I think this is the biggest problem. Big corporations and industry groups would hire PR firms to set up an elaborate campaign consisting of hundreds of blogs that each have less than 500 users.
Why do people always have such deluded and unwarranted positive views of articles like this? This isn't a cure for cancer, or even a new treatment at all. It is only a new way to manufacture a drug. So it might save pharmaceutical companies a buck and increase their profits. There's of course no precedent to believe the lower cost would be passed to consumers. On the other hand, it's one more example of turning individual conscious beings into factories. I find it strange that you mention some people will be against this because of what it does to "God's creatures". Yet it is a belief in God and a special magical place in the universe he has placed man that leads most people to believe that any amount of pain and suffering inflicted on any non-human species is OK even if it brings negligible gain or just entertainment to a human.
The reprocessing ban is about security. Reprocessing turns a large amount of useless waste into a smaller amount of bomb grade material for terrorists to buy or steal. After Enron, Iraq, and Katrina, I personally don't think there's much reason to "trust" the US government or the US energy corporations to keep us safe.
As for the economics of reprocessing and waste storage in general, I always find it funny when people talk about how we need nuclear energy because it's so cheap, but then they expect the taxpayers to pay for a multibillion dollar reprocessing plant and storage dump. Solar energy would be real cheap too if the government was paying for all the solar panels and we didn't count that in the costs.
Nuclear energy is about as far from the free market as one could get.
UCS is only biased towards science. They are non-partisan and far less political than any of the other environmental groups like Sierra Club or NRDC. Their reports are always thorough and fact filled, they don't hesitate to criticize or commend all political parties. This is why they can usually get hundreds of leading scientists and Nobel prize winners to sign onto their statements.
Clearly academic research (usually publicly funded) like this is proof that innovation can occur without a patent system. But since we do have patents, it is important for the researchers to patent it before industry does. When university researchers patent something, the university owns the patent, not the individual. The university has no profit motive, and will likely license the technology to private firms who want to make treatments. These license revenues are then pumped back into the university to support further research.
The vegans I know eat far healthier food, know far more about food production, food safety and nutrition, and even eat a wider variety of food than the average American. Sure the meat industry would love to paint vegans as crazy and unhealthy, but reason and science clearly favor veganism.
This is a good example of animal research that is completely unnecessary. There's absolutely no point or scientific benefit in using animals for this experiment. The researchers were clearly just looking for a wacky headline to get press coverage, while giving good fuel to the animal rights activists who point out that the current state of animal research is ludicrous.
I love how people talk about things like this as a solution to world hunger and helping starving people. That's a pretty sick joke when you realize how horribly inefficient, unsunstainable, and unncecessary livestock and meat production is from a food standpoint. If you cared about world hunger (or human health), you'd be vegan, not trying to sell meat to poor people.
Since a pirated version of Windows is completely identical code, it is genuine software. Only the compact disc itself is non-genuine. If copying executable bits rendered them non-genuine, then nobody could run genuine Windows. All Windows software bits are copied to RAM when you boot your computer. Software licensing only deals with permission, not whether or not something is genuine. If you steal a dollar bill from someone, it is still a genuine dollar bill.
You can beat this in software if you have a software radio. GNU Radio now has rudimentary wi-fi capabilities. You could certainly introduce randomized irregularities. Better yet, you can perform this analysis on your neighbor's wireless card and then train yours to impersonate it.
The real need for research remains nondairy cheese. While there are now excellent vegan alternatives for most everything, milk, ice cream, hot dogs, etc., cheese is really tough to get right. Even most soy cheeses contain casein, a milk protein. Tofutti does make an amazing nondairy cream cheese, but solid, meltable nondairy cheese remains very elusive.
Seems like a constant barrage of discoveries across many species that always indicate animals are smarter than we give them credit for. At some point we'll start to question our ethical consideration towards non-human animals. It'll probably be a while though, since we're still battling people who don't believe in evolution.
If we provided people in China with satellite internet terminals, like this then the firewall would be completely out of the loop. And since the antennas are directional, it wouldn't be too hard to conceal your RF signals and would be difficult to jam.
The "land use" argument is incredibly misleading, since renewable energy land use does not have to be exclusive. We can put solar panels on rooftops and windmills on farm fields. Try doing that with a nuclear reactor or waste dump.
The nuclear industry spends millions of dollars telling us that nuclear is wonderful and cheap. But if that were true the "free market" would be building plants, which they aren't. If it's so wonderful, they shouldn't need massive subsidies.
If we're going to subsidize something it should be renewable.
The Nuclear Energy Institute and President Bush told us about "Clean, safe nuclear energy". Why not just mark the site with some of their PR materials with blue skies and smiley faces? I'm sure future generations will thank us for subsidizing reactor construction.
These are mostly aimed at hourly and not daily use. I've used ZipCar and Flexcar and I think the business model is great. It would never be worth the hassle of going to a car rental place and filling out 10 minutes of paperwork for a few hours of use.
I think the demographic is for people who don't want to own cars, due to decent transit or bike alternatives, but want a car once in a while to go somewhere off the transit system or to buy something large.
Also, the ZipCar rates vary depending on what type of membership you have. If you use it a lot, you can pay a higher membership dues but then save by getting lower hourly rates. It's a reasonable price to pay when you consider just how expensive car ownership is between payments, gas, insurance, and maintenance.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is the biggest problem. Big corporations and industry groups would hire PR firms to set up an elaborate campaign consisting of hundreds of blogs that each have less than 500 users.
Why do people always have such deluded and unwarranted positive views of articles like this? This isn't a cure for cancer, or even a new treatment at all. It is only a new way to manufacture a drug. So it might save pharmaceutical companies a buck and increase their profits. There's of course no precedent to believe the lower cost would be passed to consumers. On the other hand, it's one more example of turning individual conscious beings into factories. I find it strange that you mention some people will be against this because of what it does to "God's creatures". Yet it is a belief in God and a special magical place in the universe he has placed man that leads most people to believe that any amount of pain and suffering inflicted on any non-human species is OK even if it brings negligible gain or just entertainment to a human.
The reprocessing ban is about security. Reprocessing turns a large amount of useless waste into a smaller amount of bomb grade material for terrorists to buy or steal. After Enron, Iraq, and Katrina, I personally don't think there's much reason to "trust" the US government or the US energy corporations to keep us safe.
As for the economics of reprocessing and waste storage in general, I always find it funny when people talk about how we need nuclear energy because it's so cheap, but then they expect the taxpayers to pay for a multibillion dollar reprocessing plant and storage dump. Solar energy would be real cheap too if the government was paying for all the solar panels and we didn't count that in the costs.
Nuclear energy is about as far from the free market as one could get.
UCS is only biased towards science. They are non-partisan and far less political than any of the other environmental groups like Sierra Club or NRDC. Their reports are always thorough and fact filled, they don't hesitate to criticize or commend all political parties. This is why they can usually get hundreds of leading scientists and Nobel prize winners to sign onto their statements.
Clearly academic research (usually publicly funded) like this is proof that innovation can occur without a patent system. But since we do have patents, it is important for the researchers to patent it before industry does. When university researchers patent something, the university owns the patent, not the individual. The university has no profit motive, and will likely license the technology to private firms who want to make treatments. These license revenues are then pumped back into the university to support further research.
The vegans I know eat far healthier food, know far more about food production, food safety and nutrition, and even eat a wider variety of food than the average American. Sure the meat industry would love to paint vegans as crazy and unhealthy, but reason and science clearly favor veganism.
This is a good example of animal research that is completely unnecessary. There's absolutely no point or scientific benefit in using animals for this experiment. The researchers were clearly just looking for a wacky headline to get press coverage, while giving good fuel to the animal rights activists who point out that the current state of animal research is ludicrous.
I love how people talk about things like this as a solution to world hunger and helping starving people. That's a pretty sick joke when you realize how horribly inefficient, unsunstainable, and unncecessary livestock and meat production is from a food standpoint. If you cared about world hunger (or human health), you'd be vegan, not trying to sell meat to poor people.
Since a pirated version of Windows is completely identical code, it is genuine software. Only the compact disc itself is non-genuine. If copying executable bits rendered them non-genuine, then nobody could run genuine Windows. All Windows software bits are copied to RAM when you boot your computer. Software licensing only deals with permission, not whether or not something is genuine. If you steal a dollar bill from someone, it is still a genuine dollar bill.
You can beat this in software if you have a software radio. GNU Radio now has rudimentary wi-fi capabilities. You could certainly introduce randomized irregularities. Better yet, you can perform this analysis on your neighbor's wireless card and then train yours to impersonate it.
Wow. Just wow.
The real need for research remains nondairy cheese. While there are now excellent vegan alternatives for most everything, milk, ice cream, hot dogs, etc., cheese is really tough to get right. Even most soy cheeses contain casein, a milk protein. Tofutti does make an amazing nondairy cream cheese, but solid, meltable nondairy cheese remains very elusive.
Seems like a constant barrage of discoveries across many species that always indicate animals are smarter than we give them credit for. At some point we'll start to question our ethical consideration towards non-human animals. It'll probably be a while though, since we're still battling people who don't believe in evolution.
If we provided people in China with satellite internet terminals, like this then the firewall would be completely out of the loop. And since the antennas are directional, it wouldn't be too hard to conceal your RF signals and would be difficult to jam.
The "land use" argument is incredibly misleading, since renewable energy land use does not have to be exclusive. We can put solar panels on rooftops and windmills on farm fields. Try doing that with a nuclear reactor or waste dump. The nuclear industry spends millions of dollars telling us that nuclear is wonderful and cheap. But if that were true the "free market" would be building plants, which they aren't. If it's so wonderful, they shouldn't need massive subsidies. If we're going to subsidize something it should be renewable.
The Nuclear Energy Institute and President Bush told us about "Clean, safe nuclear energy". Why not just mark the site with some of their PR materials with blue skies and smiley faces? I'm sure future generations will thank us for subsidizing reactor construction.
These are mostly aimed at hourly and not daily use. I've used ZipCar and Flexcar and I think the business model is great. It would never be worth the hassle of going to a car rental place and filling out 10 minutes of paperwork for a few hours of use. I think the demographic is for people who don't want to own cars, due to decent transit or bike alternatives, but want a car once in a while to go somewhere off the transit system or to buy something large. Also, the ZipCar rates vary depending on what type of membership you have. If you use it a lot, you can pay a higher membership dues but then save by getting lower hourly rates. It's a reasonable price to pay when you consider just how expensive car ownership is between payments, gas, insurance, and maintenance.