That is like a corporation saying let every department manage their own computers - some on Linux, Mac, Win2K, WinXP - each with their own servers, email systems, and individual IT staffs. Ok - now all work together. GO!
Don't forget the department that still wants to use Windows 3.1(It works just fine for us!). And by department, I mean state. And by state, I mean Alabama.
First of all, Google uses a lot more power than the average building, so you cannot really use Google to represent how a home will use power.
Aside from that point, it is not about only using solar. Wind, solar, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear power, as well as future types of power that we haven't even dreamed about yet, would all be used in conjunction to power the world.
Add into this the fact that soon, older appliances will be breaking down, and people will be buying newer, more power efficient appliances for their homes, making their power needs even less.
Then take into account the fact that as more and more people realize the little things they can do to limit their power consumption, their power needs drop even more.
So while a building with hundreds of computers running 24/7 such as Google may not be able to keep up with what solar panels generate, the average household will be able to come much closer, if not surpass, at which point their unused power is able to be used by others. And while Google may not be able to be totally self contained with solar, they can get their other power needs from wind, geothermal, and a little bit of nuclear/other technology.
First paragraph: Running a company is about doing things efficiently, yes, and normally at the expense of everyone not in an executive position of that company. As for the not in obvious violation of the law, well, a violation of the law is still illegal, whether it is obvious or not. It seems that the bigger the company, the more able it is of covering its tracks. As for the part about the reporter looking for a story, and being forced to look like it is cleaning up its act for awhile, how is this any different from a major corporation?
As for the general welfare paragraph:
Many times, it is not utter disinterest.
What is someone gets hurt, and is unable to work for a long time, of which during this time, savings run out. Once savings run out, what happens then?
What if a man loses his job due to layoffs, and is unable to find a job, because nobody is hiring?
What if someone has been working for a company for a long time, and that company is bought out, and the new owners decide that the benefits package is going to get alot smaller? Say, for instance, the medical insurance package is cut. And then someone in the person's family is injured. What then?
How to stop corporations from sending jobs overseas: Use tariffs on their goods made overseas. Tax them so hard that they have no choice but to either stop selling in the U.S., or keep jobs here.
My comment about the stop light and not driving near me was sarcasm.
Also, if someone drives 70 through a red light, they could easily hit someone going through the intersection. If they hit someone in the side going 70, there probably won't be injuries. There will be a dead person in that car that was hit. They may be responsible, but can they bring a dead person back to life? Yea, there's a possibility of it, but probably not. Hitting someone going 70 isn't a mere matter of a heart stopping. It's more of a 'Pick up the body parts' matter.
It says so right there at the beginning, in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Making the lives of the citizens of the United States better. This includes all citizens, not just the ones who are healthy, or not down on their luck, or having any number of misfortunes that would deprive them of a generally decent life. Everyone needs help sometimes, and not everyone has someone who can help them.
The only place in Illinois that has tolls is up north in Chicago. The rest of us that live here don't have them. There are some people from here in Southern Illinois that have never had to pay a toll in their life.
I trust the government to do a better job than a private company. Call me crazy, but the private company is in it SOLELY to make money. The government, while making money, would be doing it because it is a job that they are trusted to do fairly, and are held accountable by the people. Companies are held accountable by their shareholders, and will do anything and everything to make money, including screw over the general populace.
As for your condemnation of the 'promote the general welfare' clause, I ask, why not have these programs? Part of the government's job is to provide a safety net, because, believe it or not, sometimes shit happens. Part of living in a society means helping out others in that society. If someone in your community is needing help, you help them out. Having programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other programs is so that, when the times get rough, there is something there to help you get back on your feet. This is called COMPASSION for those in need.
As for the commerce clause - Are you kidding me? Companies are being allowed to EASILY send all their jobs overseas, buying shoddy products from China to be sold here, to pollute as much as their money will let them, to use tax loopholes to screw workers out of benefits they have had for years, and God knows what else. And you think their the government is regulating with an iron fist? On the contrary. The government needs to start regulating commerce much, much more, to ensure that corporations do not trash the world and the people in it, simply for a better bottom line. While there is nothing wrong with a free market, an unregulated free market will bring about the downfall of civilization, and working man will suffer the most because of it.
As for your Ayn Rand fascination, you probably should know that she is all about herself, and screw everyone else. She was a selfish bitch who didn't give a damn about anyone else except herself.
And if you were thinking that running red lights is not illegal, and that you have a right to run them, please never drive near me. I'd rather not die because you felt it was your moral right to plow into me at 70 miles an hour.
To play the Devil's Advocate - Sounds like a pretty easy case of being able to prove it wasn't you. And before you say 'It is their job to prove it was you, not the other way around', sending the picture of the vehicle doing it is their way of proving guilt. It is your job to refute their evidence. Which I would assume you would have done once you realized the error.
To play the concerned Driver - I dislike red light cameras because it causes many people who would have ordinarily have gone through a yellow light to suddenly slam on their brakes to avoid the possible ticket. I can see this causing many, many wrecks once these are implemented all over. I have seen people who are approaching a light going about 45 or 50 mph, see the light change to yellow, and slam on their brakes so hard that their tires squeal, all because the light had a camera on it. You might say that the person is an idiot, and quite right, they are. However, several of these were at lights that are heavily trafficked, did not have a big problem with people running the light, and seemed to just be put in by officials who were persuaded by the red light camera company to make the intersection 'safer' by the camera. Which, in effect, it did the opposite.
To play the defendant with rights - The thing I hate about these is that it is no longer about a police officer actually catching you in the act. The officer will pull over an offender, and then, after talking to the person, either write a ticket, or simply give a warning. The camera, in effect, plays judge, jury, and executioner, without emotion. I mean, think about outside circumstances. Here's one situation: A guy runs a light. The camera catches him, as well as the woman he is with. He gets a ticket. Now for the rest of the story. A guys runs a light. An officer catches him, pulls him over. He notices a woman with him, in pain. He then sees that her hand is covered in blood. He asks what happened, and it turned out that the man was on his way to the hospital so that the woman could get stitches in her hand so that the bleeding will stop. The officer lets them go to the hospital, only a few blocks away. An officer can make the decision on whether a person deserves the ticket or not.
"I consider using the state-provided roads as a privilege,"
You forgot something, those "state-provided" roads are paid for by us taxpayers. We pay for it, we own it and can do as we like. So where's the privilege part again?
So a guy with 10 DUIs to his name still has the right to drive whenever and however he wants? I think you should rethink your position on privilege vs. right with regards to public roads.
Bloggers are always wanting to be equated with the press. If they feel that they are similar to the press, then, by their own admission of being 'the press,' then they cannot write about it either.
So, for 12 years the inventor charges 100 dollars per load. 12 years pass and his, oh, let's call it a 'patent', expires and others can produce his washing device. The price drops as others realize that the original inventor was basically committing extortion. Soon, the price for a load of clothes to be washed drops to 20 dollars. One of the people who runs a washing business gets the idea of using a cheaper, lighter material to create his washing tubs. He is then able to make more of a profit on this new design, as well as patent it. However, he charges 15 dollars, gaining customers. Of course, the price he actually pays per load is a mere 5 dollars, compared to the 10 dollars that everyone else pays. For 12 years this goes on. The patent then runs out, and others use his design. Soon, someone gets the idea of making an automatic model... Etc, etc, etc.
Doesn't this design just sound horrible? I mean, that original inventor is losing almost 90 dollars per load! Oh, wait, this is how progress and innovation is created, while letting the inventor make back his money spent on R&D. If only a similar structure could be applied to certain businesses today...
What always makes me wonder about these crimes... what did he think was going to happen?
He probably thought that nothing would happen. I mean, when the exact same device is being sold on many websites, he probably thought of himself as something of a retailer. Yea, he probably should have gotten a retailer license, but to charge him with copyright infringement? Maybe we should go after Jeff Bezos, since the exact same device is on Amazon.com...What was Bezos thinking?
Every game for the NES should now be out of copyright.
That is not a decision that you have any right to make on behalf of the copyright holder. The copyright holder, NOT YOU, owns the rights to the sale and reproduction of that software. Are you a Communist?
You are right. It is not a decision that the GP has a right to make. But neither should the amount of time a copyright last be solely in the hands of the owner. IMO, a copyright should last until a piece of software is no longer produced by the manufacturer. Once this happens, the software enters the public domain, free to be copied and distributed by any who wish.
By the way, asking if someone was a Communist is very Cold-War of you. Isn't the current taunt being used something along the lines of 'terrorist' or 'freedom hater'?
100+ copyright terms for these works is just, simply, unjust.
No it is NOT unjust to imprison and punish software thieves.
The Grandparent was not saying that it was unjust to punish software thieves. He was saying that it was unjust for copyright holders to stop people from being able to make copies of software that is no longer sold in stores. This is a big difference. Many of the 'software thieves' you seem to hate would not be considered 'software thieves' if fair use was redefined to not be so one-sided.
Stonehenge is type of henge. There are many, many henges, and not all of them are in Britain. There are even henges in America, one of the more famous ones being at Cahokia Mounds and is called 'Woodhenge'.
So, to answer your question, yes, there is more than one.
the system won't alert anyone until it sees a 'combination of signs,' instead of just one stray expression, So what if I am nervous about flying(looking around frantically, checking out the wings, to ease my mind about possible gremlins on the the wing),
and a little kid keeps kicking the back of my seat, causing me frustration, can't he see that I don't like flying already?, and I am getting red-faced and angry
and the plane is hot, causing me to sweat?
Am I now a terrorist, since I have a 'combination of signs?'
Because it seems that in this day and age, everyone is looked at as a terrorist first, and a citizen with rights second. How long will I be held in detention once the plane lands until they finally believe my story, if at all? Gremlins on the wing? It was just a kid, anyway. How can you fault a kid? Wasn't I sweating more than one normally would? The flight attendants didn't seem to mind. They seemed to think it was comfortable.
You know, it's just across the river and I never go. Having problems with the log jumping part? Don't worry, lots of people have problems with that part. It's all about the timing. Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I have faith in you.
Fact - C is the best language of all time. 10 Print "BASIC is the Best Language of All Time"
20 GOTO 10
As you can clearly see,
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
Granted it will take a little more effort, and distributed computing will be necessary, but the information would be priceless to those researching demographics and related arts.
We could even get a little more creative and build a 3-D online viewer, combined with as much information as is possible to extract from the online profile. (Limited to text to save space)
This could easily span across the net, and all social networks, as well as allowing for random people to filter out bots, duplicate profiles, and fake profiles. There was a group on Facebook awhile back that tried to do this very thing. However, now that many people are sick of 'Join the Biggest Facebook Group Ever' being sent to them every week, it is pretty much impossible to do such a thing. Plus, do you really want to give marketing people one more tool to target you with more ads?
Catholicism seems to be synonymous with 'My grandparents were practicing, but I've never attended mass... ever' It is also synonymous with It's Lent, so I can't eat fish on Fridays. Wait, today is Friday? But I already ordered a cheeseburger! Oh well, Jesus understands.
Slashdot Mirror
That is like a corporation saying let every department manage their own computers - some on Linux, Mac, Win2K, WinXP - each with their own servers, email systems, and individual IT staffs. Ok - now all work together. GO!
Don't forget the department that still wants to use Windows 3.1(It works just fine for us!). And by department, I mean state. And by state, I mean Alabama.
It's not like anyone is using that land right now alway
You obviously have never driven in St. Louis...
First of all, Google uses a lot more power than the average building, so you cannot really use Google to represent how a home will use power.
Aside from that point, it is not about only using solar. Wind, solar, geothermal, and yes, even nuclear power, as well as future types of power that we haven't even dreamed about yet, would all be used in conjunction to power the world.
Add into this the fact that soon, older appliances will be breaking down, and people will be buying newer, more power efficient appliances for their homes, making their power needs even less.
Then take into account the fact that as more and more people realize the little things they can do to limit their power consumption, their power needs drop even more.
So while a building with hundreds of computers running 24/7 such as Google may not be able to keep up with what solar panels generate, the average household will be able to come much closer, if not surpass, at which point their unused power is able to be used by others. And while Google may not be able to be totally self contained with solar, they can get their other power needs from wind, geothermal, and a little bit of nuclear/other technology.
Why would someone in the White House use an insecure communications channel to send sensitive correspondence to a foreign official?
It was either email or Facebook, but Dubya didn't like the interface of Facebook.
First paragraph: Running a company is about doing things efficiently, yes, and normally at the expense of everyone not in an executive position of that company. As for the not in obvious violation of the law, well, a violation of the law is still illegal, whether it is obvious or not. It seems that the bigger the company, the more able it is of covering its tracks. As for the part about the reporter looking for a story, and being forced to look like it is cleaning up its act for awhile, how is this any different from a major corporation?
As for the general welfare paragraph:
Many times, it is not utter disinterest.
What is someone gets hurt, and is unable to work for a long time, of which during this time, savings run out. Once savings run out, what happens then?
What if a man loses his job due to layoffs, and is unable to find a job, because nobody is hiring?
What if someone has been working for a company for a long time, and that company is bought out, and the new owners decide that the benefits package is going to get alot smaller? Say, for instance, the medical insurance package is cut. And then someone in the person's family is injured. What then?
How to stop corporations from sending jobs overseas: Use tariffs on their goods made overseas. Tax them so hard that they have no choice but to either stop selling in the U.S., or keep jobs here.
My comment about the stop light and not driving near me was sarcasm.
Also, if someone drives 70 through a red light, they could easily hit someone going through the intersection. If they hit someone in the side going 70, there probably won't be injuries. There will be a dead person in that car that was hit. They may be responsible, but can they bring a dead person back to life? Yea, there's a possibility of it, but probably not. Hitting someone going 70 isn't a mere matter of a heart stopping. It's more of a 'Pick up the body parts' matter.
It says so right there at the beginning, in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Making the lives of the citizens of the United States better. This includes all citizens, not just the ones who are healthy, or not down on their luck, or having any number of misfortunes that would deprive them of a generally decent life. Everyone needs help sometimes, and not everyone has someone who can help them.
The only place in Illinois that has tolls is up north in Chicago. The rest of us that live here don't have them. There are some people from here in Southern Illinois that have never had to pay a toll in their life.
I trust the government to do a better job than a private company. Call me crazy, but the private company is in it SOLELY to make money. The government, while making money, would be doing it because it is a job that they are trusted to do fairly, and are held accountable by the people. Companies are held accountable by their shareholders, and will do anything and everything to make money, including screw over the general populace.
As for your condemnation of the 'promote the general welfare' clause, I ask, why not have these programs? Part of the government's job is to provide a safety net, because, believe it or not, sometimes shit happens. Part of living in a society means helping out others in that society. If someone in your community is needing help, you help them out. Having programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other programs is so that, when the times get rough, there is something there to help you get back on your feet. This is called COMPASSION for those in need.
As for the commerce clause - Are you kidding me? Companies are being allowed to EASILY send all their jobs overseas, buying shoddy products from China to be sold here, to pollute as much as their money will let them, to use tax loopholes to screw workers out of benefits they have had for years, and God knows what else. And you think their the government is regulating with an iron fist? On the contrary. The government needs to start regulating commerce much, much more, to ensure that corporations do not trash the world and the people in it, simply for a better bottom line. While there is nothing wrong with a free market, an unregulated free market will bring about the downfall of civilization, and working man will suffer the most because of it.
As for your Ayn Rand fascination, you probably should know that she is all about herself, and screw everyone else. She was a selfish bitch who didn't give a damn about anyone else except herself.
And if you were thinking that running red lights is not illegal, and that you have a right to run them, please never drive near me. I'd rather not die because you felt it was your moral right to plow into me at 70 miles an hour.
To play the Devil's Advocate - Sounds like a pretty easy case of being able to prove it wasn't you. And before you say 'It is their job to prove it was you, not the other way around', sending the picture of the vehicle doing it is their way of proving guilt. It is your job to refute their evidence. Which I would assume you would have done once you realized the error.
To play the concerned Driver - I dislike red light cameras because it causes many people who would have ordinarily have gone through a yellow light to suddenly slam on their brakes to avoid the possible ticket. I can see this causing many, many wrecks once these are implemented all over. I have seen people who are approaching a light going about 45 or 50 mph, see the light change to yellow, and slam on their brakes so hard that their tires squeal, all because the light had a camera on it. You might say that the person is an idiot, and quite right, they are. However, several of these were at lights that are heavily trafficked, did not have a big problem with people running the light, and seemed to just be put in by officials who were persuaded by the red light camera company to make the intersection 'safer' by the camera. Which, in effect, it did the opposite.
To play the defendant with rights - The thing I hate about these is that it is no longer about a police officer actually catching you in the act. The officer will pull over an offender, and then, after talking to the person, either write a ticket, or simply give a warning. The camera, in effect, plays judge, jury, and executioner, without emotion. I mean, think about outside circumstances. Here's one situation: A guy runs a light. The camera catches him, as well as the woman he is with. He gets a ticket. Now for the rest of the story. A guys runs a light. An officer catches him, pulls him over. He notices a woman with him, in pain. He then sees that her hand is covered in blood. He asks what happened, and it turned out that the man was on his way to the hospital so that the woman could get stitches in her hand so that the bleeding will stop. The officer lets them go to the hospital, only a few blocks away. An officer can make the decision on whether a person deserves the ticket or not.
"I consider using the state-provided roads as a privilege,"
You forgot something, those "state-provided" roads are paid for by us taxpayers. We pay for it, we own it and can do as we like. So where's the privilege part again?
So a guy with 10 DUIs to his name still has the right to drive whenever and however he wants? I think you should rethink your position on privilege vs. right with regards to public roads.
I'm the Internet.
... ... ...
RAWR!
So...I'll just be under the bed, waiting...
Bloggers are always wanting to be equated with the press. If they feel that they are similar to the press, then, by their own admission of being 'the press,' then they cannot write about it either.
So, for 12 years the inventor charges 100 dollars per load. 12 years pass and his, oh, let's call it a 'patent', expires and others can produce his washing device. The price drops as others realize that the original inventor was basically committing extortion. Soon, the price for a load of clothes to be washed drops to 20 dollars. One of the people who runs a washing business gets the idea of using a cheaper, lighter material to create his washing tubs. He is then able to make more of a profit on this new design, as well as patent it. However, he charges 15 dollars, gaining customers. Of course, the price he actually pays per load is a mere 5 dollars, compared to the 10 dollars that everyone else pays. For 12 years this goes on. The patent then runs out, and others use his design. Soon, someone gets the idea of making an automatic model... Etc, etc, etc.
Doesn't this design just sound horrible? I mean, that original inventor is losing almost 90 dollars per load! Oh, wait, this is how progress and innovation is created, while letting the inventor make back his money spent on R&D. If only a similar structure could be applied to certain businesses today...
What always makes me wonder about these crimes... what did he think was going to happen?
He probably thought that nothing would happen. I mean, when the exact same device is being sold on many websites, he probably thought of himself as something of a retailer. Yea, he probably should have gotten a retailer license, but to charge him with copyright infringement? Maybe we should go after Jeff Bezos, since the exact same device is on Amazon.com...What was Bezos thinking?
Every game for the NES should now be out of copyright.
That is not a decision that you have any right to make on behalf of the copyright holder. The copyright holder, NOT YOU, owns the rights to the sale and reproduction of that software. Are you a Communist?
You are right. It is not a decision that the GP has a right to make. But neither should the amount of time a copyright last be solely in the hands of the owner. IMO, a copyright should last until a piece of software is no longer produced by the manufacturer. Once this happens, the software enters the public domain, free to be copied and distributed by any who wish.
By the way, asking if someone was a Communist is very Cold-War of you. Isn't the current taunt being used something along the lines of 'terrorist' or 'freedom hater'?
100+ copyright terms for these works is just, simply, unjust.
No it is NOT unjust to imprison and punish software thieves.
The Grandparent was not saying that it was unjust to punish software thieves. He was saying that it was unjust for copyright holders to stop people from being able to make copies of software that is no longer sold in stores. This is a big difference. Many of the 'software thieves' you seem to hate would not be considered 'software thieves' if fair use was redefined to not be so one-sided.
Well, obviously he had to pass on the image so that he would not die in 7 days...
Henge
Stonehenge is type of henge. There are many, many henges, and not all of them are in Britain. There are even henges in America, one of the more famous ones being at Cahokia Mounds and is called 'Woodhenge'.
So, to answer your question, yes, there is more than one.
and a little kid keeps kicking the back of my seat, causing me frustration, can't he see that I don't like flying already?, and I am getting red-faced and angry
and the plane is hot, causing me to sweat?
Am I now a terrorist, since I have a 'combination of signs?'
Because it seems that in this day and age, everyone is looked at as a terrorist first, and a citizen with rights second. How long will I be held in detention once the plane lands until they finally believe my story, if at all?
Gremlins on the wing? It was just a kid, anyway. How can you fault a kid? Wasn't I sweating more than one normally would? The flight attendants didn't seem to mind. They seemed to think it was comfortable.
And, of course, everyone starts out by harvesting the moon for resources...
Heresy!
20 GOTO 10
As you can clearly see,
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
BASIC is the Best Language of All Time
The Wheel?