Ah, so it's an ideological purity issue -- compromise is evil!

Now I understand.

I think you're reading too much into it. They've been accused of "trying to eliminate net neutrality" over wireless, and they're responding to the rumour mill, using the same language. If that was a conspiracy to confuse, then yes - I agree that would be evil.

You seem to be saying that I can't logically support issue X if I also agree to a compromise that X only be applied to Y now and defer the decision on Z. I don't understand this all-or-nothing attitude, as it does not seem to hold any realistic chance of success.

Once net neutrality is enshrined into law for wireline networks, won't it be easier to apply that precedent to wireless?

Do you mean this?

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?

You failed to answer the question.

Why is it evil to try a path to enshrine net neutrality into law for wireline traffic? The only argument I've seen - that they should also try (and fail) to get consensus for net neutrality for wireless networks _now_, seems naive to me.

I don't see anything in the proposal which would prevent future legislation for wireless networks.

Where is the evil?

Why is it a unchallenged premise, that operatives simply must be dealing in information which will risk their lives? Whose social contract states that we all must subscribe to that ideology?

Leaking, if it does nothing else, demonstrates that the ability of any organisation to keep deadly secrets, secret, continues to diminish. I don't think I'd like to live in a society where leaks were harder to accomplish. I can't help thinking that institutionalised secrecy is a dead-end strategy, which could be (somewhat, if not completely) mitigated by just being better at what you do.

That said, I don't see how we get from here to there - if leaking those documents will endanger lives and do nothing to alter policy with regards the trade in secrets - then isn't wikileaks just using this as a shameless publicity stunt?

So basically "unprovoked violence is legitimate if it supports my ends"?

I find that rather uncivilised.

I'm sure you're right, but realized that you're talking about CALIFORNIA. Probably the most gay-friendly state in the union. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that the rights homosexuals have there are the same rights they have in most of the country. Particularly in the Bible Belt region. Allowing gay marriage? Hell I'm straight myself but get accused of being gay and half ran out of a room as I suggest that maybe, just maybe it's not fair to lynch mob every gay person in sight (or as I've heard suggested, "roundin 'em up and gittin rid of 'em").

> The ONLY reason for such a list, is future harassment.

Sure, that is, until people who never signed it find their name on the list.

Seriously... if a petition to ammend your state constitution to allow police officers to ass rape anyone they see on the street.... how would you know that your name wasn't improperly added to the list of signers if the list wasn't publically posted?

What does signature validation consist of anyway? They check the names against the voter roles and addresses? Nice. Does anyone actually bother to mail people and say "Hey, you actually signed this, right?"

Hell, I could draw up a petition and have a few hundred "signatures" by the end of the day if that is the standard. Omar Ravenhurst wouldn't even need to sign.

-Steve

China has horrific air quality that actually kills people. Hardly anyone in NATO dies directly from air quality unless they start the engine while the car's still in the garage.

Looking forward to them exporting their values and ideals to the rest of the world too?

I'm pretty sure its the OPPOSITE of voting, as in you are putting your name and reputation behind the petition.

Not bitter, I haven't had anyone close to me suicide, but I know a few clinically depressed people and they're the only ones I've known who were suicidal. It's just a fact -- if you kill yourself because your girl dumped you or you lost your job or someone's bullying you, you're mentally ill.

Rommel was an exception; if I have the choice of suicide or torture, I'd choose suicide, too, but it isn't really suicide, as you're really dead already but your heart and brain still work. The same goes for terminally ill patients who choose to die.

Its been years since I read Green Hills, but iirc (didn't click the wiki link) it was a heroic gesture. A guy who falls on a grenade to save his buddies likewise isn't committing suicide, as he's already dead, too.

This is a common misconception. Capacitors have significant inductance (have to be specially designed not to) and as everybody knows the rate of change of current is limited by the driving voltage and the inductance. As inductance does not convert current to heat (unlike resistance), putting inductance in a capacitor array does not waste energy like resistive limiting would. The converters that produce constant current from the array to drive the motors will themselves use inductors as part of the electronics. Also, there is a limited rate at which charge can move off the dielectric in ultracapacitors. Fancy dielectrics like barium titanate have much lower charge mobility than, say, polypropylene which stores practically no energy in the dielectric at all.

If you doubt this, there is a simple experiment you can do. Find an old high voltage electrolytic capacitor. Charge to a few hundred volts (if you don't know how to do this you should not be doing it.) Then discharge it with a suitable insulated screwdriver, but don't keep the screwdriver on too long. You will get a bang. A check with a voltmeter will reveal residual charge on the capacitor, in fact it may still be unsafe to handle.

The fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia concept was the fact that there wasn't a bureaucratic layer between your information and the world.

Grow a pair, Mr Wales.