I disagree with this. Composting being mandatory is a good thing. Our landfills are filling up quickly and something has to be done about it - having the government regulating this is good for society overall, as most individuals won't do it out of their own will, even knowing that it's the right thing to do.
Composting serves more purposes than just decreasing the amount of stuff in landfills. It minimizes pests on landfills, as compostable material won't be available to grow the pest population. Compost can be sold to farms to help grow crops, which gives money back to the government and savings back to the farms.
How do you enforce this? Do you hire trash checkers to open up everyone's trash and make sure they are following the rules? Do you force the current garbage men to do the checking thus slowing them down and making trash removal cost much more? Does your plan call for a third bin to be left out and wouldn't the pest problem just be dispersed to all neighborhoods not that compost materials are being left out? Your naivete is astounding there are many things to consider before something like this could be enacted.
I got a better chance of winning the lottery twice then politicians voting to end their gravy train. To bad though because the day they do that is the day the US democracy starts heading down the right path again.
Tax increases in a bad economy is a dangerous thing the higher the taxes the less profit a company can make off an investment. Companies have a risk reward calculation they base their investment decisions on. In a bad economy the risks of failure are higher and raising taxes reduces the reward so there will be less investment. If the goal is to fix the budget then the economy has to be taken into account because a bad economy means less revenue. The US is in a corner and the only way out is to reduce spending, the military is preparing for a 20% cut in spending, many of the pork projects need to get cut as well.
Most politicians don't make their fortunes from government checks they make it from sweetheart deals and insider trading. Taking their pay away wouldn't hurt them in fact they would have to be extra corrupt to make up for the lost income.
He did try to publish this in a peer reviewed journal but it was rejected because the science behind his "invention" was not explained in enough detail. He tried to patent his "invention" but that was rejected too. There are only two explanations for his lack of details either he is not entirely sure how it works and stumbled on one of the worlds greatest inventions or more likely he is full of BS. Dismissing him simply because he did not get his work published in a creditable peer reviewed journal, which may have its own biases and agenda, should not instantly discredit him. It should leave many people wary of his intentions especially if he is asking for money. Further more his endeavor has about as much merit as the $700,000 to study cow flatulence after today either he will be just another a cautionary tail or will change the world.
There is a safe amount of mercury exposure 2 parts per billion is what is allowed in drinking water. Baring nuclear materials there is nothing that is dangerous at such a small dose.
That sounds good but "* charging more for your patents than the cost of the devices which you produce using those patents" would need to be further defined is it the cost to produce it or the price it is selling at. Both have problems if it's selling price how is the cost determined if the invention is only part of the product how would the percentage of the total cost be factored in to the price? If It's production cost then some inventions would be priced too low if the invention is simple to manufacture would there be variances granted then. All these little issues would have to be solved by the government who is not equipped ethically or intelligently enough to make those decisions.
Who decides how much a patent is worth? If your answer is the government we got a problem they can't even figure out the cost to mail a letter and they are all ready in the pockets of large companies and would undervalue the inventions.
Wouldn't doing this force most inventors out of the game since they couldn't compete with large companies making their product? And they would have to survive on whatever the government decided their invention was worth.
Would VC money also dry up because an invention would be worth much less thus killing off innovation?
It's not about money it's about ego. Steve heard over and over how innovative he was how great he was how much better he was then everyone else and he started to believe it. So when the competition started implementing some of the ideas he implemented he viewed it as an affront to his greatness. He saw the strength of android and feared it, he probably sees android doing to the iphone what windows did to the mac, ironically enough by using many of apples innovations. That is why he wanted to destroy android he has been down this road before and is afraid of losing his greatness.
So he can use his laptop on the crapper, couch, dinner table,... or wherever else he wants to without having to drag a tower, monitor, mouse, and power cord.
The particles were moving at light speed but due to earths gravity space was distorted and the neutrinos went straight across instead of traveling in the gravity well. Essentially the neutrinos warped.
First to file still takes prior art into account, all that first to file really did is if two people file for a patent and neither has prior art the the first to file wins. I don't know the exact laws in Europe but in the US there is protection for inventors that publish or publicly disclose their invention less than one year before filing their patent application. He could simply be using this grace period to get investors or more then likely he doesn't have shit and is looking to make a quick buck.
While your statement is brilliant and I wish that is how it worked, our government uses its tool belt to impress others so they will "like" them and convince them they need more tools. The problem is that the tool belt is being wielded by a bunch of tools who have forgotten the creed "With great power comes great responsibility". The punishment should be that they have to wear fanny packs.
So cell phones, laptops, cordless tools, wheel chairs, or medical equipment wouldn't benefit from better batteries and wouldn't pay handsomely for the technology. Electric vehicles are a drop in the bucket of all the applications that would benefit from a better battery. The answer to your wonder is NO this technology is moving at a quick pace but the constraints of quick recharge, longevity, mass production considerations, and costs of the raw materials all contribute to making this problem a very difficult one to solve.
The cost to build and repair composites had outweighed the weight benefits that composites gave for commercial vehicles. Lots of structural research of composites has been done in many unrelated fields (boats, cars, helmets, bullet proof vests,...) a small fraction of that knowledge came from gliders. Composites have been around for a long time the sr-71 used them. Gliders are more of a proving ground for composites.
Half of GM's employees are in the US so either you are pulling the number out of you ass or UAW is even more inefficient then its biggest naysayers claim.
The problem is the FCC is not authorized by congress to do this, the FCC also wants to censor cable and satellite transmissions but can't legally. There are two things going on here the teleco's are abusing their market power to kill competition and the FCC is using this as a reason to grab power. Laws need to be written to open up competition and stop the abuse. The FCC can't and shouldn't be able to create it's own laws and enforce them.
In the US there has been one known HIV transmission through blood transfusion in the last 8 years the chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1,500,000. 1 in 400 people who get stuck with a needle or cut with a sharp from a person with HIV contract the virus there have been 57 cases of health care workers getting HIV at work there are 12,000,000 health care workers. Getting HIV is not that easy mostly bad decisions have to be made to get HIV. The chances that you get HIV from a source besides sex and sharing needles is too small to consider 0.000002% you have a better chance of dieing from constipation.
If you look at campaign donations those evil banks gave more to democrats then republicans, the evil healthcare industry too. Republicans want to make it easier to be successful by eliminating many of the government barriers, these barriers do two things, they give the impression that the rich are be burdened with high taxes when in actuality they are not because they all ready accumulated wealth which will not be taxed and they keep too many people from becoming rich and diluting the amount of wealth the rich have.
Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public. I take it you don't recall the uproar when it was suggested that some of the corporations getting bailed out should be required to fire their executives as a condition of acceptance.
I have two words Chevy Volt. GM execs knew it would flop mostly because electric cars are n+1 cars yet their decision to produce it was influenced by an outside source.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with this. Composting being mandatory is a good thing. Our landfills are filling up quickly and something has to be done about it - having the government regulating this is good for society overall, as most individuals won't do it out of their own will, even knowing that it's the right thing to do.
Composting serves more purposes than just decreasing the amount of stuff in landfills. It minimizes pests on landfills, as compostable material won't be available to grow the pest population. Compost can be sold to farms to help grow crops, which gives money back to the government and savings back to the farms.
How do you enforce this? Do you hire trash checkers to open up everyone's trash and make sure they are following the rules? Do you force the current garbage men to do the checking thus slowing them down and making trash removal cost much more? Does your plan call for a third bin to be left out and wouldn't the pest problem just be dispersed to all neighborhoods not that compost materials are being left out? Your naivete is astounding there are many things to consider before something like this could be enacted.
I got a better chance of winning the lottery twice then politicians voting to end their gravy train. To bad though because the day they do that is the day the US democracy starts heading down the right path again.
Tax increases in a bad economy is a dangerous thing the higher the taxes the less profit a company can make off an investment. Companies have a risk reward calculation they base their investment decisions on. In a bad economy the risks of failure are higher and raising taxes reduces the reward so there will be less investment. If the goal is to fix the budget then the economy has to be taken into account because a bad economy means less revenue. The US is in a corner and the only way out is to reduce spending, the military is preparing for a 20% cut in spending, many of the pork projects need to get cut as well.
Most politicians don't make their fortunes from government checks they make it from sweetheart deals and insider trading. Taking their pay away wouldn't hurt them in fact they would have to be extra corrupt to make up for the lost income.
He did try to publish this in a peer reviewed journal but it was rejected because the science behind his "invention" was not explained in enough detail. He tried to patent his "invention" but that was rejected too. There are only two explanations for his lack of details either he is not entirely sure how it works and stumbled on one of the worlds greatest inventions or more likely he is full of BS. Dismissing him simply because he did not get his work published in a creditable peer reviewed journal, which may have its own biases and agenda, should not instantly discredit him. It should leave many people wary of his intentions especially if he is asking for money. Further more his endeavor has about as much merit as the $700,000 to study cow flatulence after today either he will be just another a cautionary tail or will change the world.
There is a safe amount of mercury exposure 2 parts per billion is what is allowed in drinking water. Baring nuclear materials there is nothing that is dangerous at such a small dose.
And even if there no exemption what is the punishment for breaking the ban? A strongly worded letter urging the country to stop using mercury.
That sounds good but "* charging more for your patents than the cost of the devices which you produce using those patents" would need to be further defined is it the cost to produce it or the price it is selling at. Both have problems if it's selling price how is the cost determined if the invention is only part of the product how would the percentage of the total cost be factored in to the price? If It's production cost then some inventions would be priced too low if the invention is simple to manufacture would there be variances granted then. All these little issues would have to be solved by the government who is not equipped ethically or intelligently enough to make those decisions.
I have a few questions
Who decides how much a patent is worth? If your answer is the government we got a problem they can't even figure out the cost to mail a letter and they are all ready in the pockets of large companies and would undervalue the inventions.
Wouldn't doing this force most inventors out of the game since they couldn't compete with large companies making their product? And they would have to survive on whatever the government decided their invention was worth.
Would VC money also dry up because an invention would be worth much less thus killing off innovation?
It's not about money it's about ego. Steve heard over and over how innovative he was how great he was how much better he was then everyone else and he started to believe it. So when the competition started implementing some of the ideas he implemented he viewed it as an affront to his greatness. He saw the strength of android and feared it, he probably sees android doing to the iphone what windows did to the mac, ironically enough by using many of apples innovations. That is why he wanted to destroy android he has been down this road before and is afraid of losing his greatness.
So he can use his laptop on the crapper, couch, dinner table, ... or wherever else he wants to without having to drag a tower, monitor, mouse, and power cord.
The particles were moving at light speed but due to earths gravity space was distorted and the neutrinos went straight across instead of traveling in the gravity well. Essentially the neutrinos warped.
First to file still takes prior art into account, all that first to file really did is if two people file for a patent and neither has prior art the the first to file wins. I don't know the exact laws in Europe but in the US there is protection for inventors that publish or publicly disclose their invention less than one year before filing their patent application. He could simply be using this grace period to get investors or more then likely he doesn't have shit and is looking to make a quick buck.
While your statement is brilliant and I wish that is how it worked, our government uses its tool belt to impress others so they will "like" them and convince them they need more tools. The problem is that the tool belt is being wielded by a bunch of tools who have forgotten the creed "With great power comes great responsibility". The punishment should be that they have to wear fanny packs.
So cell phones, laptops, cordless tools, wheel chairs, or medical equipment wouldn't benefit from better batteries and wouldn't pay handsomely for the technology. Electric vehicles are a drop in the bucket of all the applications that would benefit from a better battery. The answer to your wonder is NO this technology is moving at a quick pace but the constraints of quick recharge, longevity, mass production considerations, and costs of the raw materials all contribute to making this problem a very difficult one to solve.
The cost to build and repair composites had outweighed the weight benefits that composites gave for commercial vehicles. Lots of structural research of composites has been done in many unrelated fields (boats, cars, helmets, bullet proof vests,...) a small fraction of that knowledge came from gliders. Composites have been around for a long time the sr-71 used them. Gliders are more of a proving ground for composites.
Half of GM's employees are in the US so either you are pulling the number out of you ass or UAW is even more inefficient then its biggest naysayers claim.
Only if Congress has granted them the authority to do so and only for the reasons that Congress specified as grounds to do so.
Again congress has not given the FCC authority to regulate the internet.
The problem is the FCC is not authorized by congress to do this, the FCC also wants to censor cable and satellite transmissions but can't legally. There are two things going on here the teleco's are abusing their market power to kill competition and the FCC is using this as a reason to grab power. Laws need to be written to open up competition and stop the abuse. The FCC can't and shouldn't be able to create it's own laws and enforce them.
In the US there has been one known HIV transmission through blood transfusion in the last 8 years the chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1,500,000. 1 in 400 people who get stuck with a needle or cut with a sharp from a person with HIV contract the virus there have been 57 cases of health care workers getting HIV at work there are 12,000,000 health care workers. Getting HIV is not that easy mostly bad decisions have to be made to get HIV. The chances that you get HIV from a source besides sex and sharing needles is too small to consider 0.000002% you have a better chance of dieing from constipation.
So Texans should risk their lives for a child molesting nut job?
If you look at campaign donations those evil banks gave more to democrats then republicans, the evil healthcare industry too. Republicans want to make it easier to be successful by eliminating many of the government barriers, these barriers do two things, they give the impression that the rich are be burdened with high taxes when in actuality they are not because they all ready accumulated wealth which will not be taxed and they keep too many people from becoming rich and diluting the amount of wealth the rich have.
So Texas is responsible for the ATF and FBI I always thought they were at the federal level.
Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public. I take it you don't recall the uproar when it was suggested that some of the corporations getting bailed out should be required to fire their executives as a condition of acceptance.
I have two words Chevy Volt. GM execs knew it would flop mostly because electric cars are n+1 cars yet their decision to produce it was influenced by an outside source.
I find it hard to believe that 30million is the monthly cost to stream the movies it's either a yearly rate or multi-year rate.