Slashdot Mirror

Soon you Europeans will be nothing but different factions of Muslim groups fighting amongst yourselves about which version of Sharia Law is more in line with the Great Allah, reducing the extent of European culture to the same rubble as what's left in the Middle East; and the US, once having shrugged off NAFTA and the WTO, shall again find its enlightenment and will again be the Godless and merciless SuperPower to those who do not believe in the truth and power of science and technology.

This will make batteries more important. Now it's no longer profitable to use the grid for storage.

Yup - and that's actually a good thing.

While I take great issue with the hypocrisy of people who think that renewables are the work of godless commies commies, yet have no issue at all with the direct from the government to the stockholders transfer of my tax dollars for every other type of energy production, (see my other research on the issue in another post) and that the folks are pleased to have done this for political reasons as they note "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause.", it is apparent that all of th eother energy subsidies are somehow a conservative principle.

I'll be happy to take advantage of new battery technology. I'll be happy to get myself off the grid.

I'm certain that good conservative principles will give me a tax break because why should I have to pay for energy subsidies I'm not using.

Oh.... wait...

"One Nation THUMP Under God THUMP with Liberty and Justice for All". I always wondered why that didn't flow smoothly until I learned that the religious right rammed it in as an afterthought just to show the Godless Commies.

Or perhaps is has to do with you pausing before under god for some reason when the pause is only after under god.

"In God We Trust". Right on the money.

So, this is somehow forcing you to believe in the Christian God, vs the Jewish, Muslim, or whoever else's god/gods, or none at all?

Any number of states and communities attempting to pass "anti-Sharia" laws

Let me guess, blocking religious law from becoming state law is now a bad thing?

fighting to display the 10 Commandments on public property. Not to mention the occasional cross atop the water tower.

You do realize that this is not against the First amendment right? Preventing others from displaying their religious symbols however is.

Organized high school sports. Just try and avoid the FCA without suffering the consequences.

In english please? I do believe that there has been much from the Left restricting people from praying, even on their own quietly to themselves at team sporting events...that is against religious liberty.

But the're not forcing anyone. Oh, no.

Where is the law stating that you must be a Christian and must go to church on Sundays?

Have you ever considered that you might be a bigot?

No, the religious right is not trying to force their religion on anyone. The Left has been trying to take away religious freedom, but that is a different thing.

"One Nation THUMP Under God THUMP with Liberty and Justice for All". I always wondered why that didn't flow smoothly until I learned that the religious right rammed it in as an afterthought just to show the Godless Commies.

"In God We Trust". Right on the money.

Any number of states and communities attempting to pass "anti-Sharia" laws while simultaneously fighting to display the 10 Commandments on public property. Not to mention the occasional cross atop the water tower.

Organized high school sports. Just try and avoid the FCA without suffering the consequences.

But the're not forcing anyone. Oh, no.

Funny how fish never notice they're under water.

The House Republicans have responded with legislation (the Keep God-Fearing Pedestrians Safe From Godless Autonomous Terrorists Act) that requires every vehicle to be driven by a licensed Christian. Every vehicle must also have a plastic Jesus statue on the dashboard.

People are responsible for their own choices

Does that include choices like "should I hire this person or outsource the entire division to China?"

There seems to be this belief, particularly from the left which has never been big on personal responsibility

As opposed to the right, who uses the corporate veil to absolve themselves of any responsibility? Don't worry, you can keep crying yourself to sleep knowing that gays HAVE to have been caused by godless heathen liberals and that megacorps putting estrogen in baby bottles had absolutely no responsibility at all for a generation of men turning into buttfucking pansies.

Maybe we should let people make their own choices

As long as they don't choose to have too much fun, right? Everyone ought to have the freedom to do what Republicans tell them to do.

Public schools are not in session on Sundays. The fact that the church is holding Sunday services at a public school on a Sunday is not the same as saying that State College High School, or any representatives thereof, promote the teachings of a particular deity. If the school was hold services while the school was in session, they would be practicing against the separation of church and state. The fact that they are holding services while school is not in session is no different than a boy scout troop having their weekly meeting in the high school cafeteria, as long as it's not willfully promoted by the school.

Make certain you twist and turn and tapdance so you can say that God has been banned in schools. Yes, yes indeed, this church has services on Sunday. In a godless school system, and with teh War on religion people's fear , wouldn't it just be easier to say, God is not allowed on teh School campus, so if you copme onto school property, we're having you arrested? A clear line in the sand, over which the religious dar not cross.

Oh, here's another thing that won't fit with your persecution complex. They have bible clubs in schools, they have other religion clubs in school. "The God has been banned in schools" meme is just another lie for Jesus. Something that makes some people feel like they are being discriminated against, but completely untrue.

Agghm , my vicodan wore off, I'm back now. - Good luck fundies. This should be awesome to watch. You don't think these folk want to declare independence from a country they hate, the government they hate, and whoever isn't on their very short list of acceptability as a human? I see armed rebellion instate first, then a Holy war on the Godless leeeeburuls.

Go and give it a go near a highschool these days, we'll wait.

Umm, do you think that students have a sniper trained on them at chemistry class as well?

http://www.naspschools.org/ National Archery in schools program.

School riflery programs

http://www.maxpreps.com/search...

Youre assumptions are incorrect. It isn't the use of these devices, its when the kid brings one to school to reorganize the place that they don't like.

It's just like the people who think that religion has been scrubbed and banned from schools. That's almost as big a crock of shit as The Starbucks red coffee cup being part of the war on Christmas. Here one presumably liberal college town - there is a church, right in the high school. Meets every Sunday

Now just like everyone else, you're going to call me a fucking liar. Well Ol Olsoc - he gots him his citations, and here it is. Godless liberal and socialistical America where God cannot be mentioned in School........

http://www.cedarheights.net/

I always tell people they are entitled to their own opinions. Facts on the other hand, can make those opinions look a little silly.

Before taking a job in systems administration, I used to hold a CDL and drive regional/long haul for a trucking company. Everything we had was, of course, diesel because we run mostly on highways and at fourty tons our speed isnt a huge priority. in fact, we sometimes drive under the speed limit to make up mileage/save fuel based on projected consumption. the diesel car, for all its promises, is a break-even proposition at best.

speed: outside of a few concept sports cars, diesel isnt about speed but torque. in trucking we compensate by turbocharging our engines, to make the lives of normal drivers easier. without turbos it would take ten minutes or more to get up to speed. the tradeoff is bad mileage.
coldstart: cold start problems will always exist. for those of you in minneapolis or duluth, I see you shopping for the same antigel treatments and fuel additives for your audi that I use on my freighliner, and the truth is theyre awful for emissions and even worse for mileage. emissions systems are often programmed to detect and correct for them. they dont always work in the coldest weather, and consumer autos dont have fuel tank heaters or radiator louvres.
"cleanliness": no. hell no. On my Freightliner CL Columbia truck, I had no less than 6 gauges for the emissions system. everything from exhaust backpressure to air-in temp, exhaust temp, and temperature monitors on the scrubber DPF CV. sometimes id sit idling for 15 minutes just to make sure my emissions layout was "green" before taking off, because if its not ill blow smoke for miles down the highway. urea tanks and injectors need to be filled and cleaned respectively at regular intervals, and in long haul trucking this is a no brainer. we have a very user friendly interface for monitoring and planning refill. but car drivers? do you really want to worry about the car dropping down into "limp home" mode when you forget to top off the tank? it could strand you on the highway at 24 miles per hour.

finally, theres the godless process of smogging. what might fly in one state, wont in another, and as more states adopt emissions standards that require smog checks, more of these older diesel cars will fail outright. for most trucks, if you can smell the diesel smell, you wont pass.

The main problem with this idea is the notion that the national guard, who are a bunch of citizen-soldiers (they're not full-time professionals), would willingly assault and oppress their own countrymen this way

Sorry for the Godwin, but if you study the propaganda techniques of the rise of the NAZI party, then you'll see how easy it is to dehumanise a segment of the population. Then think about the fact that we have a hundred years more study of human psychology and a hundred years better mass communication. If you think that it would be difficult to persuade the national guard that the godless commies / terrorist sympathisers / whatever need to be rounded up for the good of the country then you might want to study the advertising industry a bit more. With platforms like Facebook, where people willingly give a third party enough information to construct a fairly detailed individual psychological profile (which they're now legally obliged to share with the government on demand), it's even easier.

Sanders may be decried (or lauded) as a socialist in the USA and he may be the left-most politician in the race, but the scary reality to the rest of the world is that he's centre-right and the rest simply go more right wing from there.

Forget "religion", that's primarily a cold-war hangover (fighting the godless communists) which is primarily used as a tool of thought control.

Democrats and Republicans alike have historically tended towards centrist policies, with differing (often alternatiing) attitudes towards statism and corporatisim (both of which are in the ascendant no matter who's supposedly been at the helm since 1939) This steady lurch to the right since the late 1970s is an abberation which will eventually correct, both in the USA and in the UK (which has followed similar trajectories along the same period)

Oligarchies, repressive corporatism, repressive statism and religiously(*) motivated conflicts (sectarian and interfaith) are within living memories across the globe. Most of those who have experienced them don't want repeats, yet the USA seems determined to make them all happen again - and this time it may actually happen within its own borders instead of by proxy.

(*) Religion in such cases is merely used as a political tool to whip up followers or oppress opponents.

America is the greatest country on Earth because we have freedom. Every other country is just a bunch of freedom-hating godless commies or sand-eating terrorists.

Politics.

Solar panels are an environmental issue.
Environmental issues are a liberal cause.
Liberals are America-hating godless commies.
Therefore solar panels are evil and must be fought.

Godless cunts and homosexual tolerance making laws? Any idea why people left Europe for America?

Careful what you wish for because God delivers.

I think the premise is, and I may be wrong, it's that the Republicans in question had been telling other people that it was wrong to be hedonistic socialist godless UnAmerican things.

Oddly, people seem to be convinced it's one side or the other that's targeting the first. I'd submit that it is both and for varied reasons but the end result is surely the same.

While there are absolutely starry-eyed idealists who are completely blind to their own problems on the left, really the key here is that the Party of Hypocrisy can't even remember what it stands for on any given day. Hell, even Reagan was against gun rights (when it was the Black Panthers carrying the guns). There's* so* many* stars* and* foot*notes* after* every* word* they* say*, nobody knows what they really intend to do, not even themselves.

*: except when we find it inconvenient. Ideals to be abrogated on a case-by-case basis when in our favor.

Nobody bats an eye when a hedonistic socialistic godless unAmerican heathen liberal does hedonistic socialistic godless unAmerican heathen things, that's understood to be the default behavior. When a Republican is caught spreading his legs in an airport bathroom, though, suddenly all those stars come into full force, and it's different for him.

"ten active air craft carriers (the nations with the 2nd largest fleets of aircraft carriers all have 2 or less)."

That's 10 supercarriers. The US has a _lot_ more flat-tops than that (it has 8 active wasp-class USMC carriers alone, just retired 5 Tarawa class ones, 1 America class one (of 2) and is building more Wasps. Most other countries' aircraft carriers are the same size as USA marine flattops which is why I'm using them for comparison)

The UK's 2 supercarriers are likely to be useless as they're oil-fired and can _only_ use helicoptors/V22s/F35Bs off their skiramp decks (BAE quoted more than the cost of building a whole new ship to replace the skiramps - coincidentally the same amount they would have expected to lose if they lost the maintenance contract for the F35Bs which are intended to go on the boats), which practically means that for the forseeable future the USA will continue to be the only nation operating supercarriers.

+1 for the deterrent effect. Many many countries have (or are attempting to) procured these weapons as a last resort. The problem is that if anyone was to ever use one, the "pile on" effect of everyone else joining in is too tempting for politicians. Military tacticians and nuclear-authorised USA staff simply won't use nukes (This came out of a RAND report in the 1980s, studying 1970s battle simulations. Nuke-authorised commanders only ever used them in simulations once. In any ensuing simulation they would surrender rather than deploy the things, presumably because it's better to have your civilian populations alive and conquered/resentful than dead and ashy).

It's worth noting that the rise of all religion fundamentalist extremism in the 20th century _follows_ the post-WW2 rise and export of USA religious fundamentalism. It may have been heavily promoted to fight the "godless communists" but the long-term effects of this particular cold war relic are likely to echo for decades to come.

Have you ever done something for someone just because you thought they deserved or needed it? Did it make you feel good?
Would you have felt the same if they paid you for it?

Yes and yes.

Isn't giving to charity supposed to be spending your time or other resources and getting nothing but a good feeling and hope for a better world in return?
Would it really feel the same if it only cost you half and the other taxpayers the other half?

Absolutely not. Charity is first and foremost about making the world a better place not bullshit feelings.

I think the best example of why charity is not feelings is the conquest of the New World by the European powers of the day. While many of the would-be conquerors were driven by the usual mix of human ambitions like greed, power, status, etc, a number were driven by religious beliefs, particularly, the opportunity to save souls and to bring the many benefits of European civilization to the godless, ignorant heathens.

This had two loathsome consequences: contributing to the spread of Old World diseases which Native Americans had little resistance to and forcing vast numbers of people to adopt societal models which were ill-adapted to New World circumstances. I'm sure there were plenty of do-gooders who had all the right good feelings and hopes while they contributed to the deaths of tens of millions of people and created the near endless suffering that is still with us today.

I think your boxes could be checked off, but was it charity? No.

Even now, I still hear occasional stories of various would-be charities and missionaries going to various American Indian tribes and expecting the locals to behave in ways convenient to the would-be charitable do-gooders expectations (eg, "bible studies start at 6 pm sharp, why aren't the children coming in right on time?"). The wise ones learn not to do that.

Isn't giving to charity supposed to be spending your time or other resources and getting nothing but a good feeling and hope for a better world in return? Would it really feel the same if it only cost you half and the other taxpayers the other half?

Well, does it feel any better when none of your money is at stake and it is all taxpayer money apportioned out by a corruptible legislature?

Hey, I'd check your point history but since you are a little bitch that post as an anonymous coward I can't.

  Thanks again for proving your level of stupidity. It's real simple. When TIDES are HIGH, if MORE WATER is ADDED to the system, IT'S GOING TO FLOOD till the TIDE rescinds. When you have an island nation that all rose out of the ocean, things like that happen. I posted a link to a Nat Geo article say pretty much what I said. So you know more about it then the National Geographic reporter that studied it with scientists? I think I'll stick to those that are actually respected in the field and not a label-er who feels the need to resort to casting his homophobic fears on to others because his debate isn't really there.

Hey! Here is a link that says exactly what I said, go fucking figure? So where is all your links at? I guess they are "anonymous"!

If by "pretty much" you mean "exactly the opposite, sure. Otherwise, rage much? Your "link" talks about coastal flooding due to storm surge from a hurricane. As in the hurricane's winds are driving waves up onto the coast:
"The coastal flooding is occurring despite Hurricane Joaquin tracking well away from the East Coast.

Where these winds are blowing onshore, they're piling ocean water into the coastline, resulting in coastal flooding. Those same winds are also whipping up high surf on top of the high water, causing waves to break on sections of beach not typically affected by waves or tides during quiet weather."

COASTAL FLOODING has little to do with your '160" ' of rain red herring above, so you disproved your own non-point. But that's probably just because science is used by godless heathens as a tool of the great serpent to waylay the true believers - good Christians like you who can do no evil, admit no mistake and watch no major news other than Fox. Good Christian Republicans, none of whom voted for Bush Jr. to hear them tell it in 2011. Rage on nutter ned, rage on...

Back on topic, the Marshall islands are being flooded due to rising sea levels. No recorded amount of rain can cause an inundation of a tiny sandbar strip of land like that - it's simply too narrow with no bottlenecks to the ocean to backup and flood. I've been on sand bars and islands like that - there's simply no place that's more than a couple hundred yards from the sea, much less the miles it would take (absent a dam wall) to trap a high volume of water.

In short, you are wrong and you are dumb. Let's see if you are obstinate and refuse to admit you are wrong, perhaps with a dash of moving the goalposts to redefine what you said into something less demonstrably wrong - that's a classic Trump voter tactic for the advanced class once "Nuh UNH!" is mastered.

If, like Fonzie, you can't admit you are ruh ruh ruh wrong, just don't reply - that's concession enough.