Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
that's the real problem, cyanogen is becoming a better brand than google, and that's what they're trying to stop.
I'm a free market capitalist, and as such, understand why this is a bad idea. There are internal and external costs to a product, and the free market has been shown to be a very good regulator of internal costs (cost of product to the user) but not very good at external (cost of product to society). Therefore it's the governments job to come up with a way to internalize those external costs (pollution and health hazards in this example) in the form of taxes or other disincentives.
the problem is that with cap and trade, you don't take an integrated approach to the problem. it doesn't change the equation. truly clean tech is cost effective over the life cycle. the problem with clean tech is it's capital intensive, requiring a company to save before adopting and what cap and trade does is harm the ability of companies to come up with that capital.
I'm not against a pollution tax. but I think it should work based on inspections and targeted cuts. if a company can cut their output and demonstrate it has taken measures to reduce emissions by x%, then they don't have to pay. otherwise tax by output. Then the dirtiest players pay the most making them the most motivated and everyone still needs to clean up. Cap and trade only focuses on making direct pollution costs high, but as long as some power is generated from fossil fuels, being wasteful with clean energy consumes resources that would otherwise go offsetting production by non-clean sources.
so again it's unfair. Just cause I live in AZ or Cali where there's an abundance of clean power, doesn't mean i should be able to use as much as I want. Two companies running at the same efficiency consuming the same power should not be taxed differently. cap and trade doesn't effectively internalize the expense cause it doesn't focus on cutting consumption. and until we have a policy that does that, it's going to have negligible effect.
solar and wind are not blanket solutions. in places like North Dakota, a solar panel never repays the energy it takes to make it! it does nothing for the environment then! You can't put solar panels in Alaska where it's dark half the year round. And wind turbines might have problems in the winter.
goes back to my point, it's HARD to implement those technologies in those states and with a cap and TRADE system clean states tend to benefit ALOT by selling excess credits to states in the bread basket. it's not about the environment. it's about one state with a ton of money trying to screw a bunch of other states who are less fortunate. It's one thing if they had alternatives, but wind and solar don't work everywhere.
this plan takes money from the states that need the most development in terms of clean energy and gives it to the states that need it the least, which is a very inefficient way of doing things! Now the states not only have to pay a tax, but develop technologies that work with their climate, and do so with less resources then were available before the plan. my opinion? what will happen is they'll end up switching to bio fuels and drive the price of food way up, because they don't have other options. Then we all lose.
Technically, there's nothing in the law against it despite DCMA safe harbors.
Ever since the Grokster case got settled, courts have been ruling for "contributory infringement" on a I-know-it-when-I-see-it type basis. Usenet actively promoted the fact that it had lots of infringing content and used that as a selling point in it's business model. And despite disagreeing with the model, they are EXACTLY what is pictured and depicted as "contributory infringement". Until we can reverse it, if your going to run a file sharing site or network, then don't advertise you're doing so.
We're not looking for a complete work up here. Genetic testing becoming more available and consumable is a good thing as it should spur development in the industry. Additionally there are a lot of conditions for which people can have genetic predisposition and knowing that predisposition may change their treatment and behavior in ways that may actually save money. Being able to better focus and tailor one's individual medical care is a good thing and will hopefully lead to long term cost savings. I hope genetic testing for serious, long term disabilities that can drive up end of life care becomes common place as it could be used as a mitigation for rising cost of treatment.
Ok, so he hung 200 people publicly a year. From 1991 to 2003 is 12 years so 2400 people.
Then add a conservative 5000 (Probably closer to 10000 since many of the injured died of complicationis) from the Halabja poison gas attack and we're just getting started. That was just one part of the Al-Anfal Campaign where he killed roughly 100,000. That's just violence against the Kurds which is the most well documented. And the hangings don't account for the shootings and killings post Gulf War when he quelled the Shiite Rebellion. Body count puts the Iraq war collateral damage total at about 100,000. So in fact we haven't killed as many Iraqis as Saddam.
Motivations for war aside, the operation has been exceedingly poorly executed, and may be inexcusable. But lets not delude ourselves into thinking "Well, Saddam wasn't that bad". He was worse.