I'm not sure where you are based, but here in Canada, no that is not a crime nor is it a conspiracy to commit a crime. In order to commit theft, you have to take something away from the lawful owner so they don't have it anymore. In terms of copyright infringement, you are allowed to make a copy of virtually anything for personal, non-commercial use. Until the laws are changed, personal copies can come from downloading off the internet.
True. You can make as many innovations as you wish in order to increase fuel economy; but when it comes right down to it, a litre of gasoline only has X amount of energy in it. This means that once you reach the limits of fuel efficiency in engines, one must begin to cut down the weight of the vehicle in order to conserve fuel. On a national and international level we can encourage auto produces to make tiny, highly efficient vehicles but, (as you suggest), at an individual level we need people to chose to drive them instead of the big gas guzzlers.
(Stop reading here if you don't want to hear my personal musings to North America's energy problems)
I've thought long and hard about this and there and I've come to a few conclusions.
1) there are a number of reasons why North America needs to take steps to encourage conservation of fossil fuels and more fuel efficient cars are one of the pieces.
2) For a variety of reasons, driving smaller cars will not be palatable to a large swath of the north American driving public, therefore some form of action must be taken in order to 'encourage' people.
3) However, smaller cars alone are not the answer. I use to think that if everyone drove a more efficient car we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I have been disheartened by some of the recent findings showing that when people save money on fuel for their car, it actually encourages them to drive more places thereby nullifying any overall reduction in fuel consumption.
4) Conservation and the changing of energy use habits will not spontaneously occur in a large enough section of the public to get North America to where it needs to be in terms of non-renewable fuel consumption. Therefore the government must step in and take some form of action, but what?
The solution) In my estimation, action taken must be the unpopular step of making fossil fuels expensive enough that the majority of people cannot afford to operate anything but a fuel sipper. This should probably take the form of escalating fossil fuel taxes. We must make it more expensive to drive a small car tomorrow than it is to drive a large truck today. Yes, this will be economically painful and politically suicidal, but it is the only way to force a fundamental change in the way people behave. People are inherently lazy and if you make it economically viable to drive two blocks to the grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread they will do it. Another problem is that cities today are designed around cheap independent transportation. Now that we are gaining an understanding of the importance of energy conservation why do we allow people to commute 50+ miles to work everyday? Cities must be redesigned to place workers near their place of employment, or places of employment near workers. Citizens should not have to drive across the city to purchase goods they need for everyday life. Movement of goods is another issue that must be dealt with. It should be a non-starter that we encourage food to be produced 2000+ miles from where it is to be consumed. For long hauls, railways should be preferable to tractor trailers. It's mind boggling to think that individual components of merchandise be manufactured all over the globe and shipped to another location to be assembled. Dramatically escalating the price of energy will fix all these wasteful practices. For those of you still reading this you might think I've gone off my rocker. Well, I've already said that this will be economically painful and politically untenable, however, at some point something will have to change. If we don't undertake change then we have just chosen to download it onto our children. Make no mistake, as oil production moves to more expensive forms and remote locations fuel costs will increase on their own and we will have to choice but to pay it. By making moves now we harden the economy against future oil price volatility and make alternatives forms of energy more attractive. Obviously implementing such changes
I agree with you, it's not rocket science and it's the basic stuff we still need to work on.
I worked in a hospital and the issue of superbugs was a prominent one. The plain fact of the matter is that superbugs are not a large danger outside of a hospital. They rarely infect healthy individuals precisely because they are healthy, instead they infect those whose immune systems are already compromised and those people are disproportionately found in hospitals and other clinical settings. Allowing staff to wear hospital clothing from home to work and back again shouldn't be a problem (assuming that they proceed directly to work and home from work and don't go to a daycare before work or a nursing home after) because hospitals are far dirtier than the outside world.
Granted, this is interesting research, but ultimately it will do nothing to stop the spread of superbugs in the hospital setting because doctors and nurses who should know better don't take the time to sterilize themselves properly between interactions with patients. Time and time again I would witness doctors pop in on a patient infected with MRSA or something else and fail to put on a mask or gown up, because they were only going to be there for a minute, then they would move on to the next patient. Worse they would have all their residents in tow, who were now learning the same behaviour. And it's not just doctors, some nurses were doing it as well. Granted 95% of the time most healthcare workers did take the basic precautions 95% of the time, but that is simply not good enough. Until 100% of hospital staff observes basic precautions 100% of the time, this line of research will be interesting but ultimately fruitless in the fight against the spread of superbugs.
The reason empty parking lots are lit at night is for liability reasons. Car accidents, muggings and rapes are some examples of such liabilities. Crime prevention is another one. Car break-ins and things like house intrusions are all easier to accomplish in the dark. Lighting the city at night is seen by governments as due diligence, much like scraping snow off the sidewalks, and sanding icy intersections.
Incorrect. This is a problem that exists, you don't spend much time in grounds keeping do you? This is why cities send water trucks around. Your statement about evaporation is incorrect as well. During a heavy rainfall in the city most of the rainfall runs into the nearest storm sewer, it doesn't evaporate. This means that during seasons defined by heavy bursts of rainfall followed by long stretches of high heat and sunlight, soil moisture can become a problem. This could actually increase the amount of future rainfall (assuming that most of the moisture is pulled from the local soil before it falls).
Lets be honest, MS needed Apple around to have any hope of dodging an anti-trust ruling. I'm sure it looked like a safe bet, Apple without Jobs was being run like MS is now: out of touch with itself, and no overall vision of the future. The exception was that Apple didn't have a major monopoly on anything. So while the extra cash wasn't going to hurt Apple, tossing a little petty cash towards Apple wasn't going to hurt Microsoft either.
Firstly, Microsoft doesn't live or die by one thing. They are a mega-corporation with diverse income streams and assets. Whatever some people think here on./, MS isn't going to 'die' any time soon - so get over it. While they doubtlessly have diverse assets, I would argue that Microsoft has only 2 revenue streams of any consequence.
1. Windows.
2. Office.
This is the nucleus that supports the vast MS empire.
But you're right, MS is not going to die anytime soon.
Secondly you misunderstand a fundamental driver in the market: people (individuals and businesses) actually WANT to upgrade! Shocking isn't it?
We live in a culture where continuous 'improvement' and 'economic growth' are the goals. Making do with what you have is definitely not the message.
People want newer, shinier stuff. It makes them feel good. It makes them feel successful and that they belong. Ya, That's pretty much right. It's really sad. I know these people. They see an ad for the latest and they're all over it. Most of them don't even have a clue about what they've purchased. They just need to be the first to own it. I don't really know why this is, but it's a phenomenon that I've witnessed again and again. I work with a fellow who knows nothing about computers. Literally, all he does is email, play chess on Yahoo games, and occasionally visit U-tube. He can't even operate a scroll wheel on the mouse, and all typing is hunt and peck. Everyone around him was getting a laptop, so he felt that he should get one too. He asked me what he should look for. I told him to buy the cheapest one he could get his hands on. He thought that sounded good. Then He came back with a $2500 machine and was proud of it, 'cause it was the best'.
Agreed. Now keep in mind that I'm speaking solely from the Canadian perspective on our own nuclear industry. The biggest problem we have had and, in my opinion, the biggest reason for nuclear failure in Canada is the industries long history of massive cost over-runs and under-delivery on promises. It didn't hurt that there was growing public opposition after Chernobyl and Three Mile, but the government really just got sick of all the public subsidies.
Again, I can't speak for the rest of the world but it seems to me that this may have been a common experience. Those counties, like France and Japan, who are very nuclear friendly don't really have that many other options. Those countries who do have other options yet still seem to want nuclear power coincidently also seem to have other nuclear ambitions.
Canada has a long tradition of operating safe non-breeder nuclear fission plants, actually. Very true. Personally, I'm not aware of a single issue with the Candu ever leaking radiation. The problem with the atomic energy industry in Canada has always been one of massive cost overruns.
Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. Allow me to post the 'rules' of this 'contest'. I'm sure they have no intention of paying anybody.... (bolding mine)
By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules.
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
4. The winner, if any, will receive $125,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.
5. All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.
6. All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public.
7. Entries will be accepted starting August 7, 2007.
8. A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.
9. No entries will be accepted after December 1, 2008.
10. The results of the UGWC will be announced on February 1, 2009.
11. All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format.
12. Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis.
13. Entrants consent to their entries being posted on the contest web site for public review and comment.
14. Entrants waive all rights and claims against JunkScience.com related to, or arising from the UGWC.
Good job on the rebuttal; looks like everyone gets a turn to beat up on the troll, (or more likely a paid industry shill.) In this day and age, I have a hard time believing anyone with the ability to form words into sentences is still seriously trotting out these brain dead arguments.
BRAVO! I live in Calgary and as far as I'm concerned the number one impediment to the quality of my life was a stupid commute. So I moved closer to where I work. Now I laugh at the fools who have to spend hours a day getting to work, fighting traffic and rushing to beat the next light!
I get it though. Everyone wants to live in a big house in the suburbs... it's drilled into us (or the wife).
Depends on where in canada you are referring to. Hydro-electric conservation wouldnt exactly help emissions, despite reducing consumption of power. Yes and no. If you are on an isolated grid where your sole source of power was from a hydroelectric dam they, yes you would be correct. However, many electrical markets are interconnected and derive their power in a number of different ways. In this model, conserving power would still be cutting GHG's
You must be joking... the roads are crawling with SUVs and other vehicles that consider 24MPG to be EXCELLENT gas mileage. Then the price point is not high enough.
Go to the UK where the cost of fuel is roughly 2-3 times the cost in America and compare the number of personal vehicles that get 24MPG.
I understand what you're saying, and it may be true where you are. I'm not sure what the rules are in your area but many places allow you to purchase power from a number of companies who generate it. Under these rules, power companies are free to charge whatever they want and pass on any cost they want but consumers are free to switch to a different company if they feel that they can get a better deal.
Sounds to me like they don't want to anger the beast. Why else would they want to support a format that hasn't yet been officially accepted as a ISO standard and comes with 5000+ pages of incomplete documentation?
For the record: I save as.odf and I don't give a sh*t if somebody can't figure out how to open them.
Ya one would hope that local utilities are honorable but one look at some of the scumbags they employ tells me differently. Here's a little anecdote. My boss has been living with his girlfriend for the past year or so and as a result never goes back to his place. About a month ago the city calls and wanted to check his water meter because 'it must be broken because it's not reading any water usage'. He insisted that it was fine but you know the city and they weren't about to drop it. Against his better judgment he decides to come clean and tell them that the place wasn't using any water because it was sitting empty. This got the city off his back... Not a week goes by and he finds his back door kicked in. They didn't get away with anything because, he'd removed anything of value, knowing that nobody would be around that often.
I've had my Gmail account for close to 3 years and I get about 10 in my spam folder a week. It is very rare that I ever get one in my Inbox. My account name is 24 characters long, but you might find it in a dictionary. I never respond to spam, and I delete it on sight. I have a strict rule to never give it out to anyone but friends. when I need to give an email to a company on the web... well that's what Yahoo is for! (let's not talk about how much spam I get there;) )
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure where you are based, but here in Canada, no that is not a crime nor is it a conspiracy to commit a crime. In order to commit theft, you have to take something away from the lawful owner so they don't have it anymore. In terms of copyright infringement, you are allowed to make a copy of virtually anything for personal, non-commercial use. Until the laws are changed, personal copies can come from downloading off the internet.
True. You can make as many innovations as you wish in order to increase fuel economy; but when it comes right down to it, a litre of gasoline only has X amount of energy in it. This means that once you reach the limits of fuel efficiency in engines, one must begin to cut down the weight of the vehicle in order to conserve fuel. On a national and international level we can encourage auto produces to make tiny, highly efficient vehicles but, (as you suggest), at an individual level we need people to chose to drive them instead of the big gas guzzlers.
(Stop reading here if you don't want to hear my personal musings to North America's energy problems)
I've thought long and hard about this and there and I've come to a few conclusions.
1) there are a number of reasons why North America needs to take steps to encourage conservation of fossil fuels and more fuel efficient cars are one of the pieces.
2) For a variety of reasons, driving smaller cars will not be palatable to a large swath of the north American driving public, therefore some form of action must be taken in order to 'encourage' people.
3) However, smaller cars alone are not the answer. I use to think that if everyone drove a more efficient car we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I have been disheartened by some of the recent findings showing that when people save money on fuel for their car, it actually encourages them to drive more places thereby nullifying any overall reduction in fuel consumption. 4) Conservation and the changing of energy use habits will not spontaneously occur in a large enough section of the public to get North America to where it needs to be in terms of non-renewable fuel consumption. Therefore the government must step in and take some form of action, but what?
The solution) In my estimation, action taken must be the unpopular step of making fossil fuels expensive enough that the majority of people cannot afford to operate anything but a fuel sipper. This should probably take the form of escalating fossil fuel taxes. We must make it more expensive to drive a small car tomorrow than it is to drive a large truck today. Yes, this will be economically painful and politically suicidal, but it is the only way to force a fundamental change in the way people behave. People are inherently lazy and if you make it economically viable to drive two blocks to the grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread they will do it. Another problem is that cities today are designed around cheap independent transportation. Now that we are gaining an understanding of the importance of energy conservation why do we allow people to commute 50+ miles to work everyday? Cities must be redesigned to place workers near their place of employment, or places of employment near workers. Citizens should not have to drive across the city to purchase goods they need for everyday life. Movement of goods is another issue that must be dealt with. It should be a non-starter that we encourage food to be produced 2000+ miles from where it is to be consumed. For long hauls, railways should be preferable to tractor trailers. It's mind boggling to think that individual components of merchandise be manufactured all over the globe and shipped to another location to be assembled. Dramatically escalating the price of energy will fix all these wasteful practices. For those of you still reading this you might think I've gone off my rocker. Well, I've already said that this will be economically painful and politically untenable, however, at some point something will have to change. If we don't undertake change then we have just chosen to download it onto our children. Make no mistake, as oil production moves to more expensive forms and remote locations fuel costs will increase on their own and we will have to choice but to pay it. By making moves now we harden the economy against future oil price volatility and make alternatives forms of energy more attractive. Obviously implementing such changes
agreed, I tried puppies1234.com. Same thing, available then..... gone.
I agree with you, it's not rocket science and it's the basic stuff we still need to work on.
I worked in a hospital and the issue of superbugs was a prominent one. The plain fact of the matter is that superbugs are not a large danger outside of a hospital. They rarely infect healthy individuals precisely because they are healthy, instead they infect those whose immune systems are already compromised and those people are disproportionately found in hospitals and other clinical settings. Allowing staff to wear hospital clothing from home to work and back again shouldn't be a problem (assuming that they proceed directly to work and home from work and don't go to a daycare before work or a nursing home after) because hospitals are far dirtier than the outside world.
Granted, this is interesting research, but ultimately it will do nothing to stop the spread of superbugs in the hospital setting because doctors and nurses who should know better don't take the time to sterilize themselves properly between interactions with patients. Time and time again I would witness doctors pop in on a patient infected with MRSA or something else and fail to put on a mask or gown up, because they were only going to be there for a minute, then they would move on to the next patient. Worse they would have all their residents in tow, who were now learning the same behaviour. And it's not just doctors, some nurses were doing it as well. Granted 95% of the time most healthcare workers did take the basic precautions 95% of the time, but that is simply not good enough. Until 100% of hospital staff observes basic precautions 100% of the time, this line of research will be interesting but ultimately fruitless in the fight against the spread of superbugs.
The reason empty parking lots are lit at night is for liability reasons. Car accidents, muggings and rapes are some examples of such liabilities. Crime prevention is another one. Car break-ins and things like house intrusions are all easier to accomplish in the dark. Lighting the city at night is seen by governments as due diligence, much like scraping snow off the sidewalks, and sanding icy intersections.
Incorrect. This is a problem that exists, you don't spend much time in grounds keeping do you? This is why cities send water trucks around. Your statement about evaporation is incorrect as well. During a heavy rainfall in the city most of the rainfall runs into the nearest storm sewer, it doesn't evaporate. This means that during seasons defined by heavy bursts of rainfall followed by long stretches of high heat and sunlight, soil moisture can become a problem. This could actually increase the amount of future rainfall (assuming that most of the moisture is pulled from the local soil before it falls).
Lets be honest, MS needed Apple around to have any hope of dodging an anti-trust ruling. I'm sure it looked like a safe bet, Apple without Jobs was being run like MS is now: out of touch with itself, and no overall vision of the future. The exception was that Apple didn't have a major monopoly on anything. So while the extra cash wasn't going to hurt Apple, tossing a little petty cash towards Apple wasn't going to hurt Microsoft either.
1. Windows.
2. Office.
This is the nucleus that supports the vast MS empire.
But you're right, MS is not going to die anytime soon.
Secondly you misunderstand a fundamental driver in the market: people (individuals and businesses) actually WANT to upgrade! Shocking isn't it? We live in a culture where continuous 'improvement' and 'economic growth' are the goals. Making do with what you have is definitely not the message. People want newer, shinier stuff. It makes them feel good. It makes them feel successful and that they belong. Ya, That's pretty much right. It's really sad. I know these people. They see an ad for the latest and they're all over it. Most of them don't even have a clue about what they've purchased. They just need to be the first to own it. I don't really know why this is, but it's a phenomenon that I've witnessed again and again. I work with a fellow who knows nothing about computers. Literally, all he does is email, play chess on Yahoo games, and occasionally visit U-tube. He can't even operate a scroll wheel on the mouse, and all typing is hunt and peck. Everyone around him was getting a laptop, so he felt that he should get one too. He asked me what he should look for. I told him to buy the cheapest one he could get his hands on. He thought that sounded good. Then He came back with a $2500 machine and was proud of it, 'cause it was the best'.
Well, I had to give him that: it WAS the best.
S.
Na, he's just a wanna be troll. One look at his profile and previous posts confirms it.
Agreed. Now keep in mind that I'm speaking solely from the Canadian perspective on our own nuclear industry. The biggest problem we have had and, in my opinion, the biggest reason for nuclear failure in Canada is the industries long history of massive cost over-runs and under-delivery on promises. It didn't hurt that there was growing public opposition after Chernobyl and Three Mile, but the government really just got sick of all the public subsidies.
Again, I can't speak for the rest of the world but it seems to me that this may have been a common experience. Those counties, like France and Japan, who are very nuclear friendly don't really have that many other options. Those countries who do have other options yet still seem to want nuclear power coincidently also seem to have other nuclear ambitions.
Ya, I gotta say that as much as I support the environment here on earth, I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't mine the moon....
I was just reading the Globe and Mail, Canada's most prestigious newspaper, and they had a slightly different take. Facebook was in the drivers seat and forced Microsoft to pay more for less. Google didn't need Facebook, but Microsoft did. http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071024.wmicrosoftstaff1024/BNStory/Business/home
(bolding mine)
By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules.
2. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
3. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
4. The winner, if any, will receive $125,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.
5. All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.
6. All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public.
7. Entries will be accepted starting August 7, 2007.
8. A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.
9. No entries will be accepted after December 1, 2008.
10. The results of the UGWC will be announced on February 1, 2009.
11. All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format.
12. Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis.
13. Entrants consent to their entries being posted on the contest web site for public review and comment.
14. Entrants waive all rights and claims against JunkScience.com related to, or arising from the UGWC.
Good work smacking the industry troll around!
Here you go:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Good job on the rebuttal; looks like everyone gets a turn to beat up on the troll, (or more likely a paid industry shill.) In this day and age, I have a hard time believing anyone with the ability to form words into sentences is still seriously trotting out these brain dead arguments.
BRAVO! I live in Calgary and as far as I'm concerned the number one impediment to the quality of my life was a stupid commute. So I moved closer to where I work. Now I laugh at the fools who have to spend hours a day getting to work, fighting traffic and rushing to beat the next light!
I get it though. Everyone wants to live in a big house in the suburbs... it's drilled into us (or the wife).
Go to the UK where the cost of fuel is roughly 2-3 times the cost in America and compare the number of personal vehicles that get 24MPG.
I understand what you're saying, and it may be true where you are. I'm not sure what the rules are in your area but many places allow you to purchase power from a number of companies who generate it. Under these rules, power companies are free to charge whatever they want and pass on any cost they want but consumers are free to switch to a different company if they feel that they can get a better deal.
Sounds to me like they don't want to anger the beast. Why else would they want to support a format that hasn't yet been officially accepted as a ISO standard and comes with 5000+ pages of incomplete documentation?
.odf and I don't give a sh*t if somebody can't figure out how to open them.
For the record: I save as
Ya one would hope that local utilities are honorable but one look at some of the scumbags they employ tells me differently. Here's a little anecdote. My boss has been living with his girlfriend for the past year or so and as a result never goes back to his place. About a month ago the city calls and wanted to check his water meter because 'it must be broken because it's not reading any water usage'. He insisted that it was fine but you know the city and they weren't about to drop it. Against his better judgment he decides to come clean and tell them that the place wasn't using any water because it was sitting empty. This got the city off his back... Not a week goes by and he finds his back door kicked in. They didn't get away with anything because, he'd removed anything of value, knowing that nobody would be around that often.
Coincidence??? Maybe....
I've had my Gmail account for close to 3 years and I get about 10 in my spam folder a week. It is very rare that I ever get one in my Inbox. My account name is 24 characters long, but you might find it in a dictionary. I never respond to spam, and I delete it on sight. I have a strict rule to never give it out to anyone but friends. when I need to give an email to a company on the web... well that's what Yahoo is for! (let's not talk about how much spam I get there ;) )