If less power is used then the electric companies will charge more and our bills will increase. They will have to maintain their grid just as they do now.
Then with people losing their homes I suppose those empty homes need little power supply.
Next we have a few people going off grid and there will be more and more. That means that the supply lines will hop scotch around the non paying homes and that will drive the prices over the edge.
The message is get of grid and make it a priority. Traditional power service is a dying service just as wired telephones will soon be extinct.
No, they don't care if they kill you. Look around. I can show you vast urban and suburban areas where an accident at night will turn lethal as there are no longer pay phones anywhere. No cell phone equals no cops, no fire engine and no ambulance. So if you are driving home and see a crime in progress, a fire, or a bleeding body in the road good luck.
Live in hope that you will be falsely accused. It may be your road to riches. Take pics of people using your PC. Leave a wide open Wifi connection. Then make sure that each and every person who you know has access to your PC is trained to keep their mouths shut. An accuser must prove that it is actually your actions that resulted in the loss. That can be next to impossible unless you are dumb enough to make admissions. And whatever sum the accuser seeks just may be the sum you receive plus legal bills, court costs etc.. Live in hope that you will be accused.
There are two pillars of real interest in civil suits. Do you have much to lose? Does the other guy have a lot of cash? And as to the opinion of lawyers keep in mind that there are two facing each other in a hearing and usually both think their point is the right one. Or you might say that lawyers are wrong about 50% of the time.
Any cop who doesn't like being filmed while on the job needs to be forced to quit. The very reason we have cops is to drag all things into the light of day in order to catch criminals and commit crimes. It is reasonable to insist that cops, who are trained in law enforcement, should be arrested and convicted for far smaller offences than the general pubis does.
To cut communications without a court order and disrupting the general public strikes me as being illegal. Also with medical issues and large numbers of people cutting off communications could easily kill someone. This seems to me to be actionable and someone needs a lawyer to get the ball rolling.
Re:Could the title and summary be more exaggerated
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 0
I have a couple of guys in the building that seem to be attempting the cure by direct injection, nightly.
Could a person survive if all cells containing a virus were killed off suddenly? Could a very small dose kill off some of the diseases while not overlaoding the person with dead cells?
And how about that big elephant in the room, HIV - AIDS?
If true some cancers might be eliminated as well.
This is the kind of thing that strikes me as overly stated. It may be good news but there is a limit as to the way things tend to develop.
That is not the worst of it. Every drop of water has passed through the bladders of many fish over and over again. The world's so-called water supply is nothing more than multi-passed fish urine.
If one lives under a reasonable government that is not prone to snatching people up and applying torture or death with trivial reasons for so doing it is one thing. But if you are under the thumb of very repressive regimes it is quite another problem. For Americans we can not assume that half way reasonable forms of justice and government will always continue.
Attached to the issues of being anonymous there also resides the issue of making all communications transparent. After all if Mr. Smith can encrypt materials and Mr. Jones sends them down the wires then the identity of the sender is obscured. So the government that insists upon using the right name will also insist that they can easily read all communications.
I don't know about all states but in at least some states in the US it is a felony to use a false name if business is transacted. As long as no money changes hands or the communications are not designed to cause money to change hands then you can call yourself by any name. Take one penny and you can be in the soup.
The worst, built in, component is the fact that a cop can not report other cops or stop another cop from committing a crime upon a citizen as that cop's life often depends upon that other cops actions. Try to stop a cop from beating a suspect and you won't get help when you get into a tight spot. Rodney King is a huge example. Any cop could have drawn his side arm and arrested the cops who were beating on Mr. King. But none dared to act.
It seems to me that the huge issue following WWII in Germany involved efforts to hide Nazis and to cover their tracks. Face identifications of individuals would have caused a lot more Nazis to stand trial for their evil acts.
I could not be in greater agreement that there is a limit and we are already seeing very negative consequences of our growth. One issue is how we see science and technology. We have a few that hate science and technology but they can be ignored as their beliefs don't carry much weight. But then we have something more dangerous. We have people that like science and technology but make the mistake of believing that we can get away with all kinds of nonsense as surely science will bail us out. It is rather like a teen in 1960 picking up the cigarette habit. It was in the minds of many that an easy fix would be coming along for lung and heart issues as medical science seemed to be advancing. Today we still have teens taking up smoking as they feel that cures will be along shortly.
Over population may not yield to science and technological solutions or may have a very well defined limit on how much can be done. Economics that seek growth always end poorly. Areas like Brooklyn N.Y. are demonstrations of how boom and bust growth leaves a wake of nasty results in its wake. If we somehow found a way to make the economy of Brooklyn boom again it would simply attract more people into the area making all problems worse when the inevitable crash comes along.
Yes, we can do better with what we already have. And science will be a huge aid for us all. But we can't be blind and stupid and survive. Growth is blind and stupid.
One of the basic problems is that all that law makers do is make laws. If they are not making laws they may be seen as worthless, lazy or disconnected from the voters. So we just keep getting more and more laws, useless laws, stupid laws, insane laws and outdated laws all in a heap. That gives the courts the ability to drag out these laws and apply them randomly to people that are not popular. It's like giving a mentally disabled child a machine gun and letting him lose upon the world. What would happen if we just stopped making laws? Don't we have enough?
Once a nation or state decides that some level of censorship is allowable it becomes a never ending nightmare of trying to define limits, and applications of the law. It is like being pregnant. You either are or are not pregnant. There is no in between the two. With censorship you either allow it or forbid it. If you allow it then the public expense of enforcement will weigh you down forever.
These contract situations generate too much law and too many conflicts. We pretty much need to flush the concept of these contracts out of existence. Software companies need to apply their mental energies to producing better software and coders need to have strong rights of protection in order to not be forced to waste their energy worrying about their own employer being their enemy. These contractual hassles are not in the interest of the general public at all. They really remind me of the concept of condominium housing. Condominium laws and conflicts have become so obnoxious that condominiums are not welcomed in the state courts at all and the image of condo life is being degraded.
If the senate fails to crush this bill Obama may well veto it. The privacy issue is one item but assigning that kind of expense to ISPs does not seem reasonable.
This twists the notion of privacy like a pretzel. If you are on a social network you are in public. There is no privacy in a public space. Really it makes me wonder what people really want. If it is private keep it out of view of others.
I could care less if the government tracks me night and day. They might die of boredom. I avoid doing anything illegal and that pretty much covers it. They could film me night and day and there would be very little of interest at all.
If a cop would get excited by studying you you already have a problem.
Usually for incitement is a consideration it involves causing others to act in an immediate frenzy. The idea being that if a call to immediate action is made then rational people can become excited without a chance to reflect upon their actions and mayhem may follow.
The idea that some fellow, far away, babbling about some weird desire to shoot a president or black people constitutes a real threat to a rational observer is nonsense. We simply see an idiot, lost in his beer, being an idiot.
Who can come close to fathoming the huge force it takes to take all that water and compress it into a singularity? And then wonders what eventually must happen to all of that water.
Tracking a car does not identify the driver. The wife, the teenage daughter or any of several persons might be driving that car. The information is of limited value. Also the lag time between the compilation of requested data and the incident being investigated may be so great that the car's owner has no clue about who drove the car at the moment in question.
On the other hand it would be quite good to have a record of cars that stopped near the home of several known supporters of terrorist orgs.
So far all I see when arrests are made is punishment of the tax payers and the general public. So goody, goody, they caught twelve people. Total the costs of investigation, the costs of prosecutions, the costs of prison, not to even mention the twelve prisoners suffering and their families just what good news is it that someone was caught?
Further there might be quite a few people who act out simply because these people get busted.
Maybe we need a new dictionary that defines winning and losing a bit more completely. I can't see a win for the Feds in this stuff.
We are in a pickle in the US as we really never know what research is taking place. Although we can see many things being researched we are not allowed to see an unknown quantity of projects. It may be a very, very large number of projects. Even funding for certain projects is masked.
It is not only those arrested nor those convicted that need to be measured. Often a criminal may do certain things and not leave enough evidence to support an arrest or even make them comply with an interview. Some of the smarter criminals are very good at not suffering their first arrest. Merely being a person of some interest near a crime may be enough to establish deep investigation when you see that same individual somehow in the inner circle of a crime report over and over again.
If they needed a business license to open up then I would say that they have a business presence. But out of state companies that are hosted on the server require not license in Texas and therefore are probably not present. If that gate swings open at all it may be due to rulings involving things like local community standards which can apply criminal punishments for material simply on a hard drive within the state even when no locals see the info at all.
Slashdot Mirror
If less power is used then the electric companies will charge more and our bills will increase. They will have to maintain their grid just as they do now. Then with people losing their homes I suppose those empty homes need little power supply. Next we have a few people going off grid and there will be more and more. That means that the supply lines will hop scotch around the non paying homes and that will drive the prices over the edge. The message is get of grid and make it a priority. Traditional power service is a dying service just as wired telephones will soon be extinct. No, they don't care if they kill you. Look around. I can show you vast urban and suburban areas where an accident at night will turn lethal as there are no longer pay phones anywhere. No cell phone equals no cops, no fire engine and no ambulance. So if you are driving home and see a crime in progress, a fire, or a bleeding body in the road good luck.
Live in hope that you will be falsely accused. It may be your road to riches. Take pics of people using your PC. Leave a wide open Wifi connection. Then make sure that each and every person who you know has access to your PC is trained to keep their mouths shut. An accuser must prove that it is actually your actions that resulted in the loss. That can be next to impossible unless you are dumb enough to make admissions. And whatever sum the accuser seeks just may be the sum you receive plus legal bills, court costs etc.. Live in hope that you will be accused. There are two pillars of real interest in civil suits. Do you have much to lose? Does the other guy have a lot of cash? And as to the opinion of lawyers keep in mind that there are two facing each other in a hearing and usually both think their point is the right one. Or you might say that lawyers are wrong about 50% of the time.
Any cop who doesn't like being filmed while on the job needs to be forced to quit. The very reason we have cops is to drag all things into the light of day in order to catch criminals and commit crimes. It is reasonable to insist that cops, who are trained in law enforcement, should be arrested and convicted for far smaller offences than the general pubis does.
Maybe I missed that course. What the heck is a quantum vacuum? Does it work better than a Kirby?
To cut communications without a court order and disrupting the general public strikes me as being illegal. Also with medical issues and large numbers of people cutting off communications could easily kill someone. This seems to me to be actionable and someone needs a lawyer to get the ball rolling.
I have a couple of guys in the building that seem to be attempting the cure by direct injection, nightly.
Could a person survive if all cells containing a virus were killed off suddenly? Could a very small dose kill off some of the diseases while not overlaoding the person with dead cells? And how about that big elephant in the room, HIV - AIDS? If true some cancers might be eliminated as well. This is the kind of thing that strikes me as overly stated. It may be good news but there is a limit as to the way things tend to develop.
That is not the worst of it. Every drop of water has passed through the bladders of many fish over and over again. The world's so-called water supply is nothing more than multi-passed fish urine.
If one lives under a reasonable government that is not prone to snatching people up and applying torture or death with trivial reasons for so doing it is one thing. But if you are under the thumb of very repressive regimes it is quite another problem. For Americans we can not assume that half way reasonable forms of justice and government will always continue. Attached to the issues of being anonymous there also resides the issue of making all communications transparent. After all if Mr. Smith can encrypt materials and Mr. Jones sends them down the wires then the identity of the sender is obscured. So the government that insists upon using the right name will also insist that they can easily read all communications. I don't know about all states but in at least some states in the US it is a felony to use a false name if business is transacted. As long as no money changes hands or the communications are not designed to cause money to change hands then you can call yourself by any name. Take one penny and you can be in the soup.
The worst, built in, component is the fact that a cop can not report other cops or stop another cop from committing a crime upon a citizen as that cop's life often depends upon that other cops actions. Try to stop a cop from beating a suspect and you won't get help when you get into a tight spot. Rodney King is a huge example. Any cop could have drawn his side arm and arrested the cops who were beating on Mr. King. But none dared to act.
It seems to me that the huge issue following WWII in Germany involved efforts to hide Nazis and to cover their tracks. Face identifications of individuals would have caused a lot more Nazis to stand trial for their evil acts.
I could not be in greater agreement that there is a limit and we are already seeing very negative consequences of our growth. One issue is how we see science and technology. We have a few that hate science and technology but they can be ignored as their beliefs don't carry much weight. But then we have something more dangerous. We have people that like science and technology but make the mistake of believing that we can get away with all kinds of nonsense as surely science will bail us out. It is rather like a teen in 1960 picking up the cigarette habit. It was in the minds of many that an easy fix would be coming along for lung and heart issues as medical science seemed to be advancing. Today we still have teens taking up smoking as they feel that cures will be along shortly. Over population may not yield to science and technological solutions or may have a very well defined limit on how much can be done. Economics that seek growth always end poorly. Areas like Brooklyn N.Y. are demonstrations of how boom and bust growth leaves a wake of nasty results in its wake. If we somehow found a way to make the economy of Brooklyn boom again it would simply attract more people into the area making all problems worse when the inevitable crash comes along. Yes, we can do better with what we already have. And science will be a huge aid for us all. But we can't be blind and stupid and survive. Growth is blind and stupid.
One of the basic problems is that all that law makers do is make laws. If they are not making laws they may be seen as worthless, lazy or disconnected from the voters. So we just keep getting more and more laws, useless laws, stupid laws, insane laws and outdated laws all in a heap. That gives the courts the ability to drag out these laws and apply them randomly to people that are not popular. It's like giving a mentally disabled child a machine gun and letting him lose upon the world. What would happen if we just stopped making laws? Don't we have enough?
Once a nation or state decides that some level of censorship is allowable it becomes a never ending nightmare of trying to define limits, and applications of the law. It is like being pregnant. You either are or are not pregnant. There is no in between the two. With censorship you either allow it or forbid it. If you allow it then the public expense of enforcement will weigh you down forever.
These contract situations generate too much law and too many conflicts. We pretty much need to flush the concept of these contracts out of existence. Software companies need to apply their mental energies to producing better software and coders need to have strong rights of protection in order to not be forced to waste their energy worrying about their own employer being their enemy. These contractual hassles are not in the interest of the general public at all. They really remind me of the concept of condominium housing. Condominium laws and conflicts have become so obnoxious that condominiums are not welcomed in the state courts at all and the image of condo life is being degraded.
If the senate fails to crush this bill Obama may well veto it. The privacy issue is one item but assigning that kind of expense to ISPs does not seem reasonable.
This twists the notion of privacy like a pretzel. If you are on a social network you are in public. There is no privacy in a public space. Really it makes me wonder what people really want. If it is private keep it out of view of others.
I could care less if the government tracks me night and day. They might die of boredom. I avoid doing anything illegal and that pretty much covers it. They could film me night and day and there would be very little of interest at all. If a cop would get excited by studying you you already have a problem.
Usually for incitement is a consideration it involves causing others to act in an immediate frenzy. The idea being that if a call to immediate action is made then rational people can become excited without a chance to reflect upon their actions and mayhem may follow. The idea that some fellow, far away, babbling about some weird desire to shoot a president or black people constitutes a real threat to a rational observer is nonsense. We simply see an idiot, lost in his beer, being an idiot.
Who can come close to fathoming the huge force it takes to take all that water and compress it into a singularity? And then wonders what eventually must happen to all of that water.
Tracking a car does not identify the driver. The wife, the teenage daughter or any of several persons might be driving that car. The information is of limited value. Also the lag time between the compilation of requested data and the incident being investigated may be so great that the car's owner has no clue about who drove the car at the moment in question. On the other hand it would be quite good to have a record of cars that stopped near the home of several known supporters of terrorist orgs.
So far all I see when arrests are made is punishment of the tax payers and the general public. So goody, goody, they caught twelve people. Total the costs of investigation, the costs of prosecutions, the costs of prison, not to even mention the twelve prisoners suffering and their families just what good news is it that someone was caught? Further there might be quite a few people who act out simply because these people get busted. Maybe we need a new dictionary that defines winning and losing a bit more completely. I can't see a win for the Feds in this stuff.
We are in a pickle in the US as we really never know what research is taking place. Although we can see many things being researched we are not allowed to see an unknown quantity of projects. It may be a very, very large number of projects. Even funding for certain projects is masked.
It is not only those arrested nor those convicted that need to be measured. Often a criminal may do certain things and not leave enough evidence to support an arrest or even make them comply with an interview. Some of the smarter criminals are very good at not suffering their first arrest. Merely being a person of some interest near a crime may be enough to establish deep investigation when you see that same individual somehow in the inner circle of a crime report over and over again.
If they needed a business license to open up then I would say that they have a business presence. But out of state companies that are hosted on the server require not license in Texas and therefore are probably not present. If that gate swings open at all it may be due to rulings involving things like local community standards which can apply criminal punishments for material simply on a hard drive within the state even when no locals see the info at all.