Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:For a sense of scale (Score 2) 142

by Old97 (#47281993) Attached to: Will 7nm and 5nm CPU Process Tech Really Happen?
Then IBM would saddle it with some really complex, bloated, crappy middleware called "WebSphere Atomic Appliance for Business". It would be more expensive and run slower than a no-name Intel based blade running Linux and an open source framework. You'd need their professional services to manage it for you.

Comment: Re:China anyone? (Score 4, Insightful) 174

by Old97 (#47195025) Attached to: Greenland Is Getting Darker
No. It's China not implementing pollution controls that is the problem, not who they are manufacturing for. They could continue to produce these products and still implement the controls they promised, but they haven't. China and a number of other countries compete on cost not just with cheap labor, but by not requiring their manufacturers to minimize pollution. It's bad for their citizens and bad for the world.

Comment: Re:Amazon provides a service (Score 2) 218

by Old97 (#47078945) Attached to: Amazon Escalates Its Battle Against Publishers
Lousy analogy. Microsoft makes Word and Word competed against Wordperfect so one would not expect the manufacturer of one product to sell the competing product of a competitor. Amazon sells books. It does not write them or publish them. It is an important channel through which publishers and authors seek to sell their products. The books are electronic so the cost of stocking and selling any one book is close to zero. Amazon is simply refusing to sell certain books in order to put price pressure on a publisher or to punish an author or publisher for their behavior. If Amazon was found to be a monopoly their behavior could be ruled as illegal. That's basically the question, is Amazon's position in electronic book sales so dominant as to effectively constitute a monopoly. I don't think so as I rarely buy ebooks from Amazon, but then I don't buy contemporary popular fiction either.

Comment: Re:In a century... (Score 2) 784

by Old97 (#46985943) Attached to: Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts
Let's see. You might check on the Koch Industries environmental record. http://www.polluterwatch.com/k... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... Perhaps the Exxon Valdez disaster - still not repaired for Exxon or the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico for BP just a couple of years ago. The numerous leaks on the Alaska oil pipeline? These folks make billions (trillions collectively) and leave a trail of destruction. They actively fight most every attempt at regulation and disaster prevention. They fund global warming denial web sites and groups. Mountain top removal for the coal industry? How about strip mining. Do you think that's good for the environment? How about your drinking water? Duke Power and the pollution in the Cape Fear river some weeks ago? The spill in West Virginia weeks before that? The spill in the Tennessee river valley a few years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... Would you say none of that was preventable? Their very business is the destruction of the environment in order to obtain fossil fuels. The use of these fuels is also the primary contributor to the global warming we've been witnessing. What part of this do you not get? Are you an astroturfer? How much are getting paid to pretend to be this dumb?

Comment: Re:In a century... (Score 4, Informative) 784

by Old97 (#46983779) Attached to: Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts
There was no "global cooling" phenomenon being widely touted in the 1970's. That's a myth. The climate change report recently issued http://nca2014.globalchange.go... addresses that among other things. Global warming and this particular problem of glacier melting in Antarctica were both called out in the 1970's though. According to the NY Time reporting the second case - Antarctica is related to a variety of factors in addition to global warming. There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist. Provide some names of a few folks who became billionaires from pushing environmental protection. There are trillions being made producing fossil fuels.

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by Old97 (#46907167) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
So you're a lawyer and you've researched this completely or you've latched on to a snippet out of context and are misinterpreting it to favor your own prejudices. Snopes has a nice objective write up of misinterpretations of the Dick Act (Militia Act of 1903) including yours. http://www.snopes.com/politics... Specifically, the Dick Act does not void gun control laws or address any right to bear arms. Try again. BTW, for those who assume I'm against gun ownership, try again because I'm not. I just don't think the 2nd amendment is a slam dunk obvious argument in favor of a universal right to bear arms - any arms. Personally I believe I have an inalienable right to self defense.

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 3, Informative) 1374

by Old97 (#46890755) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
Which Militia Act - 1792, 1795, 1862 or 1903? You see, the act of 1903 superseded all the previous acts and established the National Guard as the states' militias. If you are not a member of the National Guard then you aren't in a militia. These militia acts all dealt with the role and rights of states to create and regulate militias versus the role and rights of the Federal government in these matters. Try again.

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by Old97 (#46889987) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
You're not quite correct on a couple of points.


The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia". Not everyone agrees that individuals have the right to bear arms when they are not acting as participants in a state sanctioned militia. Courts have ruled both ways on this and there is still quite a bit of debate.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) .

It is not true that communities can ban fire arms on their own. That notion has been over turned in court along with all the related local laws. I live in Chicago and the city and state are now grappling with how far they can go to restrict even concealed carry much less the possession of guns. We actually have to post signs if we don't want people to bring fire arms on our property.
