. . . just posting this in the very unlikely chance that a competent USPTO employee (I know you're out there) is not only reading this thread but also is assigned related patents.
IMHO this kind of development is worthy of a patent; it includes a brand-new type of component, with no prior art in a single component appearing to exist, and a method by which it is manufactured.
Now, I expect patent trolls will start the patenting insanity with "it's a PDA, but with memristors" and "it's a phone, but with memristors" and "it's an instant-on PC, but with memristors" and in all of those cases I would say that the patent should not be allowed, because those are "innovations" which are obvious to those skilled in the art.
Also, the software to store to memristors should not be patentable. "method by which data is semi-permanently stored in a memristor-based storage device" should not be patentable, because that skill (putting data in memory or storage) is obvious to every literate computer user, let alone software engineers.
I wouldn't take 4GB of DDR2 RAM for $20.00 because it's usually going to be "value RAM" and not very reliable.
As far as $200 for a motherboard goes: if you want a GOOD motherboard with a decent RMA process, a motherboard is generally going to cost at least $225 anyway, so to choose based on motherboard price for a new system, it's a toss-up. To choose based on performance, it's a no-brainer.
(Un?)fortunately, Congress has to allocate the funds for the presidential war powers ("police actions"), so Congress is equally to blame for the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, the bailouts? You can blame Congress for creating the mess in the first place, where they REQUIRED banks to provide guaranteed mortgages to lazy sloths and illegals. I do know some hard-working people who did benefit from no-doc mortgages, who have worked hard to keep up and have not missed a single payment, but I see more realty "for sale" signs than I ever have in my life. In my neighborhood I'd say between 1/3 and 1/2 of of the homes are up for sale. Were they foreclosures, or in danger of entering foreclosure? I have no idea; I'm not going to knock on my neighbors and put more stress on them by canvassing the neighborhood with an informal survey. The point is, Congress (mostly our parents' generation) required banks to make those loans, and now we (our generation) and our children have to clean up the mess --- unless we're a third-world nation by then.
It's well possible that we'll be a third-world nation in a few years because we don't manufacture much of anything any more ("American" cars are Mexican or Canadian for the most part), we don't tax imports, we tax citizens to death, and what little we do manufacture and export nowadays is hit with high tariffs on the other side - even with "most favored nation" trading "partners."
Thanks mom and dad, you did a great job fucking us over.
Three bands. Don't forget the post-Waters era. Good stuff, they captured the Pink Floyd sound - and dare I say it - "feel" but that is mostly due to the chemistry between Gilmour and the late Wright. the final cut is an oddity, as it was basically a solo Waters album released under the Pink Floyd name, and Waters intended for it to be Pink Floyd's "final cut" - the album name was a pun on the album's theme and his desire to end the band over petty disputes.
Now as far as the early days go (pre-Saucerful, and pre-piper when they were still looking for a permanent band name) they got into progressive music (in fact they pioneered it) they were looking to replicate what they thought bands here were doing. They really did not know they were pioneering new sounds.
On top of that, Beatles members are said to have attended more than one Pink Floyd gig at UFO back before they (Pink Floyd) ever released a studio album. Back in the days when they were known as The Abdabs, Sigma 6 and the Meggadeaths. It's also stated in several books that while Pink Floyd was in the studio recording their debut album (Piper at the Gates of Dawn) they (Pink Floyd) were excited to meet the Beatles, and the Beatles were as excited to meet Pink Floyd and hear their new tracks.
It's likely in 100 years that Pink Floyd will be considered to be interesting for their complex compositions, the Jazz and classical influences, and that they actually experimented with new sounds, while The Beatles will be known for being the first big boy-band focused on marketing and hiring screaming "fans" to generate buzz. That's not to say that once the Beatles hit it real big they didn't produce some really great, artsy stuff, but it's on a completely different level musically and lyrically. Sure, they have Sergant Pepper, The White Album, etc. but where is their answer to The Wall? Dark Side of the Moon? Meddle? Animals? Wish You Were Here?
I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.
1. Stop buying new music 2. Stop going to shows of new acts 3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic]. 4. Don't listen to top 40 radio 5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.
Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.
Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:
but that was before the Bayh-Dole Act gave them ownership of inventions developed through federally financed research.
Maybe I'm just completely insane, but shouldn't patents resulting from federally-financed research fall immediately into public domain so every taxpayer can take advantage of the fruits of their taxes?
Or better yet, shouldn't the federal funding be yanked and returned back to taxpayers since private ownership of those patents should be paid for by the private institutions?
Mirroring IS a backup solution, but not a complete one.
No, it's not. It's a fault-tolerance solution so you can achieve no downtime arising from disk failures.
I'd go as far as to suggest that an always-attached external drive is not a true backup solution either, because if that box gets rooted and cracker does "rm -rf/" then the game is over; not only is the live environment and data wiped, but the backup is as well.
New Hampshire tried to pull crap with Verizon a couple of years ago. They told Verizon to roll out fiber to the whole state or they wouldn't approve it in any of the state. Now mind you 3/4 of New Hampshire is extremely rural and extremely poor. Ie, the highest cost areas to roll out fiber are the areas most likely to not order service with it anyway.
Then Verizon ought to refund every single cent they received in the form of federal grants and FCC charges because those funds were intended for the express purpose of rolling out fibre to every address. Why isn't NH suing Verizon to get their share of those taxpayer dollars back?
Whether or not TWC gives in the price of cable goes up. What year has it NOT gone up, despite the cost of technology and bandwidth from their side having decreased to a tiny fraction of what it used to cost?
An hour slot compresses to 700MB using which codec, and at what bitrate and what resolution? You won't get 1080i or even 720p into 700MB unless you're cutting the framerate or compressing into into a smeared, splotchy mess.
I use my DVR a lot. I keep it on 24/7. I record a LOT of shows, so both tuners are drawing 720p broadcasts from comcast a good amount of the time (I end up deleting a lot of stuff without even watching it but that's neither here nor there), and sometimes while stuff is recording I'll even watch on demand. Now, since the DVR is transferring everything over IP, aren't I then pulling a lot more bandwidth at any given time than any file sharer on their network?
Comcast has it right for offering a 250GB cap. Very realistic and for the customer.
I'll correct your typo:
Comcast is scummy for publishing their previously-undisclosed bandwidth caps, when all the while they were advertising unlimited internet. However, given that, 250GB is less unreasonable than a 40GB cap. The fact that they have a cap at all is idiotic, when they could instead implement a monitoring/adjustment algorithm which changes QoS for heavy users until they let up, that way the heavy network users don't negatively impact other users, but at the same time everyone is happy because they are getting the service they paid for, with zero downtime.
Folks, as I called it when bandwidth caps were first mentioned, they are being implemented because the cable companies are terrified of using their current monopolies on subscription digital television delivery. I don't know what Time-Warner's cap is but Comcast's is 250GB. There is NO concern of P2P users hogging bandwidth - were that the case then Comcast would simply use QoS to keep those users in check. No, not at all. It's all about content delivery.
See, they were fine with advertising flat-fee UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED INTERNET for over a decade. However, now that the technology exists which allows content providers to deliver content directly to users via commodity entry-level PCs, suddenly there is a need for monthly bandwidth caps. Not bandwidth throttling where if you hit the limit (on the service where you agreed to unlimited internet, no less!) it's two strikes and you're out.
I'll bet that if they do not come to agreement today, Time Warner's response will not be customer-friendly. They will either block traffic or severely throttle traffic coming from the sites where the content is being streamed. In fact I hope that this is exactly how they will respond. Why? Because then Joe Sixpack will understand how net neutrality would help them. Comcast, TW, et. al are trying to convince Joe Sixpack that net neutrality is an evil thing, but this situation would be perfect for underscoring just how evil the monopolies are.
Want to end this fucking nonsense? Talk to your town council. Attend town meetings, and tell them you want competition. You want to pit Verizon against Quest against Comcast against Cox against Time Warner. Let everyone enter the town and COMPETE. Then, you will suddenly see bandwidth caps disappear, and actual customer service -- AND lower prices.
Oh, to add to it: what my dad did is he had three generators, for the house, we'd turn off the mains breaker, plug the generator into a dryer outlet (so we're feeding 240 into the house - hitting both legs with 120V each like the electric company does) and just run without a generator switch. We'd cut the main feeds to the other buildings (all the service came into the house and went out to the garages, sheds, etc.). The garage got its own generator, done the same way. Made an extension (male to male) which plugged into the 240V outlet we used for the welder.
* If you have to ask how to install a generator switch, hire an electrician. It involves installing the switch before your main panel, or investing in a new main circuit breaker, and you will be working with an unfused electrical feed. A slight mishap will be fatal.
Safest solution? Hire a professional, or if you insist on doing it yourself, contact the electric company and let them know you you'll be pulling the meter for service so they won't accuse you of theft when you break the seal. Turn off the main breaker, cut the seal to the meter and remove it, then you can SAFELY work in the mains service inside your home to install the switch. Make SURE you FULLY understand which lines are hot, neutral, and ground, and if you do not have a proper grounding rod in place (many older homes do not) then take this opportunity to install one.
Actually Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, several of the epistles, and other writings from the New Testament/B'rit Chadashah have been discovered, and likely came before the greek and aramaic versions. It would make sense, after all, the entire "church" of the time was composed of Jews, and although they used Aramaic and Greek for conducting business, communications between synogogues/congregations would have been Hebrew.
If he is still perceived as a danger to the public, then someone fucked up. He should have been sentenced more time in jail, or should not have been released on parole.
Agreed! If someone is so fucked up that he'll sexually assault others, keep them locked up, please.
You can get tagged as the former for getting caught urinating in public in some places.
That's ridiculous; it's a natural function and when you have to go, you have to go. It shouldn't be a crime. The worst I could see is charging someone with littering or vandalism if it's in the middle of a lawn or sidewalk. Now, I don't want to see all you guys taking a whiz out in the city streets, but if you duck behind a bush, who the hell cares? It's NOT exposure, let alone indecent exposure, and certainly isn't sexual harassment.
If you're a holy roller bent on extinguishing any glimpse of human genitalia from public view, then maybe you might want to consider who designed the human body to excrete waste fluids and eliminate waste. Blame God, if you think it's so evil.
I'd have a problem with people taking a dump out in the middle of a street, but geez, if someone uses a little discretion and takes effort to find some privacy, what's the big deal? I grew up in a rural area and when I was growing up, if we were working out in the garden or whatever, if my dad had to go, he went, out in the middle of the field. He'd just turn his back to us and take a whiz or whatever.
It's nature. It's natural. Just deal widdit already and get over yourselves.
I find it insane that you can land on a sex offender list for taking a whiz outside. It's bullshit, plain and simple.
That actually happened to my friend's dad. He eventually fought it and got off the lists, but it was a long and expensive fight (this IS massachusetts after all) --- and he should have never been on the list in the first place. When you have to pee, you have to pee. If you have a problem with seeing someone peeing behind a bush, maybe you should start minding your own business and not be a peeping tom?:)
Agreed. If they're not ready to re-enter society and intend to continue diddling toddlers' weiners, for the love of God please keep them locked up. Once their punishment/sentence has been fulfilled leave them the fuck alone.
There are some I feel bad for though; those charged with "statutory rape." If a 15-yr-old boy has consensual sex with his 15-yr-old girlfriend, it's an error in judgement. Perhaps it's a big error, depending on the outcome, but it's an error in judgement, not a crime. It certainly isn't rape, by any stretch of the imagination. It shouldn't be considered a criminal offense by our "justice" system.
It would be cool if those were solved one day, where they got near 90% theoretical max lumens/wax (683 lm/wt), where a 3 watt LED would give off the same light as a ~100 watt incandescent or ~23 watt CFL. Even 150 or 200 lm/wt would be a revolution. But it will take 5-10 years I suppose.
. . . and in 5-10 years it will still be 5-10 years away, just like 90% efficient photovoltaic panels!;)
Seeing the type of crap people will buy even when there are better alternatives I simply don't believe that something as sophisticated as the beam profile of an LED will be a huge issue.
"Better" without specifying or considering criteria is subjective. IMHO a Ferrari is a better car than a Porsche, but by what criteria? I can also say that the Porsche is better than the Ferrari, and not be contradictory because I'm considering different aspects, i.e., am I referring to asthetics, raw performance, comfort, reliability, or cost/hp, or am I even comparing the same model in each statement?
In your case, you're looking at lumens/watt without taking into consideration other factors, such as spread, fixture design, color temperature/purity (existing LED lighting I've seen so far would never work in a design studio or print shop, for example, nor a salon), and so forth. On top of that, some incandescent or even halogen or neon lamps are purely decorative, so LED need not apply in those cases. How would an LED lamp look in a chandelier?
Crap, I just made a similar post above before I saw yours. If I'd seen yours first I'd have modded you up.
That is exactly the problem; because we built our infrastructure back when everything was bleeding edge first-generation technology, the world has passed us behind. Our internet infrastructure is still based on ARPANET-era lines in spots, our ISPs are still using first-generation broadband and because of municipalities granting monopolies they are raping us on pricing (I paid for unlimited internet that you advertised to me, MAKE IT UNLIMITED for God's sake! Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay, doing otherwise is FRAUD. It doesn't matter that I've never even gone over 20GB, I don't like the fact that I have ANY limit besides bit rates), using infrastructure paid for in full BY US (taxpayers), not them, and of course the electric companies are still riding on the backs of taxpayer-paid lines and they won't make the investments to run new cables underground whenever a road is repaved.
That should be law; whenever a street is repaved, ALL utilities are moved undground. It's amazing how "clean" streets (mostly in private housing and industrialdevelopments) feel when there isn't a rat's nest of overhead lines and utility poles all over the place, cluttering up the landscape.
Unfortunately, all the general public knows is "they don't have my power on yet.", even though it is an army working hard to repair everything. People like instant gratification. They think it should be a light switch fix (hit the switch, it works).
The really stupid part of all of this? We're still using 19th-century techniques, stringing utility lines overhead rather than laying them underground where they would be unaffected by most weather.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . just posting this in the very unlikely chance that a competent USPTO employee (I know you're out there) is not only reading this thread but also is assigned related patents.
IMHO this kind of development is worthy of a patent; it includes a brand-new type of component, with no prior art in a single component appearing to exist, and a method by which it is manufactured.
Now, I expect patent trolls will start the patenting insanity with "it's a PDA, but with memristors" and "it's a phone, but with memristors" and "it's an instant-on PC, but with memristors" and in all of those cases I would say that the patent should not be allowed, because those are "innovations" which are obvious to those skilled in the art.
Also, the software to store to memristors should not be patentable. "method by which data is semi-permanently stored in a memristor-based storage device" should not be patentable, because that skill (putting data in memory or storage) is obvious to every literate computer user, let alone software engineers.
I wouldn't take 4GB of DDR2 RAM for $20.00 because it's usually going to be "value RAM" and not very reliable.
As far as $200 for a motherboard goes: if you want a GOOD motherboard with a decent RMA process, a motherboard is generally going to cost at least $225 anyway, so to choose based on motherboard price for a new system, it's a toss-up. To choose based on performance, it's a no-brainer.
(Un?)fortunately, Congress has to allocate the funds for the presidential war powers ("police actions"), so Congress is equally to blame for the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, the bailouts? You can blame Congress for creating the mess in the first place, where they REQUIRED banks to provide guaranteed mortgages to lazy sloths and illegals. I do know some hard-working people who did benefit from no-doc mortgages, who have worked hard to keep up and have not missed a single payment, but I see more realty "for sale" signs than I ever have in my life. In my neighborhood I'd say between 1/3 and 1/2 of of the homes are up for sale. Were they foreclosures, or in danger of entering foreclosure? I have no idea; I'm not going to knock on my neighbors and put more stress on them by canvassing the neighborhood with an informal survey. The point is, Congress (mostly our parents' generation) required banks to make those loans, and now we (our generation) and our children have to clean up the mess --- unless we're a third-world nation by then.
It's well possible that we'll be a third-world nation in a few years because we don't manufacture much of anything any more ("American" cars are Mexican or Canadian for the most part), we don't tax imports, we tax citizens to death, and what little we do manufacture and export nowadays is hit with high tariffs on the other side - even with "most favored nation" trading "partners."
Thanks mom and dad, you did a great job fucking us over.
Three bands. Don't forget the post-Waters era. Good stuff, they captured the Pink Floyd sound - and dare I say it - "feel" but that is mostly due to the chemistry between Gilmour and the late Wright. the final cut is an oddity, as it was basically a solo Waters album released under the Pink Floyd name, and Waters intended for it to be Pink Floyd's "final cut" - the album name was a pun on the album's theme and his desire to end the band over petty disputes.
Now as far as the early days go (pre-Saucerful, and pre-piper when they were still looking for a permanent band name) they got into progressive music (in fact they pioneered it) they were looking to replicate what they thought bands here were doing. They really did not know they were pioneering new sounds.
On top of that, Beatles members are said to have attended more than one Pink Floyd gig at UFO back before they (Pink Floyd) ever released a studio album. Back in the days when they were known as The Abdabs, Sigma 6 and the Meggadeaths. It's also stated in several books that while Pink Floyd was in the studio recording their debut album (Piper at the Gates of Dawn) they (Pink Floyd) were excited to meet the Beatles, and the Beatles were as excited to meet Pink Floyd and hear their new tracks.
It's likely in 100 years that Pink Floyd will be considered to be interesting for their complex compositions, the Jazz and classical influences, and that they actually experimented with new sounds, while The Beatles will be known for being the first big boy-band focused on marketing and hiring screaming "fans" to generate buzz. That's not to say that once the Beatles hit it real big they didn't produce some really great, artsy stuff, but it's on a completely different level musically and lyrically. Sure, they have Sergant Pepper, The White Album, etc. but where is their answer to The Wall? Dark Side of the Moon? Meddle? Animals? Wish You Were Here?
I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.
1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.
Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.
Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html
I corrected your typo.
Maybe I'm just completely insane, but shouldn't patents resulting from federally-financed research fall immediately into public domain so every taxpayer can take advantage of the fruits of their taxes?
Or better yet, shouldn't the federal funding be yanked and returned back to taxpayers since private ownership of those patents should be paid for by the private institutions?
No, it's not. It's a fault-tolerance solution so you can achieve no downtime arising from disk failures.
I'd go as far as to suggest that an always-attached external drive is not a true backup solution either, because if that box gets rooted and cracker does "rm -rf /" then the game is over; not only is the live environment and data wiped, but the backup is as well.
Then Verizon ought to refund every single cent they received in the form of federal grants and FCC charges because those funds were intended for the express purpose of rolling out fibre to every address. Why isn't NH suing Verizon to get their share of those taxpayer dollars back?
Whether or not TWC gives in the price of cable goes up. What year has it NOT gone up, despite the cost of technology and bandwidth from their side having decreased to a tiny fraction of what it used to cost?
And yet, you take the time to come here, read, and post.
An hour slot compresses to 700MB using which codec, and at what bitrate and what resolution? You won't get 1080i or even 720p into 700MB unless you're cutting the framerate or compressing into into a smeared, splotchy mess.
I use my DVR a lot. I keep it on 24/7. I record a LOT of shows, so both tuners are drawing 720p broadcasts from comcast a good amount of the time (I end up deleting a lot of stuff without even watching it but that's neither here nor there), and sometimes while stuff is recording I'll even watch on demand. Now, since the DVR is transferring everything over IP, aren't I then pulling a lot more bandwidth at any given time than any file sharer on their network?
I'll correct your typo:
Comcast is scummy for publishing their previously-undisclosed bandwidth caps, when all the while they were advertising unlimited internet. However, given that, 250GB is less unreasonable than a 40GB cap. The fact that they have a cap at all is idiotic, when they could instead implement a monitoring/adjustment algorithm which changes QoS for heavy users until they let up, that way the heavy network users don't negatively impact other users, but at the same time everyone is happy because they are getting the service they paid for, with zero downtime.
Folks, as I called it when bandwidth caps were first mentioned, they are being implemented because the cable companies are terrified of using their current monopolies on subscription digital television delivery. I don't know what Time-Warner's cap is but Comcast's is 250GB. There is NO concern of P2P users hogging bandwidth - were that the case then Comcast would simply use QoS to keep those users in check. No, not at all. It's all about content delivery.
See, they were fine with advertising flat-fee UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED INTERNET for over a decade. However, now that the technology exists which allows content providers to deliver content directly to users via commodity entry-level PCs, suddenly there is a need for monthly bandwidth caps. Not bandwidth throttling where if you hit the limit (on the service where you agreed to unlimited internet, no less!) it's two strikes and you're out.
I'll bet that if they do not come to agreement today, Time Warner's response will not be customer-friendly. They will either block traffic or severely throttle traffic coming from the sites where the content is being streamed. In fact I hope that this is exactly how they will respond. Why? Because then Joe Sixpack will understand how net neutrality would help them. Comcast, TW, et. al are trying to convince Joe Sixpack that net neutrality is an evil thing, but this situation would be perfect for underscoring just how evil the monopolies are.
Want to end this fucking nonsense? Talk to your town council. Attend town meetings, and tell them you want competition. You want to pit Verizon against Quest against Comcast against Cox against Time Warner. Let everyone enter the town and COMPETE. Then, you will suddenly see bandwidth caps disappear, and actual customer service -- AND lower prices.
Oh, to add to it: what my dad did is he had three generators, for the house, we'd turn off the mains breaker, plug the generator into a dryer outlet (so we're feeding 240 into the house - hitting both legs with 120V each like the electric company does) and just run without a generator switch. We'd cut the main feeds to the other buildings (all the service came into the house and went out to the garages, sheds, etc.). The garage got its own generator, done the same way. Made an extension (male to male) which plugged into the 240V outlet we used for the welder.
I'd like to add one more thing:
* If you have to ask how to install a generator switch, hire an electrician. It involves installing the switch before your main panel, or investing in a new main circuit breaker, and you will be working with an unfused electrical feed. A slight mishap will be fatal.
Safest solution? Hire a professional, or if you insist on doing it yourself, contact the electric company and let them know you you'll be pulling the meter for service so they won't accuse you of theft when you break the seal. Turn off the main breaker, cut the seal to the meter and remove it, then you can SAFELY work in the mains service inside your home to install the switch. Make SURE you FULLY understand which lines are hot, neutral, and ground, and if you do not have a proper grounding rod in place (many older homes do not) then take this opportunity to install one.
Actually Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew, several of the epistles, and other writings from the New Testament/B'rit Chadashah have been discovered, and likely came before the greek and aramaic versions. It would make sense, after all, the entire "church" of the time was composed of Jews, and although they used Aramaic and Greek for conducting business, communications between synogogues/congregations would have been Hebrew.
Agreed! If someone is so fucked up that he'll sexually assault others, keep them locked up, please.
That's ridiculous; it's a natural function and when you have to go, you have to go. It shouldn't be a crime. The worst I could see is charging someone with littering or vandalism if it's in the middle of a lawn or sidewalk. Now, I don't want to see all you guys taking a whiz out in the city streets, but if you duck behind a bush, who the hell cares? It's NOT exposure, let alone indecent exposure, and certainly isn't sexual harassment.
If you're a holy roller bent on extinguishing any glimpse of human genitalia from public view, then maybe you might want to consider who designed the human body to excrete waste fluids and eliminate waste. Blame God, if you think it's so evil.
I'd have a problem with people taking a dump out in the middle of a street, but geez, if someone uses a little discretion and takes effort to find some privacy, what's the big deal? I grew up in a rural area and when I was growing up, if we were working out in the garden or whatever, if my dad had to go, he went, out in the middle of the field. He'd just turn his back to us and take a whiz or whatever.
It's nature. It's natural. Just deal widdit already and get over yourselves.
I find it insane that you can land on a sex offender list for taking a whiz outside. It's bullshit, plain and simple.
That actually happened to my friend's dad. He eventually fought it and got off the lists, but it was a long and expensive fight (this IS massachusetts after all) --- and he should have never been on the list in the first place. When you have to pee, you have to pee. If you have a problem with seeing someone peeing behind a bush, maybe you should start minding your own business and not be a peeping tom? :)
Agreed. If they're not ready to re-enter society and intend to continue diddling toddlers' weiners, for the love of God please keep them locked up. Once their punishment/sentence has been fulfilled leave them the fuck alone.
There are some I feel bad for though; those charged with "statutory rape." If a 15-yr-old boy has consensual sex with his 15-yr-old girlfriend, it's an error in judgement. Perhaps it's a big error, depending on the outcome, but it's an error in judgement, not a crime. It certainly isn't rape, by any stretch of the imagination. It shouldn't be considered a criminal offense by our "justice" system.
. . . and in 5-10 years it will still be 5-10 years away, just like 90% efficient photovoltaic panels! ;)
"Better" without specifying or considering criteria is subjective. IMHO a Ferrari is a better car than a Porsche, but by what criteria? I can also say that the Porsche is better than the Ferrari, and not be contradictory because I'm considering different aspects, i.e., am I referring to asthetics, raw performance, comfort, reliability, or cost/hp, or am I even comparing the same model in each statement?
In your case, you're looking at lumens/watt without taking into consideration other factors, such as spread, fixture design, color temperature/purity (existing LED lighting I've seen so far would never work in a design studio or print shop, for example, nor a salon), and so forth. On top of that, some incandescent or even halogen or neon lamps are purely decorative, so LED need not apply in those cases. How would an LED lamp look in a chandelier?
Crap, I just made a similar post above before I saw yours. If I'd seen yours first I'd have modded you up.
That is exactly the problem; because we built our infrastructure back when everything was bleeding edge first-generation technology, the world has passed us behind. Our internet infrastructure is still based on ARPANET-era lines in spots, our ISPs are still using first-generation broadband and because of municipalities granting monopolies they are raping us on pricing (I paid for unlimited internet that you advertised to me, MAKE IT UNLIMITED for God's sake! Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay, doing otherwise is FRAUD. It doesn't matter that I've never even gone over 20GB, I don't like the fact that I have ANY limit besides bit rates), using infrastructure paid for in full BY US (taxpayers), not them, and of course the electric companies are still riding on the backs of taxpayer-paid lines and they won't make the investments to run new cables underground whenever a road is repaved.
That should be law; whenever a street is repaved, ALL utilities are moved undground. It's amazing how "clean" streets (mostly in private housing and industrialdevelopments) feel when there isn't a rat's nest of overhead lines and utility poles all over the place, cluttering up the landscape.
The really stupid part of all of this? We're still using 19th-century techniques, stringing utility lines overhead rather than laying them underground where they would be unaffected by most weather.