Nuclear power is not really renewable -- eventually all the uranium and thorium on Earth will be mined, and then we will need to start finding new sources of energy (or mining celestial bodies). I think nuclear power is part of the answer, but on its own it is not enough.
I used to be a big fan of wind, but I am starting to lean in the direction of (properly managed) biomass these days, for the following reasons:
Terrain that could not otherwise be farmed for food can be put to use
Existing coal plants can be converted at relatively low cost to use biomass power
The ashes can simply be spread on the biomass farming areas to replenish minerals in the soil (compare to coal ash, which cannot be used in this way)
If properly managed, it is carbon-neutral or nearly so (on a reasonable timescale)
Experience has shown that they will not. The more powerful governments become, the less political agendas respect the rights of the people who are being governed. The EU is not an exception to this, it is a fundamental rule of politics.
Solar panels would not surprise me -- semiconductor manufacturing is not exactly eco-friendly. As for wind turbines, I cannot help but think of the kid in Africa who built them out of recycled auto parts.
Really the question is, are these things better on the whole than fossil and nuclear fuels? I suspect that the answer is yes, although I am not an expert. Only people who live in shacks in Montana are seriously arguing that humanity can or should live without disturbing the environment at all; but we can at least try to not completely wreck the planet.
The reason that the EU does not push political agendas to the degree that national governments do is that the EU is not powerful. If you cede enough power to the commission and the EP, you will see political agendas pushed there. That is exactly what happened in the United States -- the more power the federal government has accumulated, the more the federal government has pushed political agendas, both domestically and abroad.
You said this was a fair compromise; I say it is not, because at the end of the day it will still affect non-infringing uses and it will not just affect individuals who are accused of infringement. The copyright lobbyists come in demanding that we cede Internet freedom because they do not know how to deal with the vast amount of copyright infringement that occurs on the Internet, and we are supposed to believe that ceding any amount of our freedom to them is a fair compromise? It sounds more like the copyright industry gets more power, and everyone else loses their freedom -- how is that a compromise?
Having said that, I don't thin we're in for any revolution anytime soon...
Revolution will happen one way or another. Computers represent as fundamental of a change in communication as the printing press or the invention of writing. Every time such a revolutionary change in communication occurs, the people who made a living under the old system whine and complain and try to maintain their position in society. Sometimes they manage to hang on -- Jews still have scribes who write the Torah on parchment rather than moving to printing presses, and Jews also have weekly Torah chanting which dates all the way back to the time when the stories were not written down at all -- but more often than not, new technologies win. Copyrights as we understand them will succumb to computers and the Internet, despite the complaints of people whose livelihood depends on copyrights, just as scribes succumbed to the printing press and campfire storytellers succumbed to writing.
Then, if this holds up, the ISP places filters for a time less than infinite on that account. This does not limit that account to any other non-infringing use,
Obviously you are unfamiliar with DMCA takedown abuses here in the United States.
nor does it limit any of the ISP's other customers.
I guess people no longer run servers out of their homes.
Indeed, but my point and the point that others have brought up is that this is not about keeping the police safe from criminals with police scanners or ensuring that those criminals are caught. Kevin Mitnick did exactly what I described when he was a fugitive: he connected a scanner to an alarm, so he would know when the police were approaching, and that was over a decade ago.
The reason for this is to ensure that the general public cannot listen to the police. The police love secrecy and this is just another step in that direction.
No, Asshole McHostageTaker only needs to see that the SWAT team has their radios on and that their signals are getting stronger. Makes no difference what they are saying, just that they are saying something.
Criminals do not need to actually hear what the police are saying, they only need to know that the police are saying something. This is essentially what Kevin Mitnick did while he was a fugitive -- he hooked a portable scanner up to an alarm of sorts, so if the police got too close he could escape.
Congress reglated commerce, via the Controlled Substances act, and delegated authority over controlled substances to the DEA.
They did not merely delegate authority over controlled substances to the attorney general -- the CSA delegates the authority to declare which substances are controlled to the attorney general, and to do so without any congressional action, process, or even committee being involved. This is at least an overt violation of the separation of powers, if not unconstitutional.
Why not just end the war on drugs, repeal the tyrannical Controlled Substances Act, disband the paramilitary police, and stop being the world leader in incarceration? You know, so we can get back to being a democracy.
When I last read the constitution, I could have sworn that the commerce clause granted congress the power to regulate or ban commerce. Yet the Controlled Substances Act grants the attorney general's office the power to declare drugs to be illegal without any congressional action, a power which is generally delegated to the DEA. Additionally, the DEA does not simply regulate commerce; they arrest people for possession of banned substances (including those that were declared to be illegal by the DEA itself), whether or not any actual commerce occurred or was planned.
I know we like to interpret the constitution as a "living document," but when it comes to the DEA we are interpreting it as permission to establish tyranny.
It appears to be a pretty simple case of "government restricts chemical that can be used in meth labs, old guy making product in his garage with said product doesn't want to deal with the government bureaucracy and is surprised when the government shuts off his access to that chemical."
I have a large number of matches; should I expect the DEA to bust me? How about all that basil growing in my backyard, which could be used as a source of safrol?
There is no defense of the DEA, ever. The DEA is the most anti-democratic, tyrannical and authoritarian organization in the United States. They have the power to make and enforce the law, the right to enter a person's home with automatic weapons, and they can kill you or your pets with impunity (all they need is a suspicion that you are in possession of the drugs they have declared to be illegal). The fact that we have continued to allow this organization to exist and operate within our borders says a lot about America's "democratic values."
The point was that there is no law against encrypting a phone call. It is true that the A5 ciphers have be broken, but that has nothing to do with the law. It would, by the way, be illegal for an amateur radio station to use these ciphers even though they are broken.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest and most used names will get the most hacking and piracy. Being Open Source, ...
How does one pirate open source software?
I used to be a big fan of wind, but I am starting to lean in the direction of (properly managed) biomass these days, for the following reasons:
I just want the agendas to respect rights
Experience has shown that they will not. The more powerful governments become, the less political agendas respect the rights of the people who are being governed. The EU is not an exception to this, it is a fundamental rule of politics.
Solar panels would not surprise me -- semiconductor manufacturing is not exactly eco-friendly. As for wind turbines, I cannot help but think of the kid in Africa who built them out of recycled auto parts.
Really the question is, are these things better on the whole than fossil and nuclear fuels? I suspect that the answer is yes, although I am not an expert. Only people who live in shacks in Montana are seriously arguing that humanity can or should live without disturbing the environment at all; but we can at least try to not completely wreck the planet.
The reason that the EU does not push political agendas to the degree that national governments do is that the EU is not powerful. If you cede enough power to the commission and the EP, you will see political agendas pushed there. That is exactly what happened in the United States -- the more power the federal government has accumulated, the more the federal government has pushed political agendas, both domestically and abroad.
You said this was a fair compromise; I say it is not, because at the end of the day it will still affect non-infringing uses and it will not just affect individuals who are accused of infringement. The copyright lobbyists come in demanding that we cede Internet freedom because they do not know how to deal with the vast amount of copyright infringement that occurs on the Internet, and we are supposed to believe that ceding any amount of our freedom to them is a fair compromise? It sounds more like the copyright industry gets more power, and everyone else loses their freedom -- how is that a compromise?
Having said that, I don't thin we're in for any revolution anytime soon...
Revolution will happen one way or another. Computers represent as fundamental of a change in communication as the printing press or the invention of writing. Every time such a revolutionary change in communication occurs, the people who made a living under the old system whine and complain and try to maintain their position in society. Sometimes they manage to hang on -- Jews still have scribes who write the Torah on parchment rather than moving to printing presses, and Jews also have weekly Torah chanting which dates all the way back to the time when the stories were not written down at all -- but more often than not, new technologies win. Copyrights as we understand them will succumb to computers and the Internet, despite the complaints of people whose livelihood depends on copyrights, just as scribes succumbed to the printing press and campfire storytellers succumbed to writing.
Then, if this holds up, the ISP places filters for a time less than infinite on that account. This does not limit that account to any other non-infringing use,
Obviously you are unfamiliar with DMCA takedown abuses here in the United States.
nor does it limit any of the ISP's other customers.
I guess people no longer run servers out of their homes.
20 years later
The EP has far too much and is pushing political agendas! We need to reduce the power of the commission and the EP!
Great, so, can we stop pretending that copyrights are more important than free speech now?
Indeed, but my point and the point that others have brought up is that this is not about keeping the police safe from criminals with police scanners or ensuring that those criminals are caught. Kevin Mitnick did exactly what I described when he was a fugitive: he connected a scanner to an alarm, so he would know when the police were approaching, and that was over a decade ago.
The reason for this is to ensure that the general public cannot listen to the police. The police love secrecy and this is just another step in that direction.
No, Asshole McHostageTaker only needs to see that the SWAT team has their radios on and that their signals are getting stronger. Makes no difference what they are saying, just that they are saying something.
Criminals do not need to actually hear what the police are saying, they only need to know that the police are saying something. This is essentially what Kevin Mitnick did while he was a fugitive -- he hooked a portable scanner up to an alarm of sorts, so if the police got too close he could escape.
Digital systems don't work so well with interference or weak signals
Well, maybe for voice. For text, we have PSK31 and other system that can tolerate a very low SNR. Not that this helps the police much.
Congress reglated commerce, via the Controlled Substances act, and delegated authority over controlled substances to the DEA.
They did not merely delegate authority over controlled substances to the attorney general -- the CSA delegates the authority to declare which substances are controlled to the attorney general, and to do so without any congressional action, process, or even committee being involved. This is at least an overt violation of the separation of powers, if not unconstitutional.
Why not just end the war on drugs, repeal the tyrannical Controlled Substances Act, disband the paramilitary police, and stop being the world leader in incarceration? You know, so we can get back to being a democracy.
When I last read the constitution, I could have sworn that the commerce clause granted congress the power to regulate or ban commerce. Yet the Controlled Substances Act grants the attorney general's office the power to declare drugs to be illegal without any congressional action, a power which is generally delegated to the DEA. Additionally, the DEA does not simply regulate commerce; they arrest people for possession of banned substances (including those that were declared to be illegal by the DEA itself), whether or not any actual commerce occurred or was planned.
I know we like to interpret the constitution as a "living document," but when it comes to the DEA we are interpreting it as permission to establish tyranny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin
It appears to be a pretty simple case of "government restricts chemical that can be used in meth labs, old guy making product in his garage with said product doesn't want to deal with the government bureaucracy and is surprised when the government shuts off his access to that chemical."
I have a large number of matches; should I expect the DEA to bust me? How about all that basil growing in my backyard, which could be used as a source of safrol?
There is no defense of the DEA, ever. The DEA is the most anti-democratic, tyrannical and authoritarian organization in the United States. They have the power to make and enforce the law, the right to enter a person's home with automatic weapons, and they can kill you or your pets with impunity (all they need is a suspicion that you are in possession of the drugs they have declared to be illegal). The fact that we have continued to allow this organization to exist and operate within our borders says a lot about America's "democratic values."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Why should governments and telecoms be the only people who get to run radio communication systems?
Keep in mind that technician class is limited to CW transmissions below 30MHz, so morse code is still somewhat required for shortwave.
The point was that there is no law against encrypting a phone call. It is true that the A5 ciphers have be broken, but that has nothing to do with the law. It would, by the way, be illegal for an amateur radio station to use these ciphers even though they are broken.
Yes, but so what? Do authors with no reputation make enough money to live on under the current system?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jul/16/harrypotter.jkjoannekathleenrowling
Sorry, this is the correct link that should have been posted.