I don't need to claim, I have solid stability. I don't throw away computers, I usually upgrade one part at a time and sell off the old part to people who don't need the newest tech. I'm pretty sure I haven't had my computer on for 71+ days, but there's no point in wasting electricity if one doesn't need to have it on overnight as my gaming rig isn't a server, if it was, I'd be running linux. As for the people you know, all of their hardware doesn't need to be faulty for windows to "crapout". They probably have a poor-quality peripheral with bugged drivers, or something else bugged. I'm glad that you're happy with your laptop, software doesn't run on the exterior though, so I don't really think you can call it faulty. If the RAM was broken or the HDD spat out random data at regular intervals, I doubt any OS could function properly...
P.S: I don't care about the subject enough to keep my computer on for 100+ days just to prove that XP is stable. In fact, I hope more people start using linux, and that people like you spend some of that energy on improving it so that we gamers can some day in the future run linux instead of windows.
Same here, and I've had my computer on practically 24/7 (some nights turning it off when there's nothing to torrent). Those who claim XP is unstable are nothing more than trolls, or are running it on faulty hardware.
What's the big deal? RC = ready to release unless fatal bugs found (ie. data loss, crashing). I have not heard of any fatal bugs in RC1, and I did not find any in Beta 2 personally. I do believe that there will be a RC2, as there will always be some bugs that fall under the radar. Small bugs can be patched post-release, companies that produce commercial software do not have the luxury of coding until it's perfect like OSS projects do.
There is no way that this money can be converted back into RLC (real life currency.) If there was a way, and he did, then he could easily be punished under fraud/racketeering laws. But again, IANAL.
Yes, there is. ATM the bid on 1 billion ISK ~100$, so 700 billion ISK is about 70000$!
What was the name of that MMORPG that would let you move game currency into the real world and vice-versa?
Why should the automobile companies produce a better car to compete with Tucker when they can just call up his bankers and threaten to pull their (more profitable) business unless they drop Tucker?
Then Tucker can go to another bank for financing, or private investors. There will always be someone willing to invest in a sound business.
Why should they make better cars when they can just threaten or bribe every dealer he lines up with cancelled existing contracts or more lucrative new ones (they don't actually have to come through with the lucrative contracts, just keep them stringing along long enough for Tucker to go bankrupt).
Bribing is just another way of lowering your price. Threaten? Physical violence is obviously illegal, not sure what other ways of threatening they could use to prevent dealers from buying from Tucker. Also, what prevents Tucker from selling directly to his customers? As for stringing along dealers with lucrative contracts and then not following through, that's called fraud, and is illegal even in an libertarian society.
Why should they improve safety in their own vehicles when they can just start an advertising campaign alleging that Tucker's safety systems are evidence that his car is less safe?
You underestimate the intelligence of customers. Only a small minority would fall for such an ad campaign. Also, did you consider the added cost to the old manufacturer? It could very well be cheaper to compete by improving the car and/or lowering prices than to spend money on a massive ad campaign.
Why would they compete on price or quality when they can just call the steel mill and rubber importer where he gets his raw materials and threaten to cut off their millions in revenue unless they stop selling to Tucker?
The car company could hardly be ordering all from all the steel companies in the world, there would always be some company willing to sell to Tucker. If nothing else, Tucker could start his own steel company.
You can't have 12 water mains connected to your house and 43 telephone lines being run down every city street.
Yes you can. Of course people would usually have only one water main & telephone line, but the threat of competition would prevent the companies from increasing their prices to unreasonable levels. This is assuming a level playing field, with no regulation.
Free market systems are not just some crazy theoretical thing that has never been tried -- every time a state weakened, and when commerce first began happening internationally, the free market happened. It was rarely utopian, and far more frequently resulted in collusion, intimidation, bribery, and even the raising of private armies outside the reach of governmental intrusion.
What does mercantilism have to do with this? And what's wrong with bribery? And private armies (as long as they're only used for self-defense)? I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist...
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
Not in regulation there isn't. But in economy there only is the market, and people who foolishly think it can be controlled through regulation.
I admit, sometimes I don't know if I should laugh or cry when I see sweet young kids who believe so fervently in libertarianism. It must be what it was like to hang out in coffee shops in 1920, when everyone thought Communism was the One Perfect System that would solve all the world's problems.
Maybe I'm just a sweet, young kid (:)) who fervently believes in libertarianism, but my experience has shown me that everytime something is deregulated, my costs go down, and my living standards go up, so that's good enough for me. And communism is the one perfect system, when the technology has advanced to the level required. Think 99.9% unemployment and production efficiencies that allow basic necessities to be produced at near zero cost. The first steps have already been taken in the entertainment industries. Maybe in the 22nd century?
* Starting a company to compete with such a beast would take a great deal of money. Money that would be extremely difficult to come by if you can't even send an email to the VC company that may or may not be interested.
Why would it require a great deal of money? You can start small, and expand when you get revenue. The internet wasn't built in a day.
* Attracting customers requires publicity and marketing, two other undertakings that are difficult when you find it difficult to place a phone call.
Word of mouth. Newspaper ads. Instead of placing a phone call, drive to the company you want to use for advertising.
* The One True Telecom would spend billions lobbying, marketing, lying cheating and stealing to freeze you out of every opportunity.
Only marketing would work in a libertarian society. Lying, cheating, fraud and stealing would still be illegal. The purpose of lobbying would be to get the government to regulate, which would cause the society to cease to be libertarian, so lobbying would not be possible in a libertarian society.
A libertarian society would not produce more responsible companies, it would produce more companies.
I don't see how. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
Without regulation, the barrier to entry is lowered considerably, thus resulting in more people creating companies and competing.
How would a lack of regulations keep a monopoly from forming?
The only way a monopoly is formed (in a non-regulated market), is if a company is able to outcompete every other company. This would be the result of having better prices, quality etc. If this company then decided to raise its prices, the market it is operating in becomes more lucrative, resulting in new companies entering the market. If the company didn't raise its prices, then there would be no problem, and eventually technological advancements would allow new companies to enter the market causing new competition to lower prices. I chose my words poorly, as removing regulations doesn't stop monopolies from forming, but makes them less dangerous.
Customers only get alienated if they are told they should be alienated. The consumer is not the driving force in this arena. Consumers do as they are told; poor service or bad behavior on the vendor's part does not drive the market. If this were different, no, these monopolies would not exist. But if things were different they wouldn't be the same.
The reason those monopolies exist is because they were granted exclusive rights through regulation in the past. Even today, the requirement of universal service is a huge barrier of entry to new companies.
I have no problem with libertarianism as an idea or you in particular; I don't know where you got that idea. I'm challenging your argument because there's things about it that I don't think jibe with reality. I would be a libertarian if I thought our society had progressed to the point where its naivete could be overcome. Libertarianism works if everyone (including corporate entities) acts responsibly. Big business (and individuals for that matter) have proven that people cannot be trusted to act responsibility without the threat of sanction. I don't like it either, but I don't think you could argue that that is the case.
Sorry, should have left the part about rage out, and I would have edited it if that was possible. It was meant more at regulatorians at large, and not directed at you specifically.
Without anti-trust law, what would stop the AT&Ts and the Verizons of the world merging into the One True Telecom company that would control every bit and byte that passed over any network worth talking about?
I realise free market theories are hard to grasp when there are no real-world examples on earth today, but I am worried that the word 'competition' didn't enter your mind. In this hypothetical one-ISP-to-rule-them-all scenario, why couldn't someone start a new company that competed with this monster ISP? I can't think of anything else but government intervention, a.k.a. regulation.
And why would a libertarian society automatically generate companies that would act more responsibly?
A libertarian society would not produce more responsible companies, it would produce more companies. If the market consisted of a lot of small companies instead of one mammoth-monopoly (which is only enabled by regulations), then the individual companies would have far less power. If a company had crappy policies, then it would get alienated from its customers and go bankrupt, which is an important part of a free market.
If any of this made you even blink, then I point you to http://mises.org/. If, OTOH, this only awakens emotions of rage because I'm a stupid libertarian who wants the whole world to be owned by one big corporation that spills toxic waste in your backyard and charges you for it, then I guess that's your problem.
They've got the things that make modern life possible, and they know it. They own us, whether we like to admit it or not. Their services control what house we can buy, what car we can drive, who we can talk to on the phone, what we can see on TV, and now, what we can access on the Intarweb. They control our entire lives. If any of these companies decided to ruin one of us, there is little that we could do to stop them. For example, if the company that holds your car note decides that it doesn't like you, they'll have your car reposessed and seized. Maybe they're within their rights, maybe not. But by the time you reach a court with your complaint against them, you've already lost your job, your ability to look for a new one, your ability to go shopping for food, etc. Same thing with your mortgage holder, only worse: they can make you homeless at a whim.
The thing is, that these companies wouldn't have that kind of power in a libertarian society, as there would always be a competitor willing to hire you or refinance your car. Monopolies are only possible through regulation.
Wha? There's a new version out? When did this happen, my Firefox didn't notify me of an update! Damn, it's going to take ages to download the new internets with my slow 1 Mbps ADSL.:(
We should do it the way they recently exterminated thousands of dogs in a Chinese province: send out teams to hunt them down in people's yards, or grab them when people are walking them, and then hack them to death with machetes while their owners watch.
How cute. I felt sympathy for you for the troubles you wrote about in the beginning of your post and thought that the dog should probably have been locked up somewhere (including its owner), but now I just feel sorry for you as your life must really suck for you to wish so much grief on those who own pitbulls. That's borderline sociopathic if you ask me.
For me the wires isn't much of a problem, but the lack of a good surface to use the mouse on. Using a mouse on the surface of a couch sounds annoying, so I'd need a suitably large piece of plywood or something else flat. Also having the keyboard in your lap isn't very ergonomic, and feels shaky.
Looks like the floor leader doesn't have to abide by it. So maybe people should try pressuring him/her into allowing the bill to proceed? This way Stevens has to filibuster the bill if he wants to slow it down.
RCA had demonstrated a prototype transistor radio as early as 1952 and it is likely that they and the other radio makers were planning transistor radios of their own.
Granted, RCA was also an American company, but it did not do it with the help of TI.
Ah, finally an article about the PS3 failing. I was getting jitters because I hadn't gotten my fix yet. Especially reading that article about gaming myths that claimed the PS3 won't fail, I almost passed out from the pain!
You Need a $500 Graphics Card - Not a myth for even the most basic Slashdotter with the slightest grasp on the subject.
Sadly a noticeable portion of slashdotters seem to not have the slightest grasp on the subject, so I think restating the obvious is in this case a good thing.
So does anyone think it's really a major stretch to see a KBM setup on a console?
No. But I think it's a major stretch to think that people will start to have their consoles at their desks. Because using a mouse and keyboard at your sofa is simply not gonna happen. Of course the Wii could change things.
I think the problem isn't that it's hard to prove god exists, but that the concept of god is completely outside the scientific method. How can you measure or observe something that can create a universe at will, controls time and can change the very laws of nature? Even if someone found a way to detect the presence of god, then this god could suddenly decide to change the past and make it so the person never invented the detection mechanism. Or maybe it changes the very laws of nature, making the method ineffectual at detecting it. Conspiracy theories on the other hand, are entirely human constructs, and as such break no known laws of nature (those that do, are disproven by the act of breaking those laws). They can be falsified by humans, and eventually most are. As you already pointed out, with enough time and money, one could gather enough evidence to do just that. Obviously some people will refuse to believe something even in the face of overwhelming evidence (creationists), but we're not trying to prove theories to them, as they're beyond hope anyways.
As for the god example, I for one would not believe that to be a god, as it sounds rather underwhelming. If that's all a god is capable of, then I wouldn't bother wasting my time worshipping something like that, as science isn't too far (the rumbling voice and shaking earth is already doable) from giving that kind of powers to humans.:)
I suspect your theory about conspiracy theories is flawed, in that any half-decent conspiracy theory isn't easily provable as a fantasy. It doesn't mean one should believe them, either -- like God, they are often inherently not scientific hypotheses, because they can't be disproved.
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. Yes, god cannot be proven or disproven, as the concept is completely outside our laws of nature, but claiming the same of conspiracy theories? Now that's just silly.
And there would be a 1 timezone wide area which is unroutable at all times. If one really cares about the environment, then it should be obvious that pressuring ones respective governments to allow more nuclear power is the most efficient solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't need to claim, I have solid stability. I don't throw away computers, I usually upgrade one part at a time and sell off the old part to people who don't need the newest tech. I'm pretty sure I haven't had my computer on for 71+ days, but there's no point in wasting electricity if one doesn't need to have it on overnight as my gaming rig isn't a server, if it was, I'd be running linux. As for the people you know, all of their hardware doesn't need to be faulty for windows to "crapout". They probably have a poor-quality peripheral with bugged drivers, or something else bugged. I'm glad that you're happy with your laptop, software doesn't run on the exterior though, so I don't really think you can call it faulty. If the RAM was broken or the HDD spat out random data at regular intervals, I doubt any OS could function properly...
P.S: I don't care about the subject enough to keep my computer on for 100+ days just to prove that XP is stable. In fact, I hope more people start using linux, and that people like you spend some of that energy on improving it so that we gamers can some day in the future run linux instead of windows.
past time
Pastime is teh correctering spelling, shnarf!
Hell, I haven't had XP or 2000 crash in years.
Same here, and I've had my computer on practically 24/7 (some nights turning it off when there's nothing to torrent). Those who claim XP is unstable are nothing more than trolls, or are running it on faulty hardware.
What's the big deal? RC = ready to release unless fatal bugs found (ie. data loss, crashing). I have not heard of any fatal bugs in RC1, and I did not find any in Beta 2 personally. I do believe that there will be a RC2, as there will always be some bugs that fall under the radar. Small bugs can be patched post-release, companies that produce commercial software do not have the luxury of coding until it's perfect like OSS projects do.
There is no way that this money can be converted back into RLC (real life currency.) If there was a way, and he did, then he could easily be punished under fraud/racketeering laws. But again, IANAL.
Yes, there is. ATM the bid on 1 billion ISK ~100$, so 700 billion ISK is about 70000$!
What was the name of that MMORPG that would let you move game currency into the real world and vice-versa?
Second life.
Why should the automobile companies produce a better car to compete with Tucker when they can just call up his bankers and threaten to pull their (more profitable) business unless they drop Tucker?
Then Tucker can go to another bank for financing, or private investors. There will always be someone willing to invest in a sound business.
Why should they make better cars when they can just threaten or bribe every dealer he lines up with cancelled existing contracts or more lucrative new ones (they don't actually have to come through with the lucrative contracts, just keep them stringing along long enough for Tucker to go bankrupt).
Bribing is just another way of lowering your price. Threaten? Physical violence is obviously illegal, not sure what other ways of threatening they could use to prevent dealers from buying from Tucker. Also, what prevents Tucker from selling directly to his customers? As for stringing along dealers with lucrative contracts and then not following through, that's called fraud, and is illegal even in an libertarian society.
Why should they improve safety in their own vehicles when they can just start an advertising campaign alleging that Tucker's safety systems are evidence that his car is less safe?
You underestimate the intelligence of customers. Only a small minority would fall for such an ad campaign. Also, did you consider the added cost to the old manufacturer? It could very well be cheaper to compete by improving the car and/or lowering prices than to spend money on a massive ad campaign.
Why would they compete on price or quality when they can just call the steel mill and rubber importer where he gets his raw materials and threaten to cut off their millions in revenue unless they stop selling to Tucker?
The car company could hardly be ordering all from all the steel companies in the world, there would always be some company willing to sell to Tucker. If nothing else, Tucker could start his own steel company.
You can't have 12 water mains connected to your house and 43 telephone lines being run down every city street.
Yes you can. Of course people would usually have only one water main & telephone line, but the threat of competition would prevent the companies from increasing their prices to unreasonable levels. This is assuming a level playing field, with no regulation.
Free market systems are not just some crazy theoretical thing that has never been tried -- every time a state weakened, and when commerce first began happening internationally, the free market happened. It was rarely utopian, and far more frequently resulted in collusion, intimidation, bribery, and even the raising of private armies outside the reach of governmental intrusion.
What does mercantilism have to do with this? And what's wrong with bribery? And private armies (as long as they're only used for self-defense)? I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist...
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
Not in regulation there isn't. But in economy there only is the market, and people who foolishly think it can be controlled through regulation.
I admit, sometimes I don't know if I should laugh or cry when I see sweet young kids who believe so fervently in libertarianism. It must be what it was like to hang out in coffee shops in 1920, when everyone thought Communism was the One Perfect System that would solve all the world's problems.
Maybe I'm just a sweet, young kid (:)) who fervently believes in libertarianism, but my experience has shown me that everytime something is deregulated, my costs go down, and my living standards go up, so that's good enough for me. And communism is the one perfect system, when the technology has advanced to the level required. Think 99.9% unemployment and production efficiencies that allow basic necessities to be produced at near zero cost. The first steps have already been taken in the entertainment industries. Maybe in the 22nd century?
* Starting a company to compete with such a beast would take a great deal of money. Money that would be extremely difficult to come by if you can't even send an email to the VC company that may or may not be interested.
Why would it require a great deal of money? You can start small, and expand when you get revenue. The internet wasn't built in a day.
* Attracting customers requires publicity and marketing, two other undertakings that are difficult when you find it difficult to place a phone call.
Word of mouth. Newspaper ads. Instead of placing a phone call, drive to the company you want to use for advertising.
* The One True Telecom would spend billions lobbying, marketing, lying cheating and stealing to freeze you out of every opportunity.
Only marketing would work in a libertarian society. Lying, cheating, fraud and stealing would still be illegal. The purpose of lobbying would be to get the government to regulate, which would cause the society to cease to be libertarian, so lobbying would not be possible in a libertarian society.
A libertarian society would not produce more responsible companies, it would produce more companies.
I don't see how. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
Without regulation, the barrier to entry is lowered considerably, thus resulting in more people creating companies and competing.
How would a lack of regulations keep a monopoly from forming?
The only way a monopoly is formed (in a non-regulated market), is if a company is able to outcompete every other company. This would be the result of having better prices, quality etc. If this company then decided to raise its prices, the market it is operating in becomes more lucrative, resulting in new companies entering the market. If the company didn't raise its prices, then there would be no problem, and eventually technological advancements would allow new companies to enter the market causing new competition to lower prices. I chose my words poorly, as removing regulations doesn't stop monopolies from forming, but makes them less dangerous.
Customers only get alienated if they are told they should be alienated. The consumer is not the driving force in this arena. Consumers do as they are told; poor service or bad behavior on the vendor's part does not drive the market. If this were different, no, these monopolies would not exist. But if things were different they wouldn't be the same.
The reason those monopolies exist is because they were granted exclusive rights through regulation in the past. Even today, the requirement of universal service is a huge barrier of entry to new companies.
I have no problem with libertarianism as an idea or you in particular; I don't know where you got that idea. I'm challenging your argument because there's things about it that I don't think jibe with reality. I would be a libertarian if I thought our society had progressed to the point where its naivete could be overcome. Libertarianism works if everyone (including corporate entities) acts responsibly. Big business (and individuals for that matter) have proven that people cannot be trusted to act responsibility without the threat of sanction. I don't like it either, but I don't think you could argue that that is the case.
Sorry, should have left the part about rage out, and I would have edited it if that was possible. It was meant more at regulatorians at large, and not directed at you specifically.
Here is an interesting read on net neutrality.
Without anti-trust law, what would stop the AT&Ts and the Verizons of the world merging into the One True Telecom company that would control every bit and byte that passed over any network worth talking about?
I realise free market theories are hard to grasp when there are no real-world examples on earth today, but I am worried that the word 'competition' didn't enter your mind. In this hypothetical one-ISP-to-rule-them-all scenario, why couldn't someone start a new company that competed with this monster ISP? I can't think of anything else but government intervention, a.k.a. regulation.
And why would a libertarian society automatically generate companies that would act more responsibly?
A libertarian society would not produce more responsible companies, it would produce more companies. If the market consisted of a lot of small companies instead of one mammoth-monopoly (which is only enabled by regulations), then the individual companies would have far less power. If a company had crappy policies, then it would get alienated from its customers and go bankrupt, which is an important part of a free market.
If any of this made you even blink, then I point you to http://mises.org/. If, OTOH, this only awakens emotions of rage because I'm a stupid libertarian who wants the whole world to be owned by one big corporation that spills toxic waste in your backyard and charges you for it, then I guess that's your problem.
They've got the things that make modern life possible, and they know it. They own us, whether we like to admit it or not. Their services control what house we can buy, what car we can drive, who we can talk to on the phone, what we can see on TV, and now, what we can access on the Intarweb. They control our entire lives. If any of these companies decided to ruin one of us, there is little that we could do to stop them. For example, if the company that holds your car note decides that it doesn't like you, they'll have your car reposessed and seized. Maybe they're within their rights, maybe not. But by the time you reach a court with your complaint against them, you've already lost your job, your ability to look for a new one, your ability to go shopping for food, etc. Same thing with your mortgage holder, only worse: they can make you homeless at a whim.
The thing is, that these companies wouldn't have that kind of power in a libertarian society, as there would always be a competitor willing to hire you or refinance your car. Monopolies are only possible through regulation.
Virii isn't a word. Viruses is.
Wha? There's a new version out? When did this happen, my Firefox didn't notify me of an update! Damn, it's going to take ages to download the new internets with my slow 1 Mbps ADSL. :(
A better question would be "does porn increase promiscuity?"
If it does, should we care? I think a decreased amount of rape and more promiscuity is better than the other way around.
No, we should ban neighbours.
We should do it the way they recently exterminated thousands of dogs in a Chinese province: send out teams to hunt them down in people's yards, or grab them when people are walking them, and then hack them to death with machetes while their owners watch.
How cute. I felt sympathy for you for the troubles you wrote about in the beginning of your post and thought that the dog should probably have been locked up somewhere (including its owner), but now I just feel sorry for you as your life must really suck for you to wish so much grief on those who own pitbulls. That's borderline sociopathic if you ask me.
For me the wires isn't much of a problem, but the lack of a good surface to use the mouse on. Using a mouse on the surface of a couch sounds annoying, so I'd need a suitably large piece of plywood or something else flat. Also having the keyboard in your lap isn't very ergonomic, and feels shaky.
Looks like the floor leader doesn't have to abide by it. So maybe people should try pressuring him/her into allowing the bill to proceed? This way Stevens has to filibuster the bill if he wants to slow it down.
Yes of course. One should avoid posting when tired.
FTA you linked to:
RCA had demonstrated a prototype transistor radio as early as 1952 and it is likely that they and the other radio makers were planning transistor radios of their own.
Granted, RCA was also an American company, but it did not do it with the help of TI.
Ah, finally an article about the PS3 failing. I was getting jitters because I hadn't gotten my fix yet. Especially reading that article about gaming myths that claimed the PS3 won't fail, I almost passed out from the pain!
You Need a $500 Graphics Card - Not a myth for even the most basic Slashdotter with the slightest grasp on the subject.
Sadly a noticeable portion of slashdotters seem to not have the slightest grasp on the subject, so I think restating the obvious is in this case a good thing.
So does anyone think it's really a major stretch to see a KBM setup on a console?
No. But I think it's a major stretch to think that people will start to have their consoles at their desks. Because using a mouse and keyboard at your sofa is simply not gonna happen. Of course the Wii could change things.
I think the problem isn't that it's hard to prove god exists, but that the concept of god is completely outside the scientific method. How can you measure or observe something that can create a universe at will, controls time and can change the very laws of nature? Even if someone found a way to detect the presence of god, then this god could suddenly decide to change the past and make it so the person never invented the detection mechanism. Or maybe it changes the very laws of nature, making the method ineffectual at detecting it. Conspiracy theories on the other hand, are entirely human constructs, and as such break no known laws of nature (those that do, are disproven by the act of breaking those laws). They can be falsified by humans, and eventually most are. As you already pointed out, with enough time and money, one could gather enough evidence to do just that. Obviously some people will refuse to believe something even in the face of overwhelming evidence (creationists), but we're not trying to prove theories to them, as they're beyond hope anyways.
:)
As for the god example, I for one would not believe that to be a god, as it sounds rather underwhelming. If that's all a god is capable of, then I wouldn't bother wasting my time worshipping something like that, as science isn't too far (the rumbling voice and shaking earth is already doable) from giving that kind of powers to humans.
I suspect your theory about conspiracy theories is flawed, in that any half-decent conspiracy theory isn't easily provable as a fantasy. It doesn't mean one should believe them, either -- like God, they are often inherently not scientific hypotheses, because they can't be disproved.
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. Yes, god cannot be proven or disproven, as the concept is completely outside our laws of nature, but claiming the same of conspiracy theories? Now that's just silly.
I got an even better idea!! Let's use the ramdisk for swap!!11
And there would be a 1 timezone wide area which is unroutable at all times. If one really cares about the environment, then it should be obvious that pressuring ones respective governments to allow more nuclear power is the most efficient solution.