I think the argument that we should plant more trees instead of recycling paper is based more on the hazardous chemicals and waste produced for/in the process of recycling paper than it is CO2. The chemicals involved are many times worse for the environment in a more obvious way than simply burying the dead plant matter (like it's been done automagically for millenia) and farming trees for paper. Farming is effectively more expensive than deforestation, but it preserves those Oxygen producing, pollution absorbing, shade producing wooden towers of which so many hippies and birds are so fond.
And before you knock hippies, keep in mind I'm much closer to one than I am to a yuppie... at least mentally...
Linksys (I don't know about others) come with a standard antenna port. With a directional, high-gain antenna pointed at your dad's house from the neighbor's, you could probably make the connection. Worst case, you might need to get some custom firmware and turn up the transmission strength a tad. (I suggest Tomato.)
Look up "coffee can wifi antennas" on google. This will make it cheap and "easy."
While I understand your sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I agree that over 95% of the US, and probably the world, use Windows directly. However, indirectly, everyone uses Unix or Linux.
Today the world revolves around the internet. Something like 65%-70% of internet servers run on Linux and 15%-20% run on some non-Linux version of Unix. (These numbers may have changed since I last checked.) In fact, the root of the internet, some 13 root name servers, all run on Unix/Linux.
Since the internet revolves around these Unix servers, and the world revolves around the internet...
The world does revolve around my chosen operating system! [Insert Maniacal Laughter here.][Overlay Thunder Claps within Maniacal Laughter.]
That's a good point, and I would tend to agree with it.
But there is a more obvious reason for the redaction than even that: Do the math.
1140 switches * $2500 each = $2,850,000
Slightly over $2.9 million is slightly more than $50K over the price of the replacement of these switches. The only conclusions that can be gathered are that someone higher up (with the ability to classify documents) has been skimming off the top or they are not reporting where all the money went.
Yeah, I deserved it. I totally missed the subtlety and I'm living in the US.
By way of excuse, I'm too old to remember specific quotes from AP US History, I wasn't alive when he actually said it, and I live in the south, where, if a president said it, and he is/was a Republican, then it's as if God Himself wrote it on that president's lips, so I am unlikely to have heard it elsewhere.
Apologies. I should have realized it was sarcasm when he went into the specifics of how they may go about getting away with it without legal intervention.
Admittedly, and as a future suggestion to Jeremiah, some quotes around the sarcastic quoting would have helped.
No, I was suggesting that if what he seemed to be saying was true then there would be no such thing as a presidential impeachment. I missed his sarcasm though.
Could a supernova on entry into the yellow star's system have caused the right amount of force?
I.e., The pulsar (and invisible twin) are traveling towards a star (or vice versa, depending on POV). It supernovas as they are passing by, slowing the twin system just enough to pick up all the debris from the newborn system in an elliptical orbit, or vice versa. The orbit is far enough away from the pulsar or newborn system so as to allow the newborn system to develop naturally into another star system. The trinary system we see now is what occurs.
So if a President felt like shooting you in the head because he thinks you're ugly, you're okay with him continuing to run our country?
Please tell me our country has not stooped to the level where average citizens are willing to suffer fascist/communist leaders.
You spit in the faces of the signers of the Constitution of the United States with such ignorant comments. Or did you forget about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and, most notably, Richard Nixon?
Moderators: please forgive the outburst, but ignorance, especially ignorance of political freedoms, very quickly boils my blood. I'd even say it makes plasma of my plasma... because, yes... I am that much of a nerd.:)
While I admire and once subscribed to the opinion, "Do away with patents entirely," and for the same reasons as you present, you are neglecting one major drawback.
What precious little protection the little guy had from VBCs has evaporated when you remove patents. Corporate espionage is much easier to leverage when you are a VBC and much harder to defend against when you are a little guy. Without patents, little guys cannot protect their trade secrets effectively because they no longer have the government to back them up.
I absolutely hate supporting patents, since currently they block the little guy more than help them, but they are a necessary defense which gives little guys any chance whatsoever.
So you would halt the improvement of the theory by not allowing the flaws to be challenged just because some supposedly-religious fanatics want to tear it down? You would allow cultural significance to dictate the path of science? How does that make you any different from the fanatics?
I realize that you wouldn't do these things, and that is specifically why I'm calling them to your attention. If you're arguing against the law, in this way, your argument heads down a slippery slope. It is an argument that turns one into a fanatic. And fanatics do much more harm to science than good.
You have to step back and realize that without freedom to challenge theories, science is hurt. And you also have to realize that it doesn't matter what people believe. The science is there. If this entire generation eventually chose to believe that the theory of evolution was a mistake, then if it wasn't, the next free-thinking generation would bring it back.
The most important aspect of science is not immediate accuracy.
The most important aspects of science are freedom of thought and ultimate accuracy.
I had to dig, but I found the reference to which you refer:
Actually, there is good science [ideacenter.org] to support ID [actionbioscience.org] also.
However, I have to disagree with your use of the phrase,
before you try to discredit me based on the last message or two out of context.
I assure you I did not intend to discredit anyone. I just wanted to point out that your arguments were starting to sound a lot like the arguments of your opponents.
Your clarification of your fears does wonders for your argument. It only makes sense that one would fear new found freedoms being taken to too far an extent. But one should not restrict that freedom just because it has the potential to be misused. The best approach historically has been to add incentive to use it correctly, such as through a legal punishment for incorrect use or a legal reward for exceptionally correct use.
I agree with the most fundamental points of ArcherB's argument. One should not teach a student what to think as much as how to think in a science class. Teaching them the most trusted, current, theories is good, but if you don't also teach the flaws, then no one would ever be interested in improving the theories, because they wouldn't see a need. Even the law of gravity has been shown to have flaws in the past (black holes, relativity, and such), but no one would care to figure out why if they didn't know the flaws existed.
I agree with the most fundamental point of your argument. Such a law has a potential for misuse. But once again, the benefits severely outweigh the possible misuses. How would a law like this affect the next Scopes Trail? The next time a new theory comes up for something that is more correct than an existing one that society has accepted, like when evolution was first proposed, wouldn't you prefer to have a law such as this in place?
I see your point, but I feel that the possible benefits to such a law outweigh the risks.
After all, if such a law existed before the Snopes Trial then it would have received a summary judgment in favor of the teacher and no one would have wasted time or money fighting against ignorance to get a scientific theory in schools.
You seem to be stuck on ID more than anti-evolutionists. No one in the current branch is proposing to teach ID. What's being said is that teachers should be allowed to teach the science behind the theory of evolution along with it's flaws (or just lacking of data) and scientific detractors.
As you've said, ID is not science or scientific. ID would still not be allowable with this law.
It almost sounds as if you're trying to say that the flaws in the theory of evolution should not be taught for fear that someone might disbelieve it just because it has flaws... wait... I know I've seen that reaction somewhere before...
I think this is a good law. It makes it so that situations like the Monkey Trial won't happen again.
In that case, a teacher saw a new theory that lined up with the evidence and wished to teach it in school. With a law like this in place, there would have been a summary judgment in favor of the teacher and it wouldn't have even made it to trial.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the argument that we should plant more trees instead of recycling paper is based more on the hazardous chemicals and waste produced for/in the process of recycling paper than it is CO2. The chemicals involved are many times worse for the environment in a more obvious way than simply burying the dead plant matter (like it's been done automagically for millenia) and farming trees for paper. Farming is effectively more expensive than deforestation, but it preserves those Oxygen producing, pollution absorbing, shade producing wooden towers of which so many hippies and birds are so fond.
And before you knock hippies, keep in mind I'm much closer to one than I am to a yuppie... at least mentally...
LOL... *wipes away tear*... whew! That was a good one.
Linksys (I don't know about others) come with a standard antenna port. With a directional, high-gain antenna pointed at your dad's house from the neighbor's, you could probably make the connection. Worst case, you might need to get some custom firmware and turn up the transmission strength a tad. (I suggest Tomato.)
Look up "coffee can wifi antennas" on google. This will make it cheap and "easy."
While I understand your sentiment, I respectfully disagree. I agree that over 95% of the US, and probably the world, use Windows directly. However, indirectly, everyone uses Unix or Linux.
Today the world revolves around the internet. Something like 65%-70% of internet servers run on Linux and 15%-20% run on some non-Linux version of Unix. (These numbers may have changed since I last checked.) In fact, the root of the internet, some 13 root name servers, all run on Unix/Linux.
Since the internet revolves around these Unix servers, and the world revolves around the internet...
The world does revolve around my chosen operating system! [Insert Maniacal Laughter here.][Overlay Thunder Claps within Maniacal Laughter.]
That's a good point, and I would tend to agree with it.
But there is a more obvious reason for the redaction than even that: Do the math.
1140 switches * $2500 each = $2,850,000
Slightly over $2.9 million is slightly more than $50K over the price of the replacement of these switches. The only conclusions that can be gathered are that someone higher up (with the ability to classify documents) has been skimming off the top or they are not reporting where all the money went.
Yeah, I wasn't too concise with my description. Seems like you got it though.
As to the likelihood of it happening, though, we (the human race) have seen stranger astronomic coincidents.
Yeah, I deserved it. I totally missed the subtlety and I'm living in the US.
By way of excuse, I'm too old to remember specific quotes from AP US History, I wasn't alive when he actually said it, and I live in the south, where, if a president said it, and he is/was a Republican, then it's as if God Himself wrote it on that president's lips, so I am unlikely to have heard it elsewhere.
Apologies. I should have realized it was sarcasm when he went into the specifics of how they may go about getting away with it without legal intervention.
Admittedly, and as a future suggestion to Jeremiah, some quotes around the sarcastic quoting would have helped.
No, I was suggesting that if what he seemed to be saying was true then there would be no such thing as a presidential impeachment. I missed his sarcasm though.
Could a supernova on entry into the yellow star's system have caused the right amount of force?
I.e., The pulsar (and invisible twin) are traveling towards a star (or vice versa, depending on POV). It supernovas as they are passing by, slowing the twin system just enough to pick up all the debris from the newborn system in an elliptical orbit, or vice versa. The orbit is far enough away from the pulsar or newborn system so as to allow the newborn system to develop naturally into another star system. The trinary system we see now is what occurs.
Does this make sense?
So if a President felt like shooting you in the head because he thinks you're ugly, you're okay with him continuing to run our country?
Please tell me our country has not stooped to the level where average citizens are willing to suffer fascist/communist leaders.
You spit in the faces of the signers of the Constitution of the United States with such ignorant comments. Or did you forget about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and, most notably, Richard Nixon?
Moderators: please forgive the outburst, but ignorance, especially ignorance of political freedoms, very quickly boils my blood. I'd even say it makes plasma of my plasma... because, yes... I am that much of a nerd. :)
Well, there is hope: The Change Congress Movement
Here's hoping it's not a false hope.
One has force of law, the other one doesnt.
While this is true, judicial interpretation is intended to interpret the original intent into a force of law.
And as much as it may sound otherwise, I am not trying to be funny by that statement.
While I admire and once subscribed to the opinion, "Do away with patents entirely," and for the same reasons as you present, you are neglecting one major drawback.
What precious little protection the little guy had from VBCs has evaporated when you remove patents. Corporate espionage is much easier to leverage when you are a VBC and much harder to defend against when you are a little guy. Without patents, little guys cannot protect their trade secrets effectively because they no longer have the government to back them up.
I absolutely hate supporting patents, since currently they block the little guy more than help them, but they are a necessary defense which gives little guys any chance whatsoever.
Amen brother. Preach on!
Just as a "maintenance fee," a tax would encourage businesses to drop patents that are no longer immediately relevant to them.
I just wish it was "citizens" and not "businesses" that had the control of the patents, like the original writers of the laws intended.
Need I say more?
Please. Everyone knew what was going on. The evidence is so many zombified spam spewers all over the place.
So you would halt the improvement of the theory by not allowing the flaws to be challenged just because some supposedly-religious fanatics want to tear it down? You would allow cultural significance to dictate the path of science? How does that make you any different from the fanatics?
I realize that you wouldn't do these things, and that is specifically why I'm calling them to your attention. If you're arguing against the law, in this way, your argument heads down a slippery slope. It is an argument that turns one into a fanatic. And fanatics do much more harm to science than good.
You have to step back and realize that without freedom to challenge theories, science is hurt. And you also have to realize that it doesn't matter what people believe. The science is there. If this entire generation eventually chose to believe that the theory of evolution was a mistake, then if it wasn't, the next free-thinking generation would bring it back.
The most important aspect of science is not immediate accuracy.
The most important aspects of science are freedom of thought and ultimate accuracy.
I had to dig, but I found the reference to which you refer:
Actually, there is good science [ideacenter.org] to support ID [actionbioscience.org] also.However, I have to disagree with your use of the phrase,
before you try to discredit me based on the last message or two out of context.I assure you I did not intend to discredit anyone. I just wanted to point out that your arguments were starting to sound a lot like the arguments of your opponents.
Your clarification of your fears does wonders for your argument. It only makes sense that one would fear new found freedoms being taken to too far an extent. But one should not restrict that freedom just because it has the potential to be misused. The best approach historically has been to add incentive to use it correctly, such as through a legal punishment for incorrect use or a legal reward for exceptionally correct use.
I agree with the most fundamental points of ArcherB's argument. One should not teach a student what to think as much as how to think in a science class. Teaching them the most trusted, current, theories is good, but if you don't also teach the flaws, then no one would ever be interested in improving the theories, because they wouldn't see a need. Even the law of gravity has been shown to have flaws in the past (black holes, relativity, and such), but no one would care to figure out why if they didn't know the flaws existed.
I agree with the most fundamental point of your argument. Such a law has a potential for misuse. But once again, the benefits severely outweigh the possible misuses. How would a law like this affect the next Scopes Trail? The next time a new theory comes up for something that is more correct than an existing one that society has accepted, like when evolution was first proposed, wouldn't you prefer to have a law such as this in place?
No write-ins at all? I'd think that to be unconstitutional.
I see your point, but I feel that the possible benefits to such a law outweigh the risks.
After all, if such a law existed before the Snopes Trial then it would have received a summary judgment in favor of the teacher and no one would have wasted time or money fighting against ignorance to get a scientific theory in schools.
You seem to be stuck on ID more than anti-evolutionists. No one in the current branch is proposing to teach ID. What's being said is that teachers should be allowed to teach the science behind the theory of evolution along with it's flaws (or just lacking of data) and scientific detractors.
As you've said, ID is not science or scientific. ID would still not be allowable with this law.
It almost sounds as if you're trying to say that the flaws in the theory of evolution should not be taught for fear that someone might disbelieve it just because it has flaws... wait... I know I've seen that reaction somewhere before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_trial
I think this is a good law. It makes it so that situations like the Monkey Trial won't happen again.
In that case, a teacher saw a new theory that lined up with the evidence and wished to teach it in school. With a law like this in place, there would have been a summary judgment in favor of the teacher and it wouldn't have even made it to trial.
Sony is just upset that they didn't come up with it first.