When you live in a so called "Gilded Age," civil torts become criminalized. That's because in a Gilded Age, the upper class have a disproportionate amount of power. It's undemocratic. It's harks back to debtor's prisons.
Now, if I support network neutrality (AT&T's "dumb" network), then does that make me a "dummie"? This is pure AT&T propaganda, brought to you by the people who sold your private communications to the federal government, paid for with your tax dollars. What a nice deal, eh? You paid to be spied on, and AT&T profits from it.
You paid for Internet construction and access, and AT&T is arguing that it costs them money.
What a bunch of bullshit, AT&T. Come on! How "dumb" do you think we are?
This article is pure FUD. It is absurd to declare a new technology useless simply because of its transient effects on otherwise stable commodity markets. All new technologies do this. It is a false dilemma (and a bit of a straw man) to declare ethanol useless simply because it alone cannot replace all fossil fuels. Other renewable fuels will definitely be needed. Also, it is not only unfair to declare ethanol environmentally unfriendly simply because a 100% gasoline vs. a 90% gasoline blend have essentially the same greenhouse gas emissions, but the statement itself is suspect. Ethanol may output the same greenhouse gases when burned as gasoline, but since ethanol comes from a recent harvest of crops, it has a net zero effect. Gasoline and other fossil fuels come from plants and animals that have been fossilized within the earth's crust for millions of years with gases that haven't been present in the atmosphere since then. And to make things fair, shouldn't we be comparing gasoline to E85 (at least)?
But consider this. If we are serious about preventing man-made global warming (as opposed to the cycle of warming that occurs naturally), then we need a comprehensive solution. I'm talking ethanol, bio-diesel, wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, etc. And give consumers more choice when it comes to where they get fuel. I'm becoming more and more of a believer in the electric car. Critics of the electric car say it pollutes as much as any other car, but at the power plant instead of on the road. Although it is entirely possible to do that with an electric car, unlike the gasoline car, you have a choice. The standard gasoline car can only burn gasoline. With an electric car, you can use any generator available to charge the car, be it good old fossil fuel, or something more green like solar or wind. Whenever a new fuel technology becomes available, you can start using it. If your power provider switches to greener fuel, you can use that seamlessly. Or we can just stick with gas guzzlers that require more maintenance.
Gingrich said voters unhappy with the war, the response to Hurricane Katrina and pork barrel spending were the main drive behind the GOP's rejection at the polls. But he argued Republicans would have retained the Senate and just narrowly lost the House if President Bush had announced the departure of embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before, instead of after, the election.
Hey, Newt, take it from a formerly registered Republican. Your buddies lost because they are a bunch of arrogant, elitist R-tards who don't know squat about how to run a country, sort of like the Democrats you wrested control from in '94.
Enzymes and genetically engineered bacteria can make the demand on agriculture much less. Still, it won't be possible to replace our entire energy infrastructure with ethanol alone. But why should we fall into a false dilemma? Use every renewable energy source available.
Once again, I see someone or something (corporation this time) blaming freedom for society's woes. Get a clue, McAfee! You look like a bunch of luddites, now!
It looks like the politicians have figured out one more way to take away rights--use treaties. All they need is one other country to agree with them, and suddenly, unpopular legislation must be passed to comply with the treaty. And then, when "those pesky liberals" complain about losing their rights, politicians justify it by saying it was for free trade--as if that's supposed to mean anything good to Joe Schmo, who's most likely going to lose his job to outsourcing, and not have any civil liberties left to redress his grievances.
It's not that I'm against free trade. I'm not against it at all. But why are we stuck in this false dilemma of either civil liberties or trade liberties?
Oh, wait, I know why... because Hollywood said so.
It's my understanding that news reporting, whether sanctioned by the big 4 networks or not, has broad protection from plagairism and copyright infringement claims under fair use. Oh! Pardon my ignorance; I was asleep for the last 10 years. Fair use is a criminal act now. Woo hoo! Gotta love that Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
They can have it. I usually don't allow my "radical" thoughts to be posted like this, but I think I speak for most informed users when I say they can take their digital restrictions management and shove it straight up their nether regions.
It's Chapter 11 restructuring, not Chapter 7. They're still trying to survive. Of course, restructuring can mean the company will fundamentally change.
The neo-Cons will look at it and yell "Communism!" The Reagan conservatives (be they Democrats or Republicans) would have said, "Cool! People did this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FORCE, and they offer tech support (for a fee). That's capitalism, Baby!"
Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
Maybe FCC commissioners should be elected instead of appointed. Let the people decide what should or should not be censored, and let the engineers decide what should or should not be included in technology. But hey, self-rule is for radicals, right?
I thought the whole point of an alternative to Windows was to have a choice. Why are they in such a hurry to eliminate Windows from their company? Keep it for the win32 developers and remove it for all the others. No big deal. If all your developers do win32 and POSIX development, then paying the "Microsoft tax" is the cost of doing business. But if you want to get down and dirty, you could take a play from the Microsoft playbook. Make the POSIX version of a program as good as the Win32 version, and then gradually improve the POSIX version over the Win32 version, and then make up some BS excuse like "Windows can't handle it and Linux can," which may be true, but it doesn't have to be.
What? Are they saying $20 a month isn't cheap enough? Don't libraries have free Internet access already. Can't you get free wi-fi at IHOP and Panera Bread Co.? And if you can't afford Internet access, how are you going to get your own computer?
Let's call this what it is -- vote buying. But can you blame them? They're just trying to catch up to the enormous entitlement programs Dubya has signed into law.
But come on! Since when is the federal government a telecommunications company? And this is exactly what poor people need, too, to help them accumulate wealth -- Internet distraction.
This patent is obviously invalid. It falls into two categories which violate major rules of patentability:
-Nonstatutory (method of doing business)
-Obvious (does not take an inventor to "buy it now" at a predetermined price)
Yet somehow, they have a patent, they've managed to fight a long court battle over it, and apparently, the government educated morons running the Solicitor General's office think it's valid!
Slashdot Mirror
When you live in a so called "Gilded Age," civil torts become criminalized. That's because in a Gilded Age, the upper class have a disproportionate amount of power. It's undemocratic. It's harks back to debtor's prisons.
You paid for Internet construction and access, and AT&T is arguing that it costs them money.
What a bunch of bullshit, AT&T. Come on! How "dumb" do you think we are?
In other words, Microsoft is going to add something that is already there. This isn't even Slashdot news worthy.
This article is pure FUD. It is absurd to declare a new technology useless simply because of its transient effects on otherwise stable commodity markets. All new technologies do this. It is a false dilemma (and a bit of a straw man) to declare ethanol useless simply because it alone cannot replace all fossil fuels. Other renewable fuels will definitely be needed. Also, it is not only unfair to declare ethanol environmentally unfriendly simply because a 100% gasoline vs. a 90% gasoline blend have essentially the same greenhouse gas emissions, but the statement itself is suspect. Ethanol may output the same greenhouse gases when burned as gasoline, but since ethanol comes from a recent harvest of crops, it has a net zero effect. Gasoline and other fossil fuels come from plants and animals that have been fossilized within the earth's crust for millions of years with gases that haven't been present in the atmosphere since then. And to make things fair, shouldn't we be comparing gasoline to E85 (at least)?
But consider this. If we are serious about preventing man-made global warming (as opposed to the cycle of warming that occurs naturally), then we need a comprehensive solution. I'm talking ethanol, bio-diesel, wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, etc. And give consumers more choice when it comes to where they get fuel. I'm becoming more and more of a believer in the electric car. Critics of the electric car say it pollutes as much as any other car, but at the power plant instead of on the road. Although it is entirely possible to do that with an electric car, unlike the gasoline car, you have a choice. The standard gasoline car can only burn gasoline. With an electric car, you can use any generator available to charge the car, be it good old fossil fuel, or something more green like solar or wind. Whenever a new fuel technology becomes available, you can start using it. If your power provider switches to greener fuel, you can use that seamlessly. Or we can just stick with gas guzzlers that require more maintenance.
Hey, Newt, take it from a formerly registered Republican. Your buddies lost because they are a bunch of arrogant, elitist R-tards who don't know squat about how to run a country, sort of like the Democrats you wrested control from in '94.
The wastful fuel they burn by flying that 747 of theirs around just for fun has a larger negative effect that the benefits this will bring.
It's a step in the right direction.
If you really want to know, search Google for "global" "warming" "proxy" "evidence."
Enzymes and genetically engineered bacteria can make the demand on agriculture much less. Still, it won't be possible to replace our entire energy infrastructure with ethanol alone. But why should we fall into a false dilemma? Use every renewable energy source available.
Once again, I see someone or something (corporation this time) blaming freedom for society's woes. Get a clue, McAfee! You look like a bunch of luddites, now!
Yeah, free like roads are free. It's kind of like that free Microsoft software I got from my school. Oh, wait, what's this tuition increase about?
It looks like the politicians have figured out one more way to take away rights--use treaties. All they need is one other country to agree with them, and suddenly, unpopular legislation must be passed to comply with the treaty. And then, when "those pesky liberals" complain about losing their rights, politicians justify it by saying it was for free trade--as if that's supposed to mean anything good to Joe Schmo, who's most likely going to lose his job to outsourcing, and not have any civil liberties left to redress his grievances.
It's not that I'm against free trade. I'm not against it at all. But why are we stuck in this false dilemma of either civil liberties or trade liberties?
Oh, wait, I know why... because Hollywood said so.
As Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show, "It's nice to see they're protecting their privacy."
Democrats and Republicans... Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
http://www.lp.org/
The 5th Amendment does not apply (per se) in civil cases. Witnesses in civil cases can be compelled to testify.
It's my understanding that news reporting, whether sanctioned by the big 4 networks or not, has broad protection from plagairism and copyright infringement claims under fair use. Oh! Pardon my ignorance; I was asleep for the last 10 years. Fair use is a criminal act now. Woo hoo! Gotta love that Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
They can have it. I usually don't allow my "radical" thoughts to be posted like this, but I think I speak for most informed users when I say they can take their digital restrictions management and shove it straight up their nether regions.
It's Chapter 11 restructuring, not Chapter 7. They're still trying to survive. Of course, restructuring can mean the company will fundamentally change.
The neo-Cons will look at it and yell "Communism!" The Reagan conservatives (be they Democrats or Republicans) would have said, "Cool! People did this WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FORCE, and they offer tech support (for a fee). That's capitalism, Baby!"
Maybe FCC commissioners should be elected instead of appointed. Let the people decide what should or should not be censored, and let the engineers decide what should or should not be included in technology. But hey, self-rule is for radicals, right?
For your convenience, Microsoft has bundled (at one time or another) anti-virus, anti-spyware, web browsers, email clients, and now, rootkits.
I thought the whole point of an alternative to Windows was to have a choice. Why are they in such a hurry to eliminate Windows from their company? Keep it for the win32 developers and remove it for all the others. No big deal. If all your developers do win32 and POSIX development, then paying the "Microsoft tax" is the cost of doing business. But if you want to get down and dirty, you could take a play from the Microsoft playbook. Make the POSIX version of a program as good as the Win32 version, and then gradually improve the POSIX version over the Win32 version, and then make up some BS excuse like "Windows can't handle it and Linux can," which may be true, but it doesn't have to be.
Good luck trying to convert iPod fans, Ballmer. I've noticed that once you go Mac, you don't go back(TM).
Let's call this what it is -- vote buying. But can you blame them? They're just trying to catch up to the enormous entitlement programs Dubya has signed into law.
But come on! Since when is the federal government a telecommunications company? And this is exactly what poor people need, too, to help them accumulate wealth -- Internet distraction.
This patent is obviously invalid. It falls into two categories which violate major rules of patentability:
-Nonstatutory (method of doing business)
-Obvious (does not take an inventor to "buy it now" at a predetermined price)
Yet somehow, they have a patent, they've managed to fight a long court battle over it, and apparently, the government educated morons running the Solicitor General's office think it's valid!
However, it is possible to make biodeisel with less expensive NaOH instead of KOH, eliminating that positive byproduct.