And why doesn't this make sense for carbon 'sequestration'? Even though it isn't sequestration.
Creating a somewhat closed loop of CO2->CH3OH->(2CH3OH(l) + 3O2(g) --> 2CO2(g) + 4H2O(g)) seems, superficially, like a win. The inputs, probably the required energy, make you question the economics of the process. So let's think.
Carbon sequestration is always expensive. Paying credits and such is a game that really doesn't reduce carbon anything but makes us^H^Hthem feel better. Costs to change processes etc are all reflected in pricing of products and services.
But while a CO2-Methanol loop still might cost, it may mitigate that cost enough to be viable.
And if it is implemented cleverly, at the source of the CO2, even better than extracting it from the atmosphere, probably.
"What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant."
What I find inevitable is that as the government (and those who oppose my rights) realize that I can actually do what I was always permitted to, they must find a way to prevent that, as if I should never have been permitted to ever.
It has been legal to manufacture your own firearm for your own personal use in the U.S. You cannot legally sell it, nor even give it way,without being licensed etc. And you cannot accept such a weapon from someone, though I do not k now off hand what happens if, for example, one is bequeathed to you on the death of the maker.
The gun control advocates understand entirely that desktop fabrication is a huge risk to the success of their campaign to deny Americans the ownership of guns. They will try to ban the distribution of files and descriptions necessary to fabricate these guns, which would have the effect of also banning any number of books etc on conventional gunsmithing and desktop fabrication, and then we will also have a First Amendment case to argue.
This has happened before, for instance when courts put public records online, permitting common citizens easy access to these public records... Yup, pressure mounted to reclassify these as not public when it became practical for your neighbor to actually access them...
"I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people."
Actually, I understood this in 5th grade, when the Second Amendment was read in its entirety. Two years later I carried a.410 shotgun to hunt with my family, two years after that graduating to the.30-30. Then, a year later, my American History teacher indulged us in a deeper study of the Second Amendment, which left no doubt in my mind of the intent and effect of that Amendment, and the radical nature of our Constitution. People from other nations have largely been taught nothing about that, for what should be obvious reasons.
AR-15s are becoming popular for game hunting, despite the limitations. A lighter load than some other calibers/'energy':.22 LR HV - 152.223/5.56x45 - 1254 (typical AR-15 load).22-250 - 1624 (varmint rifle).30-30 Win - 1888 (my favorite deer rifle in Maine).300 Savage - 2280 (My mom's favorite deer rifle, model 99).308 Win/7.62 - 2617 (AK-47 IIRC, also a modern sniper round).300-06 Springfield - 2920 (Still an excellent sniper round)
It would seem an AR-15 is a poor choice for a deer rifle, but swap out the FMJ for Hell, the M885A1 looks suspiciously like my mom's favorite round,the bronze point. I wonder if it is available for civilians. But rechamber the AR-15 in 300AAC (7.62) and get a very serviceable hunting rifle. Trivially easy to do, and converting back simple. I would not load the clip more than 5 rounds. as deer rarely stick around after the first two reports, so you're shooting them in the butt which is undesirable. So you either shoot accurately or chase them through the brush. Your choice.
So indeed, an AR-15 could be a 'hunting rifle', and the occasional id10t^H^H^H^H^H patriot carries one here in Arizona, just because they can.
Footer ads cover the edit window. Most keyboards cover the edit window. Can't move the edit window. Moderating works when it feels like it, which is 10% of the time.
I don't care about iOS.
Force a developer to use it on a phone and tablet for a day. They will understand.
What he said was, in other words, was that Apple didn't do well insulating themselves from the currency fluctuations they once were able to do so well at.
And in the process they devised a clever financial instrument that found great utility for other uses. Some not so glorious.
Too bad. That's the risk in global sales. Welcome to the real world.
"Utter and complete destruction and the disbarment of their lawyers should be the proper goal."
Sounds nice. But lawyers sometimes merely represent their clients. What is good for the patent troll would need to be applicable to the driver injured by a faulty seat belt, the coed harmed by a defective hair curler, the parent whose child was suffocated by a badly designed crib. Lawyers facing disbarment for being identified as facilitating spurious or frivolous prosecution might be saying no to all kinds of cases.
Put the blame squarely where it lies. Punish the plaintiff.
The application is to send images (whether they contain graphics, text , or whatever) to be made accessible in a document imaging system. TIFF, PDF, DOC, DOCX, JPG, BMP, GIF formats are accepted. PDFs are very common.
While many court records are public, when these get posted online and *actually* accessible, too often there is a cry that this 'should not be'. sometimes fees 'solve' the 'problem'.
ALPRs give police an interesting tool - they can look for license plates they could already know about, but might (probably would) miss in reality. But to permit the data to be kept by a third party? I'm pretty sure I do NOT like that.
But more to the point, apparently it's too burdensome for an officer or two to visit the last known address of those with outstanding court fees and deal with them face to face. Add appropriate surcharges to cover the cost of the visit, k?
Oh and know that you will disproportionally impact the poor and under-/un-banked. Who don't deserve that.
At work, my clients use PDFs to submit to us regularly. We immediately convert this to a TIF for our use...
This is not so good as it seems.
We have one client that uses a custom font. Yeah, really. Being not just custom but copyrighted, and they do not include it in the PDFs, when they submit, and our converter makes the best choice it can to make this into something we can use internally. Sadly, the mapping is off by one character code. The original word 'carrot', for instance ends up being 'dbsspu'. Really. They could not change this. We could not change this. They submit using PNGs now. 'Solved'.
Another client uses some third-party PDF software to send those to us. Their solution results in perfectly readable files that our converter refuses to recognize as a PDF. I looked at the data, and it looks ok to me with an unuusal qualifier in the header. Seems their software creates PDFs with version numbers that can't really exist... Solution? Open the PDF before they send ti to us, save it, and magically somehow it changes things.
Another client sends us PDFs that often convert perfect images, hidden behind what can be described as zebra stripes. Except for when it looks like black & white leopard stripes. Solution? Send us JPGs.
PDFs are a lot more complex and difficult than people think. So many third-party apps that generate almost-compatible PDFs, Adobe probably trying to kill these by modifying the file format, adding features that just don;t come out so well, it's not bliss with PDFs.
But to the OP, what open document format would we want the government to use? It should be first, read-only when needed, for instance for applications and submissions, though read/write as an option, of course. Signable. Able to secure, probably via certificate. Forms capability of course. Does this readily exist?
So if you happen do be in a restaurant and overhear someone explaining how their company is 'going public' tomorrow, and they have orders lined up from a specific investor at double the initial pricing, it's not merely permissible for you to take advantage of that overheard conversation, but to act on the information and contact that investor, offer them a slightly better deal, taking your profit. Not knowing that this individual was talking to their broker, who then, after you left to find a private place and make your move, telling them that was improper and could not be done...
And this is ok, because it's a public place. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the situation I described is reasonable and pass on the legalities...
The FCC has issued rules specifying that overheard or intercepted communications cannot be divulged or used to advantage (Section 705, for instance) for some time.
While recording conversations in public places is generally held to be permissible, doing so with conversations that are reasonably believed to be private by the participants is illegal under (Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511 specifically). From an article online:
"In response to the public outcry about the government’s covert recording of the activities of political activist groups in the 1960s, Congress enacted the Wiretap Act as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. (18 U.S.C. 2510.)"
Apparently we need to revisit this act. Not that our government is secretly recording the activities of groups or individuals suspected of some acts, specified or not, but that the government is recording everything it can, indiscriminately.
Slashdot Mirror
And why doesn't this make sense for carbon 'sequestration'? Even though it isn't sequestration.
Creating a somewhat closed loop of CO2->CH3OH->(2CH3OH(l) + 3O2(g) --> 2CO2(g) + 4H2O(g)) seems, superficially, like a win. The inputs, probably the required energy, make you question the economics of the process. So let's think.
Carbon sequestration is always expensive. Paying credits and such is a game that really doesn't reduce carbon anything but makes us^H^Hthem feel better. Costs to change processes etc are all reflected in pricing of products and services.
But while a CO2-Methanol loop still might cost, it may mitigate that cost enough to be viable.
And if it is implemented cleverly, at the source of the CO2, even better than extracting it from the atmosphere, probably.
Now to make ti actually work.
"This means that sometimes energy costs become negative"
Didn't you mean 'revenue'? Costs don't change much if a nuclear plant is idling, but the revenue plummets.
I will be making one for two reasons:
0. Because I can, as an intellectual exercise.
1. So that I can do it again, if needed, lest my government believe it can actually oppress me even further than it does now, and personally so.
You, my anonymous friend, are on the way to enlightenment. Stay the course.
Mostly in five cities. Five.
Which is an indictment of the politicians that both supervise and permit this.
"Your silly little laws that you believe protect you won't last for long in the face of immigrant violence and economic collapse"
FTFY
They weren't drug-addled, nor scum, but they were black.
"What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant."
What I find inevitable is that as the government (and those who oppose my rights) realize that I can actually do what I was always permitted to, they must find a way to prevent that, as if I should never have been permitted to ever.
It has been legal to manufacture your own firearm for your own personal use in the U.S. You cannot legally sell it, nor even give it way,without being licensed etc. And you cannot accept such a weapon from someone, though I do not k now off hand what happens if, for example, one is bequeathed to you on the death of the maker.
The gun control advocates understand entirely that desktop fabrication is a huge risk to the success of their campaign to deny Americans the ownership of guns. They will try to ban the distribution of files and descriptions necessary to fabricate these guns, which would have the effect of also banning any number of books etc on conventional gunsmithing and desktop fabrication, and then we will also have a First Amendment case to argue.
This has happened before, for instance when courts put public records online, permitting common citizens easy access to these public records... Yup, pressure mounted to reclassify these as not public when it became practical for your neighbor to actually access them...
Do not trust your government.
And then there are those with UIDs...
"I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people."
Actually, I understood this in 5th grade, when the Second Amendment was read in its entirety. Two years later I carried a .410 shotgun to hunt with my family, two years after that graduating to the .30-30. Then, a year later, my American History teacher indulged us in a deeper study of the Second Amendment, which left no doubt in my mind of the intent and effect of that Amendment, and the radical nature of our Constitution. People from other nations have largely been taught nothing about that, for what should be obvious reasons.
The world hates freedom.
AR-15s are becoming popular for game hunting, despite the limitations. A lighter load than some other calibers/'energy': .22 LR HV - 152 .223/5.56x45 - 1254 (typical AR-15 load) .22-250 - 1624 (varmint rifle) .30-30 Win - 1888 (my favorite deer rifle in Maine) .300 Savage - 2280 (My mom's favorite deer rifle, model 99) .308 Win/7.62 - 2617 (AK-47 IIRC, also a modern sniper round) .300-06 Springfield - 2920 (Still an excellent sniper round)
It would seem an AR-15 is a poor choice for a deer rifle, but swap out the FMJ for Hell, the M885A1 looks suspiciously like my mom's favorite round,the bronze point. I wonder if it is available for civilians. But rechamber the AR-15 in 300AAC (7.62) and get a very serviceable hunting rifle. Trivially easy to do, and converting back simple. I would not load the clip more than 5 rounds. as deer rarely stick around after the first two reports, so you're shooting them in the butt which is undesirable. So you either shoot accurately or chase them through the brush. Your choice.
So indeed, an AR-15 could be a 'hunting rifle', and the occasional id10t^H^H^H^H^H patriot carries one here in Arizona, just because they can.
Just fix it.
In Android Chrome;
Footer ads cover the edit window.
Most keyboards cover the edit window.
Can't move the edit window.
Moderating works when it feels like it, which is 10% of the time.
I don't care about iOS.
Force a developer to use it on a phone and tablet for a day. They will understand.
this is rich.
What he said was, in other words, was that Apple didn't do well insulating themselves from the currency fluctuations they once were able to do so well at.
And in the process they devised a clever financial instrument that found great utility for other uses. Some not so glorious.
Too bad. That's the risk in global sales. Welcome to the real world.
"Utter and complete destruction and the disbarment of their lawyers should be the proper goal."
Sounds nice. But lawyers sometimes merely represent their clients. What is good for the patent troll would need to be applicable to the driver injured by a faulty seat belt, the coed harmed by a defective hair curler, the parent whose child was suffocated by a badly designed crib. Lawyers facing disbarment for being identified as facilitating spurious or frivolous prosecution might be saying no to all kinds of cases.
Put the blame squarely where it lies. Punish the plaintiff.
The application is to send images (whether they contain graphics, text , or whatever) to be made accessible in a document imaging system. TIFF, PDF, DOC, DOCX, JPG, BMP, GIF formats are accepted. PDFs are very common.
And government decides if it is permissible.
While many court records are public, when these get posted online and *actually* accessible, too often there is a cry that this 'should not be'. sometimes fees 'solve' the 'problem'.
ALPRs give police an interesting tool - they can look for license plates they could already know about, but might (probably would) miss in reality. But to permit the data to be kept by a third party? I'm pretty sure I do NOT like that.
But more to the point, apparently it's too burdensome for an officer or two to visit the last known address of those with outstanding court fees and deal with them face to face. Add appropriate surcharges to cover the cost of the visit, k?
Oh and know that you will disproportionally impact the poor and under-/un-banked. Who don't deserve that.
At work, my clients use PDFs to submit to us regularly. We immediately convert this to a TIF for our use...
This is not so good as it seems.
We have one client that uses a custom font. Yeah, really. Being not just custom but copyrighted, and they do not include it in the PDFs, when they submit, and our converter makes the best choice it can to make this into something we can use internally. Sadly, the mapping is off by one character code. The original word 'carrot', for instance ends up being 'dbsspu'. Really. They could not change this. We could not change this. They submit using PNGs now. 'Solved'.
Another client uses some third-party PDF software to send those to us. Their solution results in perfectly readable files that our converter refuses to recognize as a PDF. I looked at the data, and it looks ok to me with an unuusal qualifier in the header. Seems their software creates PDFs with version numbers that can't really exist... Solution? Open the PDF before they send ti to us, save it, and magically somehow it changes things.
Another client sends us PDFs that often convert perfect images, hidden behind what can be described as zebra stripes. Except for when it looks like black & white leopard stripes. Solution? Send us JPGs.
PDFs are a lot more complex and difficult than people think. So many third-party apps that generate almost-compatible PDFs, Adobe probably trying to kill these by modifying the file format, adding features that just don;t come out so well, it's not bliss with PDFs.
But to the OP, what open document format would we want the government to use? It should be first, read-only when needed, for instance for applications and submissions, though read/write as an option, of course. Signable. Able to secure, probably via certificate. Forms capability of course. Does this readily exist?
"Then there are issues with serving sizes"
Someone doesn't understand calories.
And the two parties are virtually indistinguishable in action...
It would be an unconstitutional act, if so.
So if you happen do be in a restaurant and overhear someone explaining how their company is 'going public' tomorrow, and they have orders lined up from a specific investor at double the initial pricing, it's not merely permissible for you to take advantage of that overheard conversation, but to act on the information and contact that investor, offer them a slightly better deal, taking your profit. Not knowing that this individual was talking to their broker, who then, after you left to find a private place and make your move, telling them that was improper and could not be done...
And this is ok, because it's a public place. For the sake of argument, let's pretend the situation I described is reasonable and pass on the legalities...
The FCC has issued rules specifying that overheard or intercepted communications cannot be divulged or used to advantage (Section 705, for instance) for some time.
While recording conversations in public places is generally held to be permissible, doing so with conversations that are reasonably believed to be private by the participants is illegal under (Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511 specifically). From an article online:
"In response to the public outcry about the government’s covert recording of the activities of political activist groups in the 1960s, Congress enacted the Wiretap Act as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. (18 U.S.C. 2510.)"
Apparently we need to revisit this act. Not that our government is secretly recording the activities of groups or individuals suspected of some acts, specified or not, but that the government is recording everything it can, indiscriminately.
No, they should not be allowed to do so.
Criminals have the flexibility to use alternative communications channels, even human couriers.
We, on the other hand, pretty much get locked into banks, ATMs, and HTTPS.
Time to vote differently.
The NSA knows that it you try to limit functional encryption to certain uses, you will fail.
The good stuff still be found and used by the criminals, and nothing is gained.
He's not that smart. It's obvious that functional encryption is essential to commerce, to end-user confidence, and even to regulation.
Obvious.