You know, it's really quite sad how not only you enjoy licking the boots of authority, but you apparently derive special pleasure from humiliating yourself in such a manner in public, with as many reproachful eyes on you as possible. I honestly can't think of any other reason why you keep posting things like these here on Slashdot of all places.
You forget the original context of this discussion, which is finding fuel sources other than oil. When we're talking about biofuels, biodiesel is more attractive than ethanol (especially one produced from corn) for many reasons.
part of the problem that I've seen is the price premium associated with them.
Partly this is because diesels are built sturdier (they have to, due to the nature of how they work). This, in turn, means that they will last longer, all other things being equal. Of course, it is something that you might not really care much about in a car...
that's not factoring in the higher cost of diesel fuel.
That one is usually offset by better mileage that you get out of it, due to higher power density of diesel and higher efficiency of the engine.
How many places in US have -40 C weather, though?
Heck, a good chunk of the country doesn't even go below zero...
Yeah, hybrid diesel vehicles would be the epitome of awesomeness (even more so if they are warranted by the manufacturer to run on B50 or higher).
Most digitizer issues are on the software side, and the problem with Android is that it's not actually designed with pen input in mind, so Samsung has to add their own hacks to the system to add support - and they're notoriously bad at modding Android.
Anyway, Note is just an example - it seems that digitizer is becoming par for the course for the new Win8.1 tablets, even the budget ones (like Dell Venue 8), which is a nice trend. And Win8 actually has proper pen input support, both as a standard input method (you can switch from pop-up keyboard to handwriting in any app), and in many stock apps like OneNote.
I miss resistive screens. Sure, multi-touch is nice but being able to draw or write with precision using a pointy stylus or even a finger nail was much more useful. Yeah, I know, there are so-called stylus for capacitive screens. They are so blunt though.. There just isn't any precision possible in a capacitive screen.
The way you do this properly is by adding a digitizer to that capacitive screen. There are numerous products that do so (e.g. Galaxy Note), and that give you all the advantages of both capacitive touch, and of a precise stylus.
So I wonder... can Amazon lobby through Ukraine joining EU faster? That sounds like a convenient place to outsource all those jobs, with labor even cheaper than in those Eastern European countries that have already joined a while ago.
its a privet.
I'll happily believe the NSA stopped the malware attack in question,
I wouldn't, actually. This whole story reminds me of the MI5 track record debacle. Those people live in a paranoid world of self-delusion to justify their existence and methods. They are prone to "find" plots in every corner. It's not that they are lying outright - they probably truly believe that they're fighting a real threat - but we should certainly question their judgment.
My view is not entirely based on utilitarian arguments (though I do acknowledge their validity). Basically, I think that the desire and the ability to take personal responsibility for oneself in such matters is, broadly speaking, a civic virtue. So it's not that firearms directly benefit society by reducing crime etc, but that (done right) they indirectly produce a more healthy one in terms of overall mentality. It's not the only such issue - e.g. I'm also in favor of some sort of universal duty-to-serve militia system, Swiss-style, as it is a civic duty for all citizens of the republic to participate in its defense (and other endeavors that are necessary for its long-term existence, but are a tedious personal burden - everyone should share in such to the best of their abilities, instead of trying to create a segregated caste of people who have to deal with it for everyone else).
I am, as a matter of fact, against regulation & government interference, but not in a way that most American right-wingers or libertarians approach it. I have already outlined most of it, but to sum it up: I think that freedom and lack of regulation should always be the default choice, and that any limitation on it should be permitted only insofar as it either serves to maximize the overall freedom, or for the sake of greater good where such can be clearly shown (this last part is where most libertarians would fundamentally disagree on ideological basis). It should furthermore be limited to a specific objective, shown to be effective at achieving that objective, and the benefit it provides should be proportional to the value of freedoms that it takes away (bearing in mind that they have a certain innate value). Basically, something very similar to the Oakes test, though I obviously disagree with Canadians on where the balance lies on some issues like guns. I think that codifying this in the constitution would be very valuable.
I suppose you could call it "pragmatic libertarianism" or something along these lines, though I think that most actual libertarians would disagree with that assessment, as the application of that principle to economics made me adopt a lot of left-wing / social democratic views, sometimes more extreme than mainstream (e.g. I support the universal basic income guarantee).
For what it's worth I've been to the Czech Republic, both Prague and some of the more rural areas (to cactus nurseries of all places - the old soviet states seem to be quite a fan of such plants) and I can't recall once ever seeing a single person carrying a weapon
Um... it's called "concealed carry" for a reason? People don't usually pack openly in US even where it's legal. Czech, IIRC, don't have legal open carry at all. The total number of people possessing the license that permits carrying (category E) is ~200k, in a country of 10 million - or around 2%, though of course it's hard to say how many of them actually do carry.
The only real difference I see is scale of carnage, but where do you draw the line?
That's actually very easy. You draw the line at the point where only the immediate aggressor could be harmed. Anything else is collective responsibility, which is immoral for many reasons.
The fact is innocent people do die often to stray bullets fired from guns in anticipation that someone else was about to fire at them
It doesn't happen "often" (if you disagree, then I'm going to ask for numbers to back up your assertions). And the obvious difference is that we actually punish such a thing, i.e. we do not consider it normal to accidentally hit someone unrelated when using your firearm - or any other weapon, really - in self-defense. All self-defense classes teach that you're responsible for every single bullet that you let go, and "be sure of what is your target and what is behind it" is one of the core rules of gun safety.
The problem with freedom is that one man's freedom is another man's tyranny
Sometimes. Not always.
Your freedom to live without fear of not being armed, removes another's to live without fear of being around people who are armed and how they may abuse that power.
It's not about "freedom to live without fear" (I don't think that such a right can even be reasonably argued, since fear is a subjective state of one's mind). The traditional utilitarian argument against gun control is the right to defend oneself by efficient means. The traditional utilitarian argument for it is the right to not be attacked by a lethal weapon. Both are underpinned by the more fundamental right to life.
You must be careful to declare a tendency towards freedom else the NSA's spying can simply be justified by government as the freedom for NSA staff to do whatever they deem necessary to ensure national security over legislation to grant you at least some degree of privacy.
There's nothing wrong about declaring a tendency towards freedom insofar as it is limited by other freedoms (so as to maximize the overall freedom), and by the common good. Canadians were smart enough to codify that in the Charter, even. But such limits still do not contradict the basic notion that freedom is inherently preferable, and any limitation of it must be rationally justified and shown to be proportional in value to the freedom that it takes away. If we start banning things just because it feels like a good idea at the time, based not on facts, but on "common sense" and "everybody knows", we end up with socially harmful crap like the modern drug laws.
All in all, it's clear that our fundamental disagreement on this subject is about whether there is a correlation between gun control and violence. You claim that there is one, and that it is strong enough that it warrants severely limiting the freedom to own firearms for the sake of public safety. I claim that it is not the case - that the correlation is either non-existent, or if it exists, it's so weak that it cannot be used as a justification for such a massive regulatory scheme.
I wish you best of luck in your endeavor.
Everyone else in the developed world gets by as an independent human being who can take care of themselves without a gun though, so it's a false assumption that a gun is necessary for that in the first place and it goes back to my previous point that that perception is based on mere paranoia.
I think that "everyone" is too broad a claim here. I'm fairly sure that, with enough digging, it is quite possible to find cases where people wished they had a gun to defend themselves against rape or assault (or would have wished if they weren't dead now). I don't expect there to be particularly many of those, but you can't claim that it doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever.
It should also be noted that US is not the only country that permits carrying handguns - in Europe Czech Republic does that, and citizens do exercise that ability. And they do not have any particularly noticeable difference wrt crime or random shootings compared to their similarly developed neighbors.
You could similarly extend the argument to extremes and insist on private nuclear weapon ownership in non-nuclear states so that private individuals can be independently safe from aggressive external nations
Nuclear weapons are, by definition, not personal weapons. It is impossible to use them in such a way as to limit the response only to your attacker. The same goes for RPGs, flamethrowers, tanks, and many other such things that are often propped up in the discussion for the merits of gun control. A handgun or a rifle, OTOH, is very much a personal weapon, by design - that's precisely what makes it possible to use it in self-defense without collateral damage.
Escalation of arms availability doesn't make anyone safer, and it certainly doesn't make the world safer.
I don't think that availability of arms makes the world safer or unsafer - how violent a given society is, is determined largely by other factors, and guns don't change it in any noticeable way. Given that, when the choice is between freedom or regulation, I think that freedom is always a reasonable default choice.