Actually, no. That's not at all what I was referring to. I'm referring to fact that the Air Force likes to drop 500lb bombs where they think the top ranking baddies are, and yet with all of the sophisticated air borne weapons, they've managed to get pretty much nobody of any importance with an air strike--ever.
Sorry about the confusion. I definitely agree here.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you can fly a 2000lb laser guided bomb into a window, if the people you really want to get are a mile away.
Then you just need a more powerful bomb, right?
Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit.
So the fact finally hit the US media at last (don't live in the US, so I don't follow those media)?
You're really buying that whole "intelligence screwed up" explanation for Iraq? I believe the intelligence was 100% accurate. If the CIA had really believed Iraq had WMDs, I doubt the US would have invaded (see North Korea and Iran).
Do you think dumping millions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is a "real solution" to the waste from coal-fired plants?
I don't.
Do you think leaving all the arsenic, lead, mercury, and heavy metals that are scrubbed out of the exhaust from those plants lying around in big piles is a "real solution"?
I don't.
Do you think that the long-term storage and disposal of that waste is *any less* of an issue than disposing of the volumetrically miniscule amounts of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants?
Slightly.
Neutron-induced radioactivity in a reactor vessel ceases to be an issue after several years, but arsenic is forever. Why do you only worry about the former when it comes to things like our air and water?
Who said I *only* worry about the former? I do believe nuclear energy can be a used as transition (and only that) from fossil fuel to something cleaner. However, I'm not happy with the current state of nuclear waste disposal where stuff is put in non-seismically stable areas with potential to leak to underground water. Should I understand you're perfectly happy with everything that's going on regarding nuclear waste disposal?
Spent fuel is stored encased in glass and concrete. The risk of leaks is very small, and because the low volumes of waste can be concentrated in a few locations, only small areas would be contaminated even if there was a leak.
But that's only one problem. One annoying thing with nuclear reactors is that it also creates lots of radioactive material (i.e. parts of the reactor become radioactive when receiving neutrons). That increases the amount of nuclear waste quite a bit. (note that I'm not anti-nuclear, but I'd like to see a real solution for waste)
The chief danger is that setting off a nuke on the ground will mix the nuclear material with dirt, causing concentrated fallout within a few miles of ground zero, instead of dispersing it relatively harmlessly in the atmosphere like an explosion in mid-air.
Actually, that's not the real danger about nukes exploding on the ground. What happens if a decide explodes on the ground is that the neutrons hitting the ground create all kinds of radioactive isotopes.
It's funny how a lot of people here insist that extremely restrictive licenses like the GPLv3...as opposed to the "Microsoft source code license" which allows you to freely distribute Windows source code in your own proprietary software, right?
the problem with capitalism (the system you're pretty much describing, not libertarianism)
I don't believe it's a fundamental problem with capitalism itself. It's a problem with *unregulated* capitalism.
clueless morons who'd rather follow Big Corp's marketing dept. instead of educating themselves about the issues that affect them
Unfortunately, that won't be fixed unless the govt were to spend at least the same amount on advertisement as Big Corps to, which is highly unlikely (and possibly undesirable anyway). Otherwise, it's a lost battle. You've got billions spent on ads telling everyone to eat junk food (just one example) and a couple millions into actually telling people it's bad for you. You can say "people could stop paying attention to ads", but that would be missing the point. The fact is that ads *do* work. Otherwise Big Corps wouldn't be spending billions on it in the first place. If you can't get people to stop buying food that makes them sick, how the hell are you going to stop them from buying from companies that destroy the environment at a global scale. This is why I do not believe "voting with your wallet" will ever work except for a few rare case.
we should incentivize externalities via such measures as tradable pollution credits, thus making them directly bear on companies' bottom lines
Isn't that considered ligislating and taxing (two things which neocons and libertabians are opposed to)?
Don't get me wrong. I do agree that ultimately companies should pay the real (environmental, social,...) cost of whatever they do. Then dumping waste would no longer attract a small fine for creating pollution, but rather prosecution for "stealing from the environment".
The fact that CO2 is our biggest pollution worry, means that we have made huge strides at addressing pollution and other environmental problems.
No, it means we've ignored the problem (partially because less was known about it) for a long time and now there's no other choice but to face it. All the environmental issues you've mentioned are mostly on a local scale (less particle-based pollution in a city == cleaner air) and obvious. They are easier to deal with partly because a local change can make a difference (as opposed to the tragedy of the commons) and because they didn't affect "core" economic aspects. On the global scale, the only "victory" I can think of is on the ozone layer (even if the benefits will only come later) and even that didn't touch all that much of the economy, so was "relatively" easy. The problem with CO2 is that you can't just "improve the processes" to eliminate it. If you burn fossil fuel, you get CO2 no matter what you do. You may be slightly more efficient at getting electricity out of it, but that it. Compared to that, the river next to your house is a joke.
That's what really bothers me about the libertarian-neocon view on corporations. You have at the same time:
1) Companies are only there to make a profit and don't have to care about things like environment, security,...
2) Regulation is evil, let the companies do whatever they like and the market will sort it out.
Logical conclusion from 1) and 2) is that we're pretty much screwed and back to some kind of feudalism. And no, most people do not vote with their wallets and the Market will not sort it out magically (otherwise, CO2 emissions would already be on the way down and there wouldn't be all these environmental problems).
Actually, you should be convicted what what you really did. Someone spent 5 years in prison because of evidence you knew was faulty? You get convicted of sequestration. Someone learly got executed -- attempted murder. Someone got executed -- murder.
Haven't looked at it, but I wouldn't expect to find anything we didn't already know. Think about it for a moment, if you wanted your troops to torture/kill/whatever prisoners, would you actually *write* it in a "widely" (relatively) distributed manual or would you make subtle *verbal* allusions that don't leave any evidence? If bad people have learned anything since WWII, it's "don't leave any incriminating evidence behind".
"It Just Don't Look Right" is a time-tested law enforcement mantra. It isn't something George W. Bush cooked up after 9/11 -- it's around because so many crimes, and so many terrorist plots have been busted up by investigating the unusual and unexpected.
Yes, and it actually worked particularly well in East Germany. Maybe it's time to learn from the Stasi how to be even more effective, don't you think?
What happens if I drive a big-ass car rather than a tiny-ass POS, so if I hit your tiny-ass POS I live and you die?
Right, so the solution to make roads safer is that we need to make sure everyone has a bigger than average car, right? Also, no matter how big your car is, if you strike a large enough concrete object or tree, you still die. Is your car also safe against people who run over red lights and hit you on the side?
Second, the "safety" of airlines is always touted by considering total miles traveled, not TIME IN THE VEHICLE
When you want to go from point A to point B, and you consider whether to do it by car of by plane, it's the *distance* that's constant, not the time.
Let's turn the tables, shall we? OK, airlines, if you're going to include teenage hotrod and dead-drunk idiots in your road statistics, I'm gonna include all the private airplanes that are busy dropping out of the sky on a daily basis. Who wins now?
Airplanes still win -- by a large amount.
About statistics, they should include everything, both for planes and for cars. "But what about the statistics of people who live on my street have my name and drive the same car as I do?" This is not statistics, this is anecdote.
Here's another version of the same questionnaire. Let's see...
Who said it? (there are only six, you can do it!)
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Ghandi B. Kennedy C. Roosevelt D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Churchill B. De-Gaulle C. Roosevelt D. None of the Above...
It's a mess with no easy fix in sight, unless someone can magically make all of the airline lobbyists disappear.
I can't help but think that their lobbyists can't be very good. I mean, looking at the rate at which the Bush administration is introducing new measures to piss off airline customers, I can't help but think his intention is to destroy the US airline industry.
You don't understand. This is a *major* improvement. After all, they haven't just increased a little bit the number of possible users, they've *multiplied* it by about 4 billions. That's a 40,000,000% increase!
While the gap may not be closing in just 5 years, I still think it keeps shrinking. Flash may be growing "only" as fast as Moore's law, but recently HD growth seems to have been slower than Moore's law. In any case, I'm pretty sure solid-state drives will become quite common on laptops within about 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
"Your honour, I didn't commit an armed robbery, the clerk just voluntarily gave me the money after I pointed the gun at him"
Seriously, if this thing is voluntary, I'd really like to know what isn't.
Actually, no. That's not at all what I was referring to. I'm referring to fact that the Air Force likes to drop 500lb bombs where they think the top ranking baddies are, and yet with all of the sophisticated air borne weapons, they've managed to get pretty much nobody of any importance with an air strike--ever.
Sorry about the confusion. I definitely agree here.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you can fly a 2000lb laser guided bomb into a window, if the people you really want to get are a mile away.
Then you just need a more powerful bomb, right?
Anyway, it's been demonstrated that the CIA did not believe that Iraq had or was in the process of acquiring, making or otherwise using any kind of WMD--and that the people with this knowledge in the CIA repeatedly called on the White House to correct misinformation in politicians speeches and shit.
So the fact finally hit the US media at last (don't live in the US, so I don't follow those media)?
You're really buying that whole "intelligence screwed up" explanation for Iraq? I believe the intelligence was 100% accurate. If the CIA had really believed Iraq had WMDs, I doubt the US would have invaded (see North Korea and Iran).
Do you think dumping millions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is a "real solution" to the waste from coal-fired plants?
I don't.
Do you think leaving all the arsenic, lead, mercury, and heavy metals that are scrubbed out of the exhaust from those plants lying around in big piles is a "real solution"?
I don't.
Do you think that the long-term storage and disposal of that waste is *any less* of an issue than disposing of the volumetrically miniscule amounts of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants?
Slightly.
Neutron-induced radioactivity in a reactor vessel ceases to be an issue after several years, but arsenic is forever. Why do you only worry about the former when it comes to things like our air and water?
Who said I *only* worry about the former? I do believe nuclear energy can be a used as transition (and only that) from fossil fuel to something cleaner. However, I'm not happy with the current state of nuclear waste disposal where stuff is put in non-seismically stable areas with potential to leak to underground water. Should I understand you're perfectly happy with everything that's going on regarding nuclear waste disposal?
Spent fuel is stored encased in glass and concrete. The risk of leaks is very small, and because the low volumes of waste can be concentrated in a few locations, only small areas would be contaminated even if there was a leak.
But that's only one problem. One annoying thing with nuclear reactors is that it also creates lots of radioactive material (i.e. parts of the reactor become radioactive when receiving neutrons). That increases the amount of nuclear waste quite a bit. (note that I'm not anti-nuclear, but I'd like to see a real solution for waste)
The chief danger is that setting off a nuke on the ground will mix the nuclear material with dirt, causing concentrated fallout within a few miles of ground zero, instead of dispersing it relatively harmlessly in the atmosphere like an explosion in mid-air.
Actually, that's not the real danger about nukes exploding on the ground. What happens if a decide explodes on the ground is that the neutrons hitting the ground create all kinds of radioactive isotopes.
I guess the only way to really avoid the malloc() calls grabbing your source code would have been to compile, then reboot to link...
How about:
- Using calloc() instead of malloc()
- calling memset() after malloc()
- Using a good ol' for loop
You make it sound like writing (zeros) to memory wasn't invented at that time!
It's funny how a lot of people here insist that extremely restrictive licenses like the GPLv3 ...as opposed to the "Microsoft source code license" which allows you to freely distribute Windows source code in your own proprietary software, right?
Who wants to bet that MS will resubmit the exact same thing without changing a comma, while pretending it addressed all the comments?
Who wants to bet that in 600 years, they'll decide to scrap the leap-hour and instead have a leap-day in 13800 years?
the problem with capitalism (the system you're pretty much describing, not libertarianism)
I don't believe it's a fundamental problem with capitalism itself. It's a problem with *unregulated* capitalism.
clueless morons who'd rather follow Big Corp's marketing dept. instead of educating themselves about the issues that affect them
Unfortunately, that won't be fixed unless the govt were to spend at least the same amount on advertisement as Big Corps to, which is highly unlikely (and possibly undesirable anyway). Otherwise, it's a lost battle. You've got billions spent on ads telling everyone to eat junk food (just one example) and a couple millions into actually telling people it's bad for you. You can say "people could stop paying attention to ads", but that would be missing the point. The fact is that ads *do* work. Otherwise Big Corps wouldn't be spending billions on it in the first place. If you can't get people to stop buying food that makes them sick, how the hell are you going to stop them from buying from companies that destroy the environment at a global scale. This is why I do not believe "voting with your wallet" will ever work except for a few rare case.
we should incentivize externalities via such measures as tradable pollution credits, thus making them directly bear on companies' bottom lines
...) cost of whatever they do. Then dumping waste would no longer attract a small fine for creating pollution, but rather prosecution for "stealing from the environment".
Isn't that considered ligislating and taxing (two things which neocons and libertabians are opposed to)?
Don't get me wrong. I do agree that ultimately companies should pay the real (environmental, social,
The fact that CO2 is our biggest pollution worry, means that we have made huge strides at addressing pollution and other environmental problems.
No, it means we've ignored the problem (partially because less was known about it) for a long time and now there's no other choice but to face it. All the environmental issues you've mentioned are mostly on a local scale (less particle-based pollution in a city == cleaner air) and obvious. They are easier to deal with partly because a local change can make a difference (as opposed to the tragedy of the commons) and because they didn't affect "core" economic aspects. On the global scale, the only "victory" I can think of is on the ozone layer (even if the benefits will only come later) and even that didn't touch all that much of the economy, so was "relatively" easy. The problem with CO2 is that you can't just "improve the processes" to eliminate it. If you burn fossil fuel, you get CO2 no matter what you do. You may be slightly more efficient at getting electricity out of it, but that it. Compared to that, the river next to your house is a joke.
It's not *a* libertarian-neocon, but what I'm saying applies to both (admittedly very different) groups.
That's what really bothers me about the libertarian-neocon view on corporations. You have at the same time:
...
1) Companies are only there to make a profit and don't have to care about things like environment, security,
2) Regulation is evil, let the companies do whatever they like and the market will sort it out.
Logical conclusion from 1) and 2) is that we're pretty much screwed and back to some kind of feudalism. And no, most people do not vote with their wallets and the Market will not sort it out magically (otherwise, CO2 emissions would already be on the way down and there wouldn't be all these environmental problems).
Actually, you should be convicted what what you really did. Someone spent 5 years in prison because of evidence you knew was faulty? You get convicted of sequestration. Someone learly got executed -- attempted murder. Someone got executed -- murder.
Haven't looked at it, but I wouldn't expect to find anything we didn't already know. Think about it for a moment, if you wanted your troops to torture/kill/whatever prisoners, would you actually *write* it in a "widely" (relatively) distributed manual or would you make subtle *verbal* allusions that don't leave any evidence? If bad people have learned anything since WWII, it's "don't leave any incriminating evidence behind".
Right, so where is the 64-bit version of Flash?
"It Just Don't Look Right" is a time-tested law enforcement mantra. It isn't something George W. Bush cooked up after 9/11 -- it's around because so many crimes, and so many terrorist plots have been busted up by investigating the unusual and unexpected.
Yes, and it actually worked particularly well in East Germany. Maybe it's time to learn from the Stasi how to be even more effective, don't you think?
but once you've gouged a vinyl record that pop or click is there forever.
Shhhhhh, don't give any ideas to the recording industry.
What happens if I drive a big-ass car rather than a tiny-ass POS, so if I hit your tiny-ass POS I live and you die?
Right, so the solution to make roads safer is that we need to make sure everyone has a bigger than average car, right? Also, no matter how big your car is, if you strike a large enough concrete object or tree, you still die. Is your car also safe against people who run over red lights and hit you on the side?
Second, the "safety" of airlines is always touted by considering total miles traveled, not TIME IN THE VEHICLE
When you want to go from point A to point B, and you consider whether to do it by car of by plane, it's the *distance* that's constant, not the time.
Let's turn the tables, shall we? OK, airlines, if you're going to include teenage hotrod and dead-drunk idiots in your road statistics, I'm gonna include all the private airplanes that are busy dropping out of the sky on a daily basis. Who wins now?
Airplanes still win -- by a large amount.
About statistics, they should include everything, both for planes and for cars. "But what about the statistics of people who live on my street have my name and drive the same car as I do?" This is not statistics, this is anecdote.
Here's another version of the same questionnaire. Let's see...
...
Who said it? (there are only six, you can do it!)
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Ghandi
B. Kennedy
C. Roosevelt
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Churchill
B. De-Gaulle
C. Roosevelt
D. None of the Above
Does it suddenly make Hilary Clinton look better?
It's a mess with no easy fix in sight, unless someone can magically make all of the airline lobbyists disappear.
I can't help but think that their lobbyists can't be very good. I mean, looking at the rate at which the Bush administration is introducing new measures to piss off airline customers, I can't help but think his intention is to destroy the US airline industry.
Probably the composers. After all, the business model has "only" been dead for about 10-15 years.
You don't understand. This is a *major* improvement. After all, they haven't just increased a little bit the number of possible users, they've *multiplied* it by about 4 billions. That's a 40,000,000% increase!
While the gap may not be closing in just 5 years, I still think it keeps shrinking. Flash may be growing "only" as fast as Moore's law, but recently HD growth seems to have been slower than Moore's law. In any case, I'm pretty sure solid-state drives will become quite common on laptops within about 2 years.