you feel are due.
But leave the government out of it, there's no need to give them dramatic increases in powers or responsibilities.
diplomatic dispatches are supposed to frank and honest assessments.
No, they are not. The purpose of diplomacy isn't honest or frank communications.
The purpose is to take what ever communication steps are needed to secure the best possible outcome for the organization. You show respect to those you detest. You show strength to those you fear. You show weakness to those you want.
It's the GAME of statesmanship. And a couple of players will get their knuckles cracked for it. But more diplomats will step in, better players, to smooth things out. Because each nation still wants what's best for it. Each nation with still play their part.
The hope though, is that no nation sees open warfare as the best possible outcome. And at the moment, certain elements of the US have a lot to gain from a new war.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe your flex fuel vehicles are better, but here in the states, GM's "Flex Fuel" technology is completely crap.
Sure, you CAN run your flex fuel vehicle on E85, but doing so drops your fuel milage by 20%+. You wind up blowing through way more fuel to drive the vehicle like a gutless hog.
Ethanol engines can be incredibly efficient. All of our top fuel race cars are burning ethanol. But in order to get that efficiency they have to push much higher compression ratios. To change the compression ratio though, you have to change the chamber size or the stroke of the crank. Neither of which can be done on the fly. You can get around this with a variable controlled turbo charger or other forced air induction. But GM's flex fuel vehicles are just naturally aspirated. No turbos, no compression ratio changes. Just a different type of rubber tube that holds up to ethanol, different oxygen sensors, and a little bit of valve and timing control.
Heck, the last I saw, they had more invested in the marketing of Flex Fuel then they had in developing it.
-Rick
Too bad it's an AC, but he raises a very valid point.
so books about incest = bad.
books about incestuous rape = ok?
Those passages are like saying "It's ok to date rape someone, even an immediate family member, if you don't have a kid already".
-Rick
And the point of health insurance is to protect everyone else.
As we've heard over and over, you can just go to the emergency room and default on your medical bills. But guess who get's screwed? Everyone else.
Not saying that this is the best solution, just that health care services are a social issue, not an individual issue. Trying to play pin-the-tail-on-the-individual doesn't work. It just privatizes the profits and socializes the risks.
Wait a second, where have we heard that before?
-Rick
"In an easily foreseeable move, US District Judge Henry E. Hudson issued a ruling today that the universal healthcare law that was voted for by super majorities in the House and Senate is unconstitutional. Specifically, he invalidated the section of the law that requires all citizens to purchase healthcare insurance, arguing that it does not fall under the purview of Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as has been asserted by the government. The ruling represents the latest setback for Senator McCain (R-AZ), who introduced the mandate, on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court. Two other courts have shot down challenges to the law."
That reads a little more accurately now.
-Rick
Personal preference, but I usually write keywords in caps, objects in proper.
For instance:
SELECT t1.Field1, t1.Field2
FROM Table1 t1
INNER JOIN Table2 t2
ON t1.Field1 = t2.Field1
AND t2.Field2 = t2.Field2
WHERE t2.Field3 = 'Some Value'
IMO, it's much more readable than just upper casing the whole thing.
If you are writing your SQL in all caps....
You're doing it wrong.
-Rick
After a series of unfortunate caps-lock incidents years ago, I've taken to popping off the caps lock key on any QWERTY (-- yes, I held the shift button to type that) keyboard I use regularly.
While it is annoying that the infrastructure guys keep asking me if I want a new keyboard, it beats dealing with the accidental capping, especially when working in languages that are case sensitive.
-Rick
Well, if the Diplomats that wrote the cables that Wikileaks published claim copy rights over them, then the DoJ could shut down Wikileaks, and any other whistle blower site, based on copy right violations.
The pharma and entertainment industries get a boon, and send more cash in to campaign funds, which is critical to our elected multi-millionaire representatives who are going to easily crack $10 billion in spending for the 2012 election. And the feds give themselves more power. The only people who lose out are the citizens.
-Rick
And Wikileaks has not published any highly classified mission material.
Heck, most of the stuff in the cables wasn't even classified! It was just tagged with "No internet distribution". And even the stuff that was sensitive/secret could have been obtained via a FOIA request.
This leak was entirely about promoting democracy, government accountability, and building a historical context for a point in time where we are engaged in two wars with active military operations in 4 or more countries.
It really isn't that big of deal.
-Rick
But it changes nothing for Comcast's network load.
If 100,000 Comcast customers were streaming Netflix movies before, 100,000 Comcast customers will be streaming Netflix movies now.
The only difference is that Comcast can now pull that data from local CDN connections from Level 3 instead of having to go out to their back bone provider/peers.
They wind up with a better peering ratio on the backbone, their customers enjoy better streaming, and they get a huge up pipe for free from Level 3.
This is a huge boon for Comcast.
Your car analogy is flawed, let me restructure it to illustrate the situation:
Lets say I own a road and lease out access to that road to a video game store, and you own a road and run a video game store.
Your 'road' customers pay a toll to use your road.
Our roads are not currently connected. If people want to get from your road to my road, they have to get on interstate. Which takes them out of their way, makes for a slower trip, and increase the cost for everyone as we have to maintain the interstate.
To reduce the costs and improve the drive, I build a new road that connects directly to your road.
Your 'road' customers can now use your road to get to both your store and to my road and the video game store leased there. It's faster and cheaper than before and everyone is happy.
It has no effect over your road's congestion. All of the people that had been taking your road to the interstate to get to my store are now just going to take your road to my road. The same people are still doing the same thing.
Everyone is happy, except for your video game store. Your video game store is now losing sales because the customers who used to go there can now go to my video game store.
So you use your power over the road to charge me a fee for allowing your customers to get to my road with out using the interstate. You do this not because I am increasing the traffic on your network, but because I am taking sales from your video game store.
And there in lies the rub. An ISP that charges/alters traffic based on competition in other markets has an unfair business advantage and is exploiting their government mandated monopoly.
Peering agreements are what we typically see at back bone and transport level connections.
The bandwidth going either way is roughly even.
For example, if Level 3 wanted to get packets to an AT&T customer, and Comcast owned a network between those two points, Level 3 and Charter could have a peering agreement so that Level 3 could send data over Comcast's network and vice-verse. If Comcast is sending a lot more data out for transport over Comcast's network than Comcast is sending back, then there may be a fee included.
That's all fine and good. But, in this case, Level 3 isn't sending data to AT&T customers. They are sending data to Comcast's customers. Customers that requested the data. Level 3, being proactive for Netflix, is trying to get a direct connection to Comcast's network to reduce backbone data transfers. Even if this agreement falls apart, Level 3 will still be routing the data to Netflix, but it will be coming over an existing back bone connection. It will offer worse performance for Comcast's customers, and it would waste more bandwidth on the back bone.
This is a pretty clear case of Comcast taking two dips from the coffers. Once from the users who are paying for data to be transferred to them via Comcast's network, and again from Level 3 that is providing the requested data to Comcast.
-Rick
If 75% of the leaked material you have is dealing with or from the US, 75% of your publishing is likely going to be leaks about or from the US.
I mean, Wikileaks primary target and sources are all English speaking western European and North American countries. His sources are entirely self selecting. I would love to see more information from around the globe, but lets face it, Assange isn't a spy. He's not breaking into secured American communications and harvesting this stuff. Americans are going to him with stuff.
Should he have not published the cables because he had recently published the war docs? Should he not publish stuff on Goldmen Sachs because he's about to publish stuff on Bank of America?
-Rick
My point was that Bush was Elected in 2004, he wasn't RE-Elected in 2004.
Clinton was elected in 1992, and re-elected in 1996. Reagan was elected in 1980, and re-elected in 1984.
Bush Jr was only elected once. His initial term as POTUS was delivered by the SCOTUS, not the electoral college.
-Rick
Bush was appointed to the Presidency in 2000 by the SCOTUS.
Bush was elected to the Presidency in 2004 by the Electorate College.
-Rick
Last I checked, as soon as a person is 18 years old, they are free to model naked. Also, once a person is 18 years old, they are free to observe naked models.
You don't lose those rights when you turn 50.
-Rick
Interpol doesn't create "arrest warrants". They handle international police cooperation in the enforcement of law. Sweeden or Australia may have a warrant out for him, and they are working with Interpol to have a "Red Notice" filed. The notice may be recognized as merit for arrest in some countries, but it's a bit of a crap shoot.
There was a lot of misinformation spread about Interpol a few months ago. They don't have judges, they don't have cops, they don't detain people. They just facilitate communication and interaction between police forces from different countries.
-Rick
The summary paints it slightly differently and the article is vague on it.
If Charter is angling for more money or they'll drop the link, then this is fine. Just another day in peering agreement battles.
If Charter is angling for more money or they'll drop the link just for Netflix data, then it is arguably a net neutrality violation.
Dropping Link = fine.
Dropping specific subset of data = bad.
-Rick
Betsy Ross was the pinko commie that put red in the American flag.
-Rick
I have stolen part of your post for my new tag line. That phrase is just too awesome to not repeat.
-Rick
In short, while copying a work illegally may not deprive the original holder of a copy, it most certainly can deprive them of their ability to use it.
You make that argument a number of times, but you never put any explanation or argument behind it.
If you were to record a new song, and enjoy listening to it, and I were to copy that song, and enjoy listening to it with out your knowledge, would you cease to enjoy listening to it?
Now, you have a federally protected monopoly on the distribution of that song. These are generally called "Intellectual Property Rights", in this case specifically, Copy Rights.
By making a copy with out your permissions, I have infringed on your Copy Rights. While there are criminal codes for such infringements, they have never been used in US (or world) history.
But there are also Tort rules about copy right infringement. And they are used all the time, quite successfully, to deal with this specific issue.
So here's my question: You have a perfectly acceptable solution already. You have tort laws to get money for infringement, and you have the DMCA to handle taking your protected materials down when online. Along with a host of court history and industry professionals to make the process quite streamlined.
With all those tools in YOUR hands to protect YOUR materials, why do you demand that I as a tax payer subsidize YOUR profits even more?
I'm already footing the bill for the Feds to hand you a monopoly over a piece of music for what, 140 years now? I'm already footing the bill for your music. I'm already footing the bill for your lawyer (as part of the cost of your music). And now you want me to pay for the Feds to do what YOU are already capable and responsible for?
Who's the freeloader here? The guy who is infringing on your property? Or you, demanding that us tax payers subsidize your profits because you are too lazy to do the work yourself?
-Rick
You are NOT stealing. You are infringing on their copy rights.
It's not difficult to understand. It is not "more complex".
The federal government has established them as the sole entity in a monopoly over the distribution of the intellectual property.
There are actually criminal laws about IP violations, but they have NEVER been used. The government has always treated IP infringement as a civil issue.
You don't go to jail for civil issues. You don't get arrested. You can still vote. You can still join the military. You aren't found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are found liable based on a preponderance of the evidence.
So by all means, attack the freeloaders in a civil court. Use the tort system to exact any lost revenues you feel are due.
But leave the government out of it, there's no need to give them dramatic increases in powers or responsibilities.
The problem with the current market of Prada purse copies isn't perfection, it's the Trademark.
The counterfeiters produce a cheap bag and slap the Prada trademark on it.
The purse itself can not be copyrighted. You could make your own exact copy, put a "Kumaru" tag on it, and sell it for $2000.
-Rick
diplomatic dispatches are supposed to frank and honest assessments.
No, they are not. The purpose of diplomacy isn't honest or frank communications.
The purpose is to take what ever communication steps are needed to secure the best possible outcome for the organization. You show respect to those you detest. You show strength to those you fear. You show weakness to those you want.
It's the GAME of statesmanship. And a couple of players will get their knuckles cracked for it. But more diplomats will step in, better players, to smooth things out. Because each nation still wants what's best for it. Each nation with still play their part.
The hope though, is that no nation sees open warfare as the best possible outcome. And at the moment, certain elements of the US have a lot to gain from a new war.
-Rick