Slashdot Mirror
Eco-Terrorism
shmert writes: "NYTimes has the scoop on some recent eco-terrorist activity. The most titillating being the torching of an SUV dealership. Wonder if this could ever lead to anything productive? Seems like I'd think twice about buying a new SUV if the tires got slashed every week. Although antics like this never really worked in those Carl Hiassen books." Are these sorts of actions justifiable? If one of the companies developing bio-engineered plants/animals messes up, the consequences to the rest of the world could be extreme and it's doubtful the company would be in any position to make restitution. Is it right to destroy property in an effort to prevent this sort of gambling with our quality of life? Is that the most productive way to deal with bio-engineering risks?
These are the people that are causing millions to starve in Africa *right now*. Through their more respected environmental groups, they put pressure on the Rockefellar and Ford foundations to stop financing the activities of Normal Borlaug. Borlaug is a nobel peace prize winner for his part in the green revolution. Basically he introduced high yield agriculture to India and Pakistan and practically saved hundreds of millions of lives in the 60's (this was in an atmosphere where pop biologists were saying we were all going to starve). He doubled and trippled yields of certain crops in those countries and brought them to self-sufficiency. He wanted to bring the same techniques to Africa, however the foundations that were supporting him (including the 'evil' WTO) bowed to pressure from eco-nazis. The eco-nazis basically made incoherrent arguments about how high-yield agriculture was bad for the environment (compare to slash-and-burn farming, the laternative, it isn't). Luckily, Jimmy Carter and a Japenese entrepenuer have taken up the cause to fund his work. This man is literally the greatest American nobel peace prize winner, and how many people know his name? I'll let you guess why. See http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/sp eech.htm for more.
My other favorite is the "global warming" thing. There are three studies on this, and the people that DID the studies say the studies are inconclusive! The planet has gone up by a half a degree in the last 50 years for crying out loud! And this is STILL a lot cooler than the earth was a millenium or two ago.
You know, if people would actually educate themselves as to what's going on, rather than listening to rumors and other environ-kooks as the SOLE place they get their info, there would be a lot less BS floating around.
Should we be doing stuff to help the environment? HELL YES! Should we be having leftist WACKOS teach children in schools that Bush is going to bring about the end of the world because we need a long term solution to the energy problems? HELL NO. It scares the shit out of the kids, and doesn't help the problem.
If that's the level of "information" they have to resort to, in order to get a point across (like burning SUVs, or destroying other property)....well, it just shows what small-minded little idiots they really are.
Nuff said.
I am writing to you today to warn you of a serious ecological threat posed by Microsoft. I have proof that at Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, WA, they are secretly growing genetically altered clones of Jon Katz in their PC's.
Furthermore, every box of Microsoft products you see on the shelves contains millions of microscopic genetically-altered pollen granules, sarcastically referred to as "bits". They even print on the box how many millions of these bits are in the box!
Please deal with this situation as you see fit.
Sincerely,
A Concerned citizen
One of the main objections people raise is that farmers that grow GM crops, or have their fields inadvertently contaminated by neighbouring farmers, can find themselves with unexpected problems down the line. E.g., they may find themselves beholden to the company they bought the seed from if that company has produced so-called 'terminator' (i.e., sterile) seeds which will not themselves produce seeds that can be resown next year. Assuming farmers want to keep producing crops, they have to keep paying for the privilege.
Note I have no objection to GM foods per se, however the potential for abuse (large multinational company with a fondness for enforcing IP patents on one hand, small farmer/business on the other) is there.
-dair (although going out and destroying test fields is a fairly pointless activity - the people who have done this in the past in the UK have often trampled the wrong field by mistake)
I drive one myself. A Cherokee.
Is my 1994 6-cylinder Jeep Cherokee an evil yuppie SUV, or is it a 4X4 I use to tow my sailboat, get to backwoods campgrounds, and (sometimes) to carry lots of stuff?
I bought my Jeep before the acronym "SUV" was in common use, and I plan to keep it until that fad is over. Y'all can debate the merits of your Hondas and Audis or Acuras or whatever. I'm sticking with my old blue box until I either can't get parts for it any more or my eyes get so bad that I can't drive safely.
- Robin
I mean, could you ask for a clearer sign that peaceful protest is useless? If you, personally, cannot be stopped from dumping oil in the ocean etc. by government means, what's left but terrorism? And if you take it as a challenge and begin to 'wage war' dedicatedly on the other side, do you honestly expect that your arrogance and stubbornness alone entitle you to win? I would suggest that this is a dangerous course of action that you should not follow.
That is a very interesting point. To what extent do multinational corporations resemble colonial powers maintaining commercial operations in your country? Plainly there are some cases where this is not relevant, but I've seen plenty of instances where the resemblance is striking. For instance, McDonalds in France, India etc.
Posted by polar_bear:
Well, isn't it special that you have your own unique definitions for words?
To quote Webster's - violence (n): intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.
So, yes, torching a SUV dealership is violence. It may not be as heinous as torching a SUV dealer, but it's still pretty damn violent. I'm sure if someone threw a few molotov cocktails into your living room window you'd think it was violent, even if you weren't home at the time.
Plus, there's really no way that they could be sure that no one would be hurt directly or indirectly by their action...so even if I agree with the idea that SUV's are wasteful and annoying, I find the idea of torching an SUV dealership pretty abhorent.
They could have just as easily made their point by picketing the dealership, or even chaining themselves to the SUVs to prevent their sale and to gain attention without any danger of hurting an innocent person.
Torching every SUV in the country isn't going to solve the problem anyway - people need to be educated about *why* gas-guzzling monster vehicles might be a Bad Thing(TM). If they're unable to educate people about the "danger" of SUVs or whatever, perhaps the human race should be allowed to pollute the environment to the point that we become extinct.
Posted by polar_bear:
The same thing could be accomplished by common people taking action by NOT buying SUVs.
Then we wouldn't have to resort to violence, the shareholders would lynch the bastards for us.
Seriously, though, while it's seductive to think of CEOs as evil bastards who should be shot in the head there's no reason to assume that a violent uprising is necessary when it's completely within the power of the masses to simply stop purchasing products from businesses that do harm to the environment or people in some fashion.
The problem is that 99% of the population are content to be lazy cattle that just consume, consume, consume. The Dead Kennedys put it best "Give Me Convenience or Death." That's about what the US has come down to. Fuck human rights, equal rights, the environment or anything else -- just make sure I get a six-pack and the [insert sport that's in season} game on TV.
Which is worse, the CEOs that take advantage of the mass mentality - or the mentality itself?
Is this suprising? During the Clinton administration we had to worry about those crazy "right wing" militias who wanted to blow up abortion clinics and overthrow the government. Now we have the crazy eco-terrorists running around blowing up SUV's and spray painting mink coats showing up in the news again. The media always concentrates on whatever group stands to raise the most interest with the present administration. All of these morons have always been out there, but Clinton wasn't likely to crack down on environment-nuts anymore than Bush is likely to crack down on gun nuts. So where does that leave the press but to rub a little salt in the wounds to stir up some news? William Randolph Hearst is attributed with saying "You supply the pictures and I'll supply the war." I think it fitting to know that the press hasn't changed much in the last century.
Like the subject says, arson is violence. In fact, asron is one of the most dangerous acts one can perform in an urban area.
Busting a window at a Starbucks or spray painting "ELF Rulz" on logging equipment is vandalism. Mass arson is violence.
Why is it OK for Ford to make those beasts?
1. This is the United States, and people and corporations are free to make what they want unless for some reason it's being legislated/outlawed.
2. There is a demand for Excursions and demand drives the market.
3. Consumers have the right to buy what they want, and in the last 10 years consumers have wanted larger and larger SUVs. The Big 3 automakers didn't build them and then advertise to make the market, the consumers started with the Jeep Cherokee and the Chevy/GMC Suburban and then the rest of the makers started to build them.
Unless there is a safety, monopoly or legal issue, I think the burden of responsibility should be on the consumer.
Why should it be illegal to make them?
Does the Consitution of the United States or any of the States within the U.S. say that making large vehicles is illegal?
Your comment that someone will die because an Excursion is "only thing that their sedentary, obese family will fit in?" is idiotic.
I drive a large vehicle (1991 Chevy full-size extended cab 350 truck) and safety on the road is a two way street, my observing the laws and other vehicles, and them doing the same.
What's the motivation behind punishing buyers of SUVs? Ever consider that folks living in rural parts may need a four-wheel vehicle to get to and from their homes (next time you eat something, remember us - your food didn't grow at Albertsons).
The problem isn't people who actually need to carry things and go off road, it's the urbanites who would never go off road (might get dirt on the tires!) or carry anything (might scratch the 'cargo area'). Instead, they treat these behemoths exactly the same way they would a passenger car, except that they aren't subject to the same taxation or emissions standards as a passenger car.
In other words, current law proviodes economic incentive to burn more gas and clog more roads in town. Perhaps trucks should be treated eaxctly like cars, but have tax breaks applied in cases where they are being used as trucks such as in rural areas.
The reason US auto makers are pushing trucks and SUVs so hard now is that their aggregated emissions figures look really good (trucks and SUVs don't count in those figures) but they can still avoid the costs of engineering for emissions controls.
If you burn down one mansion on the edge of a nature preserve and then are caught and jailed, everyone's going to forget about you in pretty quick time. If some unknown person keeps burning down mansions on the edge of nature preserves, well, that tends to stay in the headlines and keep people's attention for a bit longer.
Is this a wise approach? Got me, I'm no philosopher. But it's important to understand someone's reasoning before you criticize them on the basis of their conviction.
Not everything is a God-given right, and it seems to me that people who act as if the freedom to choose a huge fucking truck is some sort of immutable birthright are missing the point. This is a society we're running here, and that means sometimes the greater good simply outweighs your petty desires.
(Kudos for choosing the bike method, by the way.)
Someone at CBS MarketWatch determined that in just gasoline and insurance, SUV owners pay on average $250 more a month compared to owning a similarly priced car. Of course they suggested buying a car and putting the $250 saved into retirement funds. I personally wouldn't put that much money into something that's going to depreciate so quickly.
I personally wouldn't call a vehicle that is more likely to rollover, takes longer to stop, and is less manuverable than the average car, safe. Sure, you might be ok if you hit something smaller, but what about another SUV? Their stiff frames are derived from pickups and aren't generally designed to crumple and absorb the energy of the impact. Instead, it goes to the other vehicle and to the occupants. Add to that the observed 'I am invincible' attitude that many SUV drivers have, and it's no wonder the insurance industry actuaries jack up your premiums. I have seen SUVs going down the interstate at 60mph in rainstorms with only about 3 feet between them. Heaven forbid that the guy in front ever had to slam on his brakes. While it's funny to see that a majority of the vehicles in the ditch are SUVs after an ice storm, it's not funny to see one spinning out of control in front of you.
Unless you are a Hutterite, it's nothing more than a status symbol.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
That is odd. I've always heard SUV owners complaining about how they were being overcharged for insurance. I can also assure you that I do have my eyes open and do see lots of people do stupid things while driving. However, in bad conditions, the SUV drivers seem to be the ones that stick out. Maybe the guys who drive like idiots in sports cars get married and move up to SUVs?
I don't have anything against SUVs if they actually fulfill a day to day need. A couple friends of mine from college have them or have had them in the past usually because their jobs required it. One worked in the data rigs in the oil fields in western North Dakota. The other has to carry a lot of test equipment to building sites which sometimes don't have good roads. When the guy in ND moved to Houston, he parked the Suburban and bought a jeep or a car because it was too expensive to drive to work and he didn't want to risk some idiot w/o insurance hitting such an expensive vehicle. I am certainly not an environmentalist, but I can't help thinking about how much money people are wasting commuting in those things. It would be different if they were car pooling, but 90% of the time, I only see one person, maybe two, in them. Also, you _know_ that the SUV market was to provide status symbols when Cadillac and Lincoln started selling them. No one is going to take their Caddy or Mercedes off road and people in Dallas, LA, Vegas, etc. don't have the excuse of needing it for bad weather. I guess I'm a tightwad more than anything and just hate to see people blatantly waste money.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I was also wrong about the CRV. I read CRV but thought CRX. IMHO, a CRV and other mini-SUVs are not much more than a little 4wd station wagon with aggressive styling. In fact, I think pretty much describes Subaru's SUV. While you are still probably wasting money compared to a equivalent car, it's not as bad as a normal SUV.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
We need a larger vehicle to just fit in all of our stuff when we travel (suitcases, stroller, backpack, diaperbag, diapers, food, toys, presents, etc.). Small children use a LOT of stuff.
Been there, done that with two little kids in a econobox. See the earlier post. Hmm, I wonder how my parents got by with seven kids and a Pontiac?
Hydroplaning is going to be a function of the weight of the vehicle and the width of the tires. At one time a company was producing a dual tire sort of rim for sports cars because a guy in Europe noticed that their tiny cars and their super skinny tires could go faster than he could in his sports car in heavy rain. That evolved into modern rain racing tires. My '59 Oldsmobile didn't hydroplane or slide very much on ice either, but that was due to it being a 4500+ pound car. Your big SUV is not going to be any different because of it's mass. Unfortunately, it has a higher center of gravity, so it's easier to tip, just like many pickups are.
Large parts of the US are sparsely inhabited by urban standards, with low maintainance roads being the rule. ...... Many of the people I know who drive pickups or SUVs live in cities and rural areas that can't afford to take care of their own streets
Again, you are describing where I grew up, learned to drive and where my parents still live. My dad still says that the best thing to come along has been front wheel drive cars. He makes his living driving around on those type of roads all year round in a CAR. He uses a pickup when he needs to haul a lot of stuff or pull a trailer. Many people have the same needs and that's why they use pickups also. If the weather was really bad, the farmers dug out their own roads. Yet another reason to have a tractor (I remember helping do it too). I'm not slamming people who actually have a need for such vehicles. The vast majority of the people that own them don't use them to even a fraction of their capability (sounds a lot like Word doesn't it? big, bloated, expensive, everyone thinks they need it, but barely use them). I read a couple years ago that the average household income for a new car buyer is something like $60K. The average Suburban-class SUV owner is something like $150K. Because they are popular with urban & suburban people with more money than brains, the car companies jack the prices up and make huge profits compared to their other autos. Of course, this pisses off the people you describe because they generally earn less (hence not being able to afford road maintenance) and it's harder for them to afford a vehicle that they might actually need. That is unless they con the banker to include it along with the $200K loan for a new combine. =) [Or are Hutterites...the cash some of those colonies pull in is amazing.].
A lot of this would not be an issue if they were included with all the other cars for the CAFE averages. The auto companies would quickly find a way to make them more efficient, sell them only in appropriate areas, etc. As it is, SUVs and vehicles like the PT Cruiser are classified as light trucks and are exempt from CAFE standards. Like pickups, they don't induce fines due to a low fleet fuel economy average and the car companies can sell them at a higher price to urbanites that don't fully use them.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Dude, that's exactly the type of weather I learned to drive in (in one of your neighboring states). I also don't have a problem taking my wife and two kids on a trip in something the size of an Excel either. Either you're taking too much stuff or you don't know how to pack.
4WD doesn't help you that much on ice. As a kid I worked in a gas station and the owner always laughed when he had to take his old 2WD pickup to go pull the guys & their 4WDs out of the ditches because they thought 4WD would be so much better on ice. Of course the knotheads that would usually get stuck also had big fat knobby tires on their trucks too. Once in the ditch, the tires would ride up or push the snow in front of them and before they knew it, they were stuck because they got themselves high centered. Your points are still valid, but they are more excuses why these people don't need them and are even that more of a nuisance to the rest of the public. Being able to afford something doesn't automagically bless you with the knowledge of how to operate it.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Tell me, how well does 4WD help when you're trying to stop your massive SUV?
It's not going to help at all. Anti-skid brakes, good tires, and even weight distribution will help much more than 4WD will. He will get better traction due to the vehicle's weight, but so do lots of big old land yaughts(sp). But due to the increased mass, they generally take longer to stop.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Depending on where you live, how often does that really happen? In moderately deep snow, yes a 4WD vehicle is going to have an advantage. But not on ice. I've seen way too many SUVs and Jeeps whose drivers thought that spinning like tops and ending up in the ditch and/or hitting someone else. For all but the most extreme conditions, a front wheel drive car and an alert driver with a clue is sufficient. I've driven through enough blizzards to know that. My father spends a lot of time on the road (500-1000 miles a week before he retired..probably only 300 now) mainly in rural areas where 'on-road conditions often turn into off-road conditions'. Unless he needed to pull a trailer or haul a bunch of stuff with a pickup, he used a car and has said even he can't understand why anyone would need a SUV.
Look at the demographics of those who are buying SUVs. They are usually upper middle class & up people in urban and suburban areas (again not counting Hutterites =). These people are buying for status and for a perceived need that they _might_ use it for once or twice a year, if ever, instead of what they actually use it for on a day to day basis. Sure, having a 4WD may help you if you're in an area that gets socked with lots of snow. Get a Subaru or an AWD Audi if you don't think a FWD can hack it. But what's the excuse for those in the sunbelt states? I mean, if I bought vehicles on some rare need, I'd buy a Hummer with a .50 cal machine gun on the top so I could mow down rioters and drive over the pieces of shit.
If your CRV is only getting between 25 & 30, something is wrong with it. My parents' big ass Buick Park Avenue gets a consistent 28. My Mitsubishi econobox gets 35. You should be getting at least that if not more. I've hauled a lot of stuff in a similar Hyundai Excel (mattresses, a freezer, 10+ computers & monitors, dressers, a swingset, etc.) and even pulled a U-haul trailer cross country over the Rockies w/o any problems. Renting a small trailer from time to time isn't that big of a hassel.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
You have every right to buy as much safety and/or luxury as you can afford, and I would encourage you to do so.
That might be fine if there wern't real costs to
the environment that are paid by us all. Should
factories be allowed to build as powerful (read:
polluting) chemical treatments as they want? What
happens to the planet when we permit such
atrocities?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
They use something else that works just a well, but without killing the ozone.
Don't worry about the freon or its closely related substitutes escaping freon from a fire, worry about the freon that reacts in the fire which forms a very lethal gas.
A sniper kills an abortion provider in Buffalo, NY, because he believes that abortion is murder, and that his single act of murder would prevent hundreds of children from being killed.
Was it justifiable?
An ecoterrorist group torches an SUV dealership because they believe that the increased fuel consumption disproportionately contributes to the destruction of the environment, and that their single act of pollution will prevent many others.
Was it justifiable?
If you can answer 'yes' to either of those questions, then you better damn well feel comfortable supporting the other. Left-wing or right-wing, the goals are irrelevant. You'd better be prepared to defend all uses of violent resistance, or agree that none are acceptable.
As a side question, what the hell did this have to do with "News for Nerds"?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Exactly which -isms is this to be acceptable for and which not?
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Maybe they were listed right next to each other in the Yellow Pages.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
1) Actually if you read the studies SUVs are LESS safe for occupants that mid and large size "cars." The ONLY circustance where SUVs do better is when they're involved with a collision with a significantly smaller vehicle. However SUVs have very poor handling, poor stopping power, and tend to roll over very easily. SUV are actually LESS safe.
2) Most SUVs are ironically quite small on the inside compared mini-vans. If you want utility buy a mini-van.
I suspect SUV's probably don't hold up well either for city/suburban driving. Truck engines are meant to be high torque, and have all of the power at low speeds. They can also do highway driving pretty well at higher speeds (but with low fuel economy as your pushing the engine relatively hard doing a totally different job). Not mention the waste of 4 wheel drive in highspeeds. Also, pickup trucks (and SUVs) aren't neccessarly designed for stop and go -- which you find in suburbs and cities. This puts extra stress on the engine, brakes, and the alike doing a job they weren't engineered to do. Minivans are the same way with innercity driving -- they don't hold up. Some taxicab companies tried them out for a while, and found they just don't work out -- they fail at early rates compared to typical taxicab cars.
But just think of the poor researchers of the next wave, assuming these mutated strawberries survive: It's going to really throw them for a loop and screw up a lot of their theories when they find Frog DNA in a strawberry. Could set them back years or even centuries trying to figure it out, coming to the realization that "Hey, somebody's already been screwing with these berries. Who the..."
Didn't we already see the dangers of mixing frog DNA with other species in Jurassic Park?? :)
Since should you determine what I should drive? Hmm?
Um, hello? One of these right-wing terrorists blew up a building with hundreds of people in it! Have you heard of any eco-terrorists doing that?
My "rice rocket" has 200 000km on it as of this month. It's a 1991 Nissan NX 1600 t-top.
My wife and I are avid backpackers during the summer months. Consequently, this car has been to hell and gone.
Memorable experiences:
- 20km up one logging road, I surfed the car across a massive sandspit created by a flash flood a month earlier. It was only after I crossed over that I started thinking about what I'd do if another flash flood came along while we were oot and aboot.
- some freaking 60km down a logging road loop (we'd just come back from a side-road that lead into 4WD territory to the trailhead. 4WD? Pah! A skilled driver can do anything until the rocks get too big and too numerous to move!). Hit a construction zone. Dunno what the hell they were constructing, but the road became a car-width wide, and at least a foot deep of fine clay silt. *Almost* turned back... but then the guy on the grader waved us on. So I went for it. Once started, couldn't stop...
- Misjudging a heave, and nearly toasting the oil pan. One of the very few times I wanted more clearance.
- Backing the car down a car-width wide logging road that was carved into the side of a mountain. Couldn't see any ground whatsoever out the driver's window. Damn near shit myself.
- Crossed an abandoned wood bridge. Had to reconstruct parts of it using logs and loose boards. Again, didn't really consider the going-back consequences...
Anyway, point is, SUVs are for nancies. If you're a halfway decent driver, damn near any road is passable with a 2WD car.
(Shoulda seen what we could do with the Chevette. We really didn't care what happened to it. The Nissan... well, honestly, we try to be nice to it...)
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Here in Western Australia, we have forest protesters. Nice idea, but the implementation is a little... well, lacking.
For example, they tend to litter. And to track a disease known as ``dieback'' through the forests because they don't take care to clean down their vehicles. And to chop down a lot of little trees in order to build a platform from which to protest about the decimation of big trees. What? Use branches instead? Oooh, we never thought of that... nor did we think that the locals, who depend on the forest products for their own livings as well as the survival of their townships, might be a tad upset by us disrupting their livelihood. Of course, digging out culverts to stop logging trucks is de rigeur, but the environmental damage which this does is not important. And so on.
I firmly believe that we ought to leave some forests - large areas of them - strictly alone, because the fact remains that we don't really know what forests are for or how they work, and messing with mysteries before they're unravelled is generally not a survival tendency. However, a consistent, rational and energetic education and lobbying campaign is going to do a whole heap more towards this aim than the vandalism supposed-short-cut. The real motivation of many eco-terrorists is instant heroism, a ``usefulness high,'' and it shows in their actions.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Maybe that's true if you're talking about carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and so on. It's totally untrue if you're talking about carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. But, of course, that's all BS some whacked-out pot-smoking European tree-huggin' hippies thought up to threaten the freedom of all patriotic 'mericans to do anything they want, screw the rest of the world . . .
And as for having your life saved, I gotta ask - what if the drunk was driving a Suburban as well, as he should have been by your logic?
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Close. I'm not picking on you, but this is funny enough to me to post the complete lyrics:
Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Well it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
(spoken)
The Federal Highway Comission has ruled the Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
(reprise)
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American pride,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with them super-high beams,
She's a squirrel-squashing, deer-smacking driving machine,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Doubtful.
Of course torching a dealership is RIDICULOUS, and the fact that this is portrayed as the approach that regular environmentalists (rather than whacko extremists) is taking is absurd. Every belief/movement has psychos that take things a little too far.
BTW: For your heart wrenching story about the SUV saving your life, there are thousands who are killed when their reasonable sized sedan is crushed by mammoth SUVs (which is usually coupled by grossly inflated egos and sense of immortality of the driver. How many of us have had SUVs riding our bumper despite the SUV having twice the braking distance). The idea that we should all get SUVs because there ARE SUVs out there is ridiculous. Personally I think there should be weight restrictions on vehicles allowed on most public roads unless it is for commercial (and thereby more necessary than soccer mom commuting for groceries) reasons.
BTW: This vehicle meets ULEV, and not the bogus super-monstrous vehicle category.
Remember Giordano Bruno as well as Galileo and Copernicus. He was incinerated because he wouldn't back down from the truth.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
God forbid anyone want to carry something in their car.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
The SUV that I often drive was gifted to my wife from my mother in law. I didn't buy it, yet I still don't have enough for solar panels. Strange. Wait, maybe if I renig on my student loans!
Too inexpensive not to have in place by law? Cloudy winter days => cold showers? Cough. Should go over real well in Wisconsin.
How hard would it be to have every business to have solar energy? Well, it'd put me right out of business. The small business I worked for for the past five years- it'd put them out of business too. Humm, how hard would it be to consolidate all commererce into big multinational corporations? All we have to do is put you in charge.
The claim that 'no matter how much the initial investment they will eventually pay back their cost' is absurd, yet you have the gall to lecture me about investment.
I don't tend to invest in anything. I won't need it, since I'm helping to bring upon the end of the world.
How long do we have, now, anyway? It so depresses me to look at the greenpeace website. It makes me want to cry. *sniff*. Those poor whales. *sniff*. Wait, no, sorry, I can't detect any emotional response. You'll have to resort to reason. Be careful, it could be dangerous to your cause.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
I was looking for a specific essay on this subject, that I've read before, but alas, I can't find it tonight.
See William Barhill, Focus: Early Warnings; Identifying Violence-Prone Police Officers, WASH. POST, Aug. 11, 1992,
at B5 ("The prolonged, unremitted stress associated with law enforcement often results in a build-up of undischarged anger
for a chance to explode").
In 1993 'only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
Newsweek, November 15, 1993
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Since you seem well-informed, I have a few questions.
(1) Aren't seeds cheap to the point of absurdity? I seem to remember a few hundred seeds cost, say, under a dollar, a puny percentage of the price of sowing and reaping the crops. I would think paying that dollar every year and in return getting seeds more resistant to pesticides and therefore easier to care for makes a lot of sense, and isn't anything like the indentured servitude anti-GM folks claim.
(2) In what possible way could these seeds harm the environment? Have there been any actual cases of this happening? Why are people so emotional about this issue?
People have been breeding seeds for various characteristics for centuries. I don't see this as being such a big deal. I think that if we could alter genes and come up with better results, we should do it. Heck, if anyone would offer to alter my genetic makeup so I could lose weight without much loathed diet and exercise changes, I'd be the first person in line. That's the sort of thing this promises - technology that can bring more happiness to the world.
D
----
I can't stand SUVs because they're ugly. My Mercedes has just as many luxury gadgets, but rides and handles a lot better. I drove a Mercedes ML SUV during a Mercedes road-test event, and although it accelerated fine, it was noticably tippy on the corners. And I understand that's one of the better-handling SUVs.
D
----
The American people are pretty radical? We don't accept authority as proof for a claim?
... we consume it on a daily basis, whether we are omnivores or vegitarians, every cell in our bodies is constructed from materials taken from the destruction of other lifeforms.
What I actually said was "[...] as a whole the American people are pretty practical [...]" I said nothing at all about the American people being radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary. Indeed, you can't justifiably say any such thing, since the land is composed of numerous radicals, liberals, conservatives, and reactionaries, with none of those groups having a majority (as evidenced by the results of the last election).
It sounds like you need to talk to some Europeans, or at the very least see what other countries are like before assuming we're a bunch of progressive radicals with the human race's best interests at heart. Seriously.
It seems you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension, and stop putting words into my mouth which I never said (nor typed). I not only have spoken with Europeans, I have lived many years in various places all over the world, including Europe. I too find the United States to be annoyingly conservative, even reactionary, but that does not change what I said one bit. Americans as a whole, be they liberal or conservative, radical or ractionary, are generally a fairly practical people and need some convincing before they will simply accept something at face value. Once convinced of something they may be less inclined to change their views than others...then again, they may not.
And fetishization of property only suits those with property, which may explain why I'm not as enchanted with the notion of sacred property as you seem to be.
I never called property sacred. It isn't, any more than anything else in this world is. Life isn't sacred either
What I did say was that I would defend my property if some clown like you tries to steal or vandalize it. And that if some clown such as you were to attack my fundamental freedoms then you'd better be prepared to kill me, because that is the only way I would willingly submit to the kind of authoritarian autocracy the sort of "eco-terrorism" being espoused by these imbecils implies.
You can accuse me of fetishizing my freedom, and perhaps even be correct, but of property, merely because I deny you the privelege of taking or destroying what is mine? Please.
And that is the final morsel I shall feed you, troll.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm one of the first (and probably loudest) to complain about the current intellectual property cartels and government enforced monopolies that threaten our free market system and, more importantly, our basic freedoms themselves. And while at some point revolution may be required to set things right, espousing such, much less persuing it in violent fashion, before every other nonviolent, legal means has been exhausted is just plain irresponsible and self-defeating.
Say what you like about Americans because they don't fawn all over your particular radical agenda, but as a whole the American people are pretty practical, and if you are to convince them of your views you must, in turn, provide practical proof, or at least strong evidence, of what you espouse. And no, appealing to authority isn't enough -- American's are notoriously unwilling to believe authorities for authority's sake -- you must provide cold, hard facts.
When the Boston Tea Party took place a majority (not all, but a majority) of the people were already convinced that they were being taxed into bankrupcy without representation, and with no means within the system to do anything about it. They were left with only two options: revolt, or be taxed into starvation. They chose revolt.
You, and those who espouse your, shall we say, questionable views, have many choices. You can speak out (freedom of speech is under attack, but not yet dead), you can protest, you can lobby government, you can raise consumer awareness.
But if you ever try to torch one molecule of my property I will do everything in my power to destroy you financially, physically, and mentally. As a citizen of a nominally free country there is nothing that compells me to adopt your point of view, and if you are thinking of using violence to coerce me into adopting your point of view you'd better be prepared to use deadly force, because that is exactly what I will use to defend my freedom against such an attack.
What is sad, really, are the people who can't be bothered to vote, can't be bothered to educate themselves on how our (still nominally) democratic system works and how to be effective in it, who choose instead to escalate every little cause to violent revolution before having even bothered trying any more peaceful and reasonable approaches in getting their views heard. Or, having had their views rejected, feel somehow that this gives them the right to undemocratically coerce the unbelieveing majority to adhere to their notions anyway through force of violence.
In a democratic system, even a nominally democratic system such as exists in much of the world today, the majority sets policy. If that majority happens to be wrong about a particular policy (e.g. the War on Drugs, allowing obscene copyright terms, allowing patents, etc.) then that is indeed a problem. However, I will take our dysfunctional democracy over your terrorism and autocracy any day, no matter how stupid the resulting policies are.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well that's a strange analogy
These reduction of those things would have other added benefits too, like reduced traffic, less suburban sprawl, revitalizing urban areas/cities, etc.
The solution is pretty simple, raise gas prices with gas taxes. Europe's gas prices are not magical, they're entirely the result of taxes. It works remarkably well. For instance, placing various restrictions against SUVs may reduce the number of SUVs on the road, but the fact of the matter is that Americans will still burn a hell of a lot more fuel than they need to for a number of reasons. First, and probably even more significant than SUV consumption, is the fact that most Americans commute further than they need to to work and other places. Second, relatively few Americans use mass transit. Third, most Americans, including most so-called environments drive excessively wasteful cars of various sorts. From sports cars, to cars with more HP than it takes to get the job done, to those 20+ year old cars, to Cadillaces, and others. Fourth, many Americans drive simply because they like to drive, rather than taking the train, for instance, they'll drive. Fifth, American car companies have little incentive to develop and manufature highly efficient cars _today_ because Americans express little demand for it. Fifth, few Americans carpool and share rides.
Raising gas prices by means of levying a significant tax on gas would make great strides to solve these problems, and do it in a far more equitable and reasonable manner than burdensome regulations. This way, those who really really do need or enjoy a more intensive vehicle, can still have it, for the most part, they'll just have to pay for it. This is the way everything else in our society works; the right to burn cheap fuel at cost to our highways, health, and the evironment is not written a right at all. It may hurt some people, namely the "poor", but not as much as you might expect. Many people can and would move, finding the costs of living somewhere else exceed the costs. What's more, the demand for mass-transit would rise, making it more accessible, cheaper, and easier for all.
What I would suggest is gradually scaling in taxes over a period of 10 years or so. Enough so that the various parties (e.g., transit authorities, builders, consumers, employers, etc) can plan around it.
/BEGIN RANT
Of course, most Americans would disagree, they would rather blame someone else than admit that they themselves are very much of the problem. They're all for the environment, until it comes to having to make sacrifice more significant than lip service; as long as (they think) someone else has to do the sacrificing it is fine with them.
Me, I drive an SUV (97' Pathfinder), albeit a fairly low-impact one, so I'm hardly a saint. But then again, I'm not running around throwing stones at SUVs that happen to be twice as large and gas consuming as mine. Your car (whomever flames me) may be 60% more efficient than mine, but I'd be willing to bet that you fall into almost every one of my earlier points (hell, you may even waste more fuel than me when all is said and done). Nonetheless, I would support any politician that was honestly willing to tax gas, because it makes sense and it is ultimately necessary. Whereas bitching and whining about how I, or any other SUV driver, my car is 60% worse than yours, ignoring that you personally consume 5000% more energy than almost every other person on this earth is just plain silly, not to mention the fact that it misses the bigger picture.
/END RANT
Sounds reasonable enough, but what are you going to do when all the drunk drivers are careening around in enormous SUVs? Maybe buy a tank?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I'm actually commuting on a bicycle, thank you very much.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I was trying to point out that this logic leads to a pointless and wasteful arms race. But now, just to be a smartass: What are you going to do when all the drunk drivers are careening around in tanks?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I take issue with calling torching a car dealership "violence". Unless you feel SUVs have some inner spirit which is hurt by the attack. Violence to me is physically hurting a human being.
Calling vandalism terrorism cheapens the term, much as calling Bill Gates a Nazi cheapens the word nazi.
-=Julian=-
There is a danger of having a few companies controlling the seed market through their sterile seeds I think there would be a greater danger in having genetically engineered foodstuffs that can reproduce uncontrollably. If some new engineered seed doesn't work out (The people who create this stuff are careful but they are also human beings and fallable) then one can just stop making it, but if it can reproduce then we may end up with annother kudzu (Whoops, and that mistake didn't require any special whizzy technology).
People who believe that they know everything there is to know about genetics and can create with impunity are wrong, also people who belive that all genetic engineers are like Dr. Frankenstein are also wrong.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
As I understand it the new coolant is much safer to the environment than Freon. So DuPont's finantial interest and the environmental interest were aligned, explain to me again why this is a bad thing?
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
but the wackjobs who were out there burned up a bunch of logging equipment, effectively releasing all sorts of toxins into the air and spilling diesel and motor oil all over the ground.
So it sounds liek they were successful.
As nasty as the brief pollution may have been, the trees stood a better chance of surviving than if the logging equipment had remained intact, now wouldn't they?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Hey, I'm not agreeing with their tactics, just pointing out that (despite seeming contradiction by their pollution) they might be successful for their immediate goal (which was to keep the trees from being cut, and perhaps to discourage companies from wasting time and money trying again)...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Well, we're getting tired of the "have-nots" dictating to the rest of us what is and isn't fair, and using a government that we finance as an mechanism for preventing us from living the lives we choose
History would dictate that self-preservation alone should motivate the upper classes to temper the conspicuousness of their consumption (and the obnoxiousness of their contempt).
There's a lot more poor people than rich people, and the poor people have little to lose.
When the poor people are convinced that the rich are depriving them of living the lives THEY choose, there's usually big trouble...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The problem with the whole safety/snow/off road theories is that they don't hold up in practice.
Safety: SUVs are, as a whole, more unsafe than either cars, minivans or pickup trucks. They are exempt from the safety regulations that cars and minivans must conform to. They roll far more easily than pickup trucks.
Snow: This is hard, because it's a subjective call. But, I have driven three vehicles in heavy snow and ice: a front wheel drive Toyota Tercel, a rear wheel drive Toyota longbed pickup (both unloaded and fully loaded) and a Ford Explorer in 4wd and rear wheel drive mode. By far, in either mode, the explorer was the worst. It handled like a drunk elephant. My choices, based on experience, would be the fully loaded pickup, the tercel, the empty pickup, the ford in four wheel drive. Don't even try to take one of those things out in RWD. It was fishtailing at 5mph (on a road that I took the tercel down, same conditions, at 20mph)
Unfortunetly I don't know of any close-to-objective comparisons of vehicles in snow, but I've found in conversations that a fair number of long haul non-18-wheeler drivers (and more than a few truckers as well) agree with me. Or are too scared to disagree with me, but I"m not that scary.
I also think (again, personal opinion) that SUVs give (some) people a false sense of security. I don't even want to think about how many SUVs I've seen pass me going 55 or 65 on the highway in snow and ice. Or the number I've seen plowed into the side of the road at curves and said highway.
Off-road: this would be a really nice theory, but...
In the bay area, at least, I'd be shocked if 20% of the SUVs I see ever see more mud than that found in your typical grocery store parking lot.
4wd can be found on station wagons, minivans and pickup trucks. Ground clearance is similar on pickup trucks and some station wagons. All of these vehicals are safer than SUVs. For you and for the other drivers.
They also all get better gas milage than an SUV with similar capacity.
The real reasons (though most won't admit it) that (most) SUV drivers get SUVs is because they are "Cool" and because of conspicuous consumption. If you can afford to gas that behemoth (esspecially in California, where gas prices have been two dollars and some cents per gallon for the past several months) for the morning commute, obviously you're fairly well off.
Personally, I'd rather people buy a nice BMW or a brand new volvo if they want to show off their dicksize, erm, I mean wallet size. It would be safer for the rest of us and a hell of a lot more environmentally sound, too.
rark!
Either that, or they're English :)
You wouldn't be assuming that everyone on Slashdot is American, would you?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Burning an SUV dealer to help the environment? The supposed "eco-terrorists" probably caused more pollution during that act than all of the SUV's on that lot would have caused during their operating lifetime. Think burning rubber, think burning seat material (usually has Poly Vynyl Chloride in it), etc. Not to mention that all of those vehicles will just be replaced, so they've done nothing but increase the SUV manufacturer's profits. And it will take more energy and more materials to build the replacement vehicles and rebuild the dealership, which is also counterproductive. The SUV dealer will file an insurance claim, so they won't be out that much. People who want an SUV will just buy one from another dealer until the dealership is back up and running again.
Eco-moronism is more an accurate term to describe this kind of stupidity than eco-terrorism. In order to be terrorism it would have to frighten people into changing their behavior. This kind of arson is more along the lines of senseless vandalism. It is not going to convince anyone to change their behavior. It is more likely to damage this kind of cause, because people will not be sympathetic to it if this kind of behavior is associated with it.
The difference is twofold. First, in terms of function, most sports cars (ignoring the Lamborghinis that get 2 MPG) get better mileage than an SUV, and are actually safer, as well (lower center of gravity, less likely to roll, MUCH better reaction time for acceleration, breaking, steering, and so on). Second, as a status symbol, sports cars are at least up front about being phallus replacements. How many idiots do you know that have SUVs or monster full-size pickups, yet never take them off the highway, or haul anything more than junior's bicycle?
But the main problem I have with SUVs is that the moron manufacturers are screwing with Darwin, keeping the SUV owners from getting what they deserve.
The planet of Long Island. When the private power company went bust, LI municipalities took over electric service. Prices dropped.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
It's interesting - I read that far, and had an entirely different interpretation. I was thinking "if a bio company screwed up, the worst possible consequence would be that bio-engineering would be outlawed". Sure we're going to make mistakes... we'll even wipe out many more species. But we aren't going to come even *close* to wiping out as many species that other species or "natural" events have pushed out through history.
The difference is, an intelligence now has it's hand on the tiller. There are two options - let random chance continue, and roll dice for the future of life, or load the dice as best we can, from the microscopic sequencing of DNA to the macroscopic watching for killer asteroids and seeding life throughout the solar system and galaxy with space travel.
I have just as low an opinion of the mass intelligence of humanity as you - but the difference is, if my species is wiped out, I want it to be due to our action, not our inaction and a random "act of nature".
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
The American people are pretty radical? We don't accept authority as proof for a claim?
Sweet God.
We are, actually, a very reactionary, conservative country, and we tend to do things simply because someone tells us to (see the Milgram study for an example). A land of churches, right?
It sounds like you need to talk to some Europeans, or at the very least see what other countries are like before assuming we're a bunch of progressive radicals with the human race's best interests at heart. Seriously.
And fetishization of property only suits those with property, which may explain why I'm not as enchanted with the notion of sacred property as you seem to be.
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
Some Militias certainly *did* engage in a lot of criminal activity. Many of them have as a central tenet of their charters to overthrow the government, which they consider illegal. There are cases of bank robbery, harassing people with bogus liens, supporting anti-abortion terrorists, etc.
As for eco-terrorists being Marxists or anarchists... well, I don't doubt some of them are. But look at the numbers here. I'd be more concerned about the so-called "Captains of Industry," those corporate leaders, who openly show contempt for the people and laws of this Country in their quest for profits. Look at situations and places like Love Canal, Romulus, and countless other places where big companies poisoned an area, and then left without even bothering to inform the local residents of the danger. You want your eyes opened? Look at the TRIS - Toxic Release Inventory System published by the EPA; there's even a nice search by city interface provided by another organization.
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
At a minimum, it's going to take irrefutable proof of anthropogenic contributions to global warming and undeniable evidence of consequential harm. We don't have that right now, and we won't for a long time, if ever. Will it be too late then? Maybe.
See subject line.
Too bad THIS cure would apply to all of us...
-StaticLimit
Even if it's well intentioned, the problem with vigilante justice is that there is rarely any justice in it. Just emotion. And thus it usually targets the wrong victim through ignorance.
And where are you getting your "Facts"?
scientists....know enough to be given billions and billions of dollars, free reign to do whatever they want, and a massive police force available to beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees?
Where do scientists enlist this "massive police force" you talk about? Is there a 1-800 number I can call to get the crap beat out of some eco-terrrorists?
For instance, in San Diego at the biotech industry conference last week, your tax dollars paid for a huge police presence so that cops could dress up as black bloc and march next to peaceful protesters.
To avoid another disaster like we had in Seattle at the WTO meeting... and I don't agree with the WTO nor the tacticts used by the SPD. Fact remains if you have people who are willing to kill others (ELF), then the police should have the presence to ensure the protest remains peaceful.
Your tax dollars paid for hundreds to be ticketed for holding signs and walking down the sidewalk.
Hundreds? I read there were only hunderds of total protesters. So unless all of them were arrested, then your are probably pulling numbers out of your ass, or your "heard" that there were 100s arrested. Either way, CNN probably got it closer to the truth.
In Oakland, two popular redwood forest activists were bombed in their car. The FBI's involvement in the case is highly suspect...
The FBI's involvement is suspect according to whom? Was this published in the non-biased 'Humbolt Environmental Flyer'? Just because someone says something is suspect, or you read it in print somewhere, doesn't mean it's true.
In the Pacific Northwest, police repression against environmental groups is huge, and is backed by right-wing industry front groups.
Wooooo... those amorphous 'right-wing front groups'. Again where was this published? Or did you "hear" this was the case or read it in some propaganda flyer?
Oh my bad, I just realized that since you got this information from the vererable sf.indymedia.org therefore it must be the "truth".
At least when I read the NYtimes I realize that it is a "liberal" paper and is biased as such.
There hasn't been any freon in cars for a while. All new cars are freon-free. They use something else that works just a well, but without killing the ozone.
Your exactly right - What we have seen with SUVs is the law of Unintended Consequences.
People will always find a way to get what they want. Ban SUVs? Sure, and the next thing you know, people will drive 2 ton trucks, that until this point have been used for business
Ban those? There is always Tractor Trail cabs
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
The problem with Eco Terrorism is this: It leads to reverse terrorism.
If Ecoterroists burned the SUV of some of the folks I know, their "Innocent Media Spokesman" would have to watch his butt for a LONG time. When you play outside the "rules" don't be surprised of other folks come out to play too
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I said it above, and I'll repeat it here: Start destroying people's stuff, and eventually, you aren't going to live through one of the attempts.
Taxes are just a slower method of destroying people's stuff. The end result is inevitable: a civil war. Hope that's what you had in mind.
"You can bet that the right capitalist will offer these services, with lower real value, at higher prices and with zero certainty."
So governments offer better service at a lower total cost than companies? What planet does this happen on?
If you mean taxing other people so you can get free (or reduced-price) stuff for yourself or your friends, then there's a word for that. Stealing.
Before: The energy market was not a free market, and blackouts were rare, but not unheard of.
After: The energy market was not a free market and blackouts are more common, but still rare.
Conclusion: When there's not a free market for energy, sometimes there are blackouts.
Electricity is not a free market, and even if it were, you have mentioned nothing about the total cost of the service. Does it get subsidies from taxes or tax exemptions? You didn't say.
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "right wing extremists".
Ah. But you said better service, not worse service. Canada saves money on health care by offering worse service and stealing drug formulas from US companies. Quite an achievement.
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "insane" and "their funding reads like a "who's who" list of the worst corporate polluters, rights abusers, etc".
When are you people going to figure this out?
Not a troll. Just a guy that knows that stealing is wrong, even when you have the government do it for you. Even when you really want to. Even when you "dont believe their should be health-related IP of any kind". Even when you can rationalize it a hundred different ways. Stealing is wrong.
I also like the fact that I can get whatever medical service I want, exactly when I want it, with no waiting for a government waiting list. I want to see a doctor today, I go. And all I have to do is pay for it. What a simple, wonderful system.
"You cannot 'steal' an idea."
Someone works for years and years to develop a drug. You then steal their formula, and produce the drug yourself, leaving them out in the cold.
You haven't stolen their idea, you've stolen their WORK. Stealing is wrong. Even when you're stealing something "not everyone can afford".
Might want to look up whether you're really correct first. Start by debunking everything you read at junkscience.com. And saying "they're all liars funded by evil corporate interests" doesn't count. (E.g. The world is flat because the people who say it's round "are all liars and funded by evil corporate interests". "It's just common-sense." :)
OTOH, they probably torched it with ethanol rather than dirty gasoline! It all balances out...
"Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
This was the most ignorant thing Carl Sagan ever said. It is also against the very fundamental notion of what the truth means. The idea that one set of truths should require a different set of prrof then another is against the scientific method as well as as against common sense. Either something is true or it's not just because the you deem the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" does not mean jack shit.
War is necrophilia.
To sabotage plants and kill people?
War is necrophilia.
You seem to be prfoundly confused.
I have studied meteorology quite a bit and am very much aware how complex of a system it is and how difficult it is to prove anything then you have a billion variables to work with. It's not like proving that the sun is going to come up tommorow I think everybody agrees on that.
Regardless of how easy or difficult something is to prove though your contention that the level of proof needed is somehow dependent on the hypothesis is against the scientific method. I will repeat once again. The level of proof required has nothing to do with wheather or not you think the "claim" is extraordinary.
As for the atmosphere I think I will side with the meteorologists on this one. Sure there will be some disagreement and nitpicking but amongst people who have studied the weather all their lives, actuall do research etc there is remarkable agreement that something really weird is happening. They disagree about the scale, causes about specifics, long term effects etc but there is a concensus nevertheless.
These people will get paid no matter what their research shows and in fact will get paid much more if they claim there is no such thing as global warming (industry is always ready to fund research that says that and the concervative press is always ready to pay scientists who say that). They are not profiting from saying that there is global warming.
You can if you choose take the word of an industrialist or a political talking head over the word of a scientist that is your choice. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your beliefs are somehow based on science or proof. I doubt very much if you could plot a weather chart, analyze the 500 MB winds, or draw conclusions from a skew-T chart. All those tasks are pretty trivial for most amateur weather enthusiasts. Climatology on the other hand is much much more difficult egg to crack.
I know I don't have the scientific background to make predictions or conclusions on the meager press releases that are printed in most media and I doubt that you know more then me about the weather.
So it comes down to who you believe. You must judge the motives, agendas and the qualifications of the people who speak on this issue. I would never let Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly, a politician, or a CEO of a corporation do brain surgery on me and I would never take their advice on meteorological trends. They are equally ignorant in both brain surgery and meterology.
War is necrophilia.
No it is you who seemed to have confused my point.
Here I will try to restate them again.
1) All truths require sufficient evidence to prove. The fact that a hypothesis is deemed "extraordinary" by you or carl sagan or anybody else should never be a foundation for deciding the level of evidence required. If there is enough evidence then it's true no matter what the claim is. What you and sagan want to do is to keep shifting the ground in the debate. When proof is submitted you simply claim the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" and dismiss the evidence as being insufficient. It's not scientific. What you think of the hypothesis has nothing to with anything.
2) On the atmosphere: I am 99.999999% positive that you have not actually done any atmospheric research, that you have not actually read a majority of the research papers on global warming, and that even if you actually attempted to read one or two you would not have the required knowledge to try and understand what was being said. Not having any faculty to actually understand the subject yourself you have chosen to believe a set of people who have the same political belief as you. You delude yourself into thinking that somehow the opinions of those people are informed (even though they have no meteorology degrees) and that those opinions are based on science (even though they are not). You also pull out the "extraordinary" claims card and feel free to disregard any study or evidence which does not fit your political belief.
The only people who are qualified to make judgements on the atmosphere are the people that study it every day. A significant majority of those people believe that global warming is real and that it can do tremendous amount of damage. You can go ahead and take the opionons of talk show hosts above those of the people who actually work in the field and that's your right, but don't go pretending it's based on anything but word of mouth.
War is necrophilia.
No, M$ donates much more to the Republicans:
1 .a sp?txtName=microsoft
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/asp/softcomp
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
The problem I have with the most vocal of the environmentalist folks, and the Earth First/ELF/ALF types, is their use of FUD tactics. The term 'frankenfood' is not meant to educate or inform the general public, its meant to SCARE the general public. By generating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt regarding genetic engineering, they can shut it down, and increase their own influence.
FUD is FUD. I hate when Redmond does it (GPL will ruin the software industry!), I hate when Jerry Falwell does it (Gays will ruin America!), and I hate it when Greenpeace does it (bt Corn will ruin the pretty butterflies!).
The local NPR station (KERA in Dallas) runs a local talk show, and were discussing GMOs and Starlink. Now there's a local guy who calls in on a regular basis, and I had heard some friends talking about how smart the guy was, despite his homespun manner. Well this was the first time I'd heard the guy call in since hearing this discussion, and so I paid special attention. His comment was this. "I had a friend down in Nacogdoches, who ate some of that Starlink Corn from a Taco Bell, and he had an alergic reaction, and he died! That stuff isn't safe!" Unfortunately, this doesn't pass the smell test. If this were even remotely true, it would be all over the internet. But try doing a google search on starlink and death, and you won't find any mention of such an incident. The guy was just making up a story to back up his own gut level emotional reaction, which was fear of change.
This fear is being played upon by people who are opposed to America's technological society for one reason or another, and they're using every trick in the book to stop GMOs before they start, without any real interest in wether they will benefit man, or even to help acheive the environmentalists' stated goals of eliminating pesticide runoff.
This is not to say that there aren't perfectly good scientists urging caution, and that there shouldn't be serious debate. The guy who did the original research on monarch larvae and bt corn was investigating a true potential problem (although subsequent research has indicated that the real impact is negligible). Also, the potential danger of GM salmon entering the general population is worth investigating further. But at this point I have ceased to even listen to anyone using the term 'Frankenfood' because it is increasingly clear that such people will not listen to me. If you want to talk to me, tone down the rhetoric.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Wow...aren't you so 31337? Here's a clue: not everybody wants to live like you. I lived in an urban area for a while. It seemed like a good idea at the time, as I could walk or bike to classes, but the crime situation eventually got to where I had to move to an outlying area (and this is only Las Vegas, not some stinking, crime-ridden cesspool of a city like Los Angeles, New York, or Washington). Maybe you would be more at home in some country like China or Cuba, where everybody is told what to do all the time under penalty of death or other deprivation.
I don't particularly care much for abortion advocates (the reasons are beyond the scope of this argument), but I'll borrow one of the phrases they like to toss around: If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Actually, in a strict quantitative sense, the replacements don't work as well. Modern A/C systems were redesigned to accomodate larger quantities of R-134a at higher pressures in order to achieve the same results possible with smaller amounts of R-12 at lower pressures. Try retrofitting an older car to take R-134a; either you live with reduced performance or you replace the condenser and evaporator with larger units (and maybe the compressor, if it won't handle the higher pressure) to make up the difference.
(Some people have replaced R-12 with propane or other hydrocarbon mixes. These are supposed to work better than R-12 ever did, but they're also highly flammable. God help you if you stick propane in your A/C system and it develops a leak.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
There has not been a single case of genetically modified foods causing illness or death in any creature, except in those designed to perish (crop pests, for example); the "StarLink allergy" has been debunked. In the meantime, ignorant and cruel enviro-freaks are preventing high-yield, hyper-nutrient products from reaching those who need it most -- the famished in Third World countries.
Biotech companies are doing great work; it seems that the environmental movement has been hijacked by horribly misguided souls who want to coerce us into reverting to the Stone Age. They are controlling the dialectic, and even the Slashdot editors are falling for their anti-human crap.
*** Proven iconoclast, aspiring epicurean ***
Interesting thought, whether you agree with it or not -- except for the fact that these actions aren't directed at the executives or their families. The low-level joes who carry out the orders are the ones who take the brunt of these actions. The high executives probably don't even get a cut in their bonuses as a result of this.
Don't shoot the messenger -- It doesn't change the message.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I have a friend, who I have a lot of respect for. He and his wife (a lawyer) have looked at the path that this world set on and have decided to not have children. They feel that it would be quite unfair to bring children into the future that they see coming. They are living for themselves and leaving the world to whatever it comes to.
I see this as an act of desperation. I'm sure that if they thought that there was a real possibility of changing our course such that the future would be livible for their (would-be) children, they would do so, and have children.
Likewise, the eco-vandalism is an act of desperation. I, like many other environmentalists, feel that it is counter - productive. It is also against my own personal ethics. Unfortunately, these people seem to see no other course of action open to them. My own thought is that -- if that is the best that is possible, then they might as well give up and go home. Do like my friend, and just don't have children.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Who said anything about deciding what you should drive? If I see one of those things, I'm perfectly free to think the driver is an idiot. I never advocated banning the things. If a company realizes there is a market for these things and there are people who'd pay $50,000 for one, then God bless them...
What I don't get is, why are a lot of SUV owners so damn sensitive about the fact that a lot of people think they are silly? Did they buy the thing looking to impress others and are now upset that not everyone thinks they are cool or something?
It breaks down to the right tool for the right job. Some people spend a helluva lot of time in their vehicles so I'm not about to claim they should not enjoy some luxury. And the soccer moms out there don't want to buy a mini-van because of the image of it being a soccer-mom vehicle, so they need a SUV with equal human cargo capacity. OK, fine (but it's still a soccer-mom vehicle!). But by golly, a Cadillac pick-up truck? Why? It's just ridiculous. You take a truck chassis, then over engineer the shit out of it to make it drive like a car. Just buy a friggin luxury car and if you really need to go to Home Depot to haul some goods once in a while, rent a real pick-up truck...
It costs $50,000. I'm at a loss. A pick-up truck is supposed to be a REAL utility vehicle, not some super-luxurious penis-enlarging toy. Just look at this thing.... Is someone going to haul a load of manure in this thing? Or throw a bunch of lumber in the back? What good is it for?
Oh, and for our foreign readers, you can't imagine how big that really is from the pictures. Here's a hint. The wheels are 17 inchers and they look tiny compared to the rest of that vehicle.... It's 221" long, 91.5" wide, and 75.6" tall.
(On second thought, you probably STILL can't imagine how big it is since the measurements aren't metric... :)
Are you referring to VolksWagen?
I'll bet those self-righteous little pricks didn't even file an environmental impact statement. Burning a vehicle will release lead, sulfuric acid, and quite a few nasty partial combustion products into the air.
I hope that if these children (yes, children, even if they're 50 years old) are caught, that they are forced to pay for cleaning up the site.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Terrorism" is just another word for "counter-propaganda propaganda."
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
If you are going to get an SUV or another product similar to one produced by a terrorist-targeted industry, buy it from the victims of such tactics.
Or in the case of attempted arson, like the examples given, to be shot and killed by someone defending society against you. Few people have the privilege to be true martyrs...
And "gosh, I didn't mean that to happen" isn't a defense, BTW.
I'm not certain, but I think specific case of arson, proving an "intent to kill" is not always required for it to be a capitol crime, if there are in fact people killed in the offence. And if the building is inhabited, those inside don't necessarily have to die to qualify the arsonist for the death penalty either. I'm not sure what the technicalities are in Texas in particular.
Even where there is no death penalty allowed by state law, a citizen stopping an act of arson using deadly force is usually perfectly legal though, if you have reason to believe there could be someone endangered.
Not to mention that it's hard to carpool in a "ecologically aware" vehicle the size of a tin of Altoids.
Yeah, be a good little worker bee. Otherwise Uncle Sam will have to give you a spanking.
Heh. I was watching THX1138 yesterday... I think I'd rather be one of the guys who gets to drive the dual turbine cars than one of the drones who walks along in lockstep and is too brainwashed to consider using anything but their habitual elevator even when it is announcing it is out of service...
BTW, some of the first gun control legislation in the USA was designed specifically to prevent blacks freed from slavery from owning guns with which they could defend themselves against such attacks.
it's hardly new. Remember fur coats getting splashed with paint? this is just more of the same. Hardly anyone wears a fur coat any more, but they're not completely abolished. the same may happen with SUVs. Yes there are legitimate uses, but most are just not very efficient peoplemovers (one or 2 at a time)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
>True, but revolting against an authoritarian regime that imposes laws and backs them up by force is one thing. But nobody was forcing these guys to buy SUVs.
First off.. I don't condone the action of torching dealerships. That said, it can be argued that this is a revolt against an authoritarian regime refusing to make laws for which a large group of voters are asking, but which (in their eyes?) is frustrated by corporations. quite a close analogy to the boston teaparty..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Unless you are a troll, I am appalled at your suggestion that violence is an acceptable way of "curing" a non-violent problem. I can't imagine giving dignity to your suggestion that it's okay to kill and injure and vandalize in "self-defense". If you truly believe what you're writing, you are a dangerous and irrational person.
SUVs serve a purpose, but not inside a city. If you want to get the 90% of them that are being used as oversized cars off the roads they don't belong on, set it up so all vehicles registered inside a city/suburb complex must meet very stringent pollution/consumption standards or pay a very heavy tax for the privilege.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I mean, what the hell kind of anarchist golfs? "Say, Moonchild, what say we get in a quick nine before we torch that Land Rover dealership?" I guess you have to have a hobby outside of blowing stuff up.
But I've got to agree that grass is a bad idea. There are dozens of better ways to fight erosion, that don't require you to use massive quantities of poison and fertilizer. In the town I grew up in, there was a pond at the bottom of a large hill. The hill was covered with nice houses with nice beautifully manicured lawns. One spring a lengthy rainstorm sent runoff from all these lawns downhill into the pond. A day later, all the fish were dead--poisoned by all that fertilizer and insecticide. Eventually fishing in the pond was banned; what fish remained were incredibly toxic.
The moral of the story is that just because one or two people doing a thing is harmless doesn't mean the thing remains harmless when done by a hundred thousand people.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I'm going to burn down the Slashdot Geek Compound if they don't release the Gnu's. Anyone care to help?
Hey, those guys over there are dumping chemicals into the river!!! Let's go burn down that SUV dealership to protest!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Except that those "wackos" actually have a point that is utterly ingored -- we need to stop doing things just because they're profitable and think about the "big picture".
The Catholic Church persecuted some scientists in history because they were narrow minded. Now the "pro-business" and "pro-progress" people persecute the ecologists and conservationists for being wackos in the same way. You got your comparison backward.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
<P>Yes, because we all have to share the consequences of things like heavy smog build-up and a loss of natural ressources, not just the people who have to drive that far to work. Its not always a case of stupidity either -- the government isn't willing to back high-quality public transit that would allow for fast and fuel-efficient commutes for the working public, so you end up with millions of cars stopped on the road burning fuel in rush-hour.</P>
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You know, I'm mystified at how usually enlightened slashdotters can blather such myopic hatred at others (without thinking it through).
What's the motivation behind punishing buyers of SUVs? Ever consider that folks living in rural parts may need a four-wheel vehicle to get to and from their homes (next time you eat something, remember us - your food didn't grow at Albertsons).
Sure, we laugh at your silly Cadillac and Mercedes SUVs. Your "Big Bad Dad" yuppie mobiles wouldn't last a winter in our parts, but hey, if it helps you get the stuff back from Home Depot and you're willing to pay the cost, it's your choice.
I'd love to see some slashdotters stand up to this nice sounding but intellectually void SUV bashing. Better stop the inquisition before it comes knocking on your door
*scoove*
(what's that... an Itanium? When the common man can't afford a 486? That doesn't look like the People's Operating System either... How dare you run such an elitist system that consumed scarce resources while your brethern suffer!)
Agreed; mine's a F-250 superduty. But getting the wife to drive a truck is a different matter, and pulling the Escort out of the mud wasn't fun either (though it got good mileage).
*scoove*
p.s. Actually, I've hauled 40 bags of pea gravel at at time in the trunk of a BMW 740. Just pray it doesn't rain as you go down the dirt road. But that was the former city car...
The problem I have with presumably well-intentioned wishes is that there are hidden assumptions that don't resolve. For example:
where is the method to collect money (and given to whom) from the SUVs internal-combustion-engine for the *POLLUTION* it causes.
If the pollution is really a problem, set and mandate the standard - and apply it across the board. Biodiesel is a cleaner alternative than fossil fuel-produced diesel, but doesn't have enough production to get the costs down. Set the standard and encourage the market to come up with cost-effective alternatives.
Taxes, which only create larger governments, which by definition are ineffecient wasters of resources, also result in their own pollution of a sort.
This is another point where capitalism fails as a way to organize our affairs. And your better system is... ? (not that the current system would ever meet the definition of capitalism).
*scoove*
Actually, there's a natural "tax" (or behaviour disincentive) with SUVs already: they consume more fuel and subsequently cost more.
Ever think to question why people are buying these vehicles - especially when the sticker is $10K+ over a midsized auto, the fuel costs are 50% to 100% more, and insurance isn't any cheaper? If these values proposed are so critical, why aren't we all driving Metros?
I think you'll find a good amount of buyer behavior associated with:
- safety: the lack of enforcement of drunk driving laws (especially violations across state lines which keeps 15+ incident repeat offenders driving), irresponsible drivers with irresponsible cures (ban cell phones while permitting applying makeup or eating burger king in the car) and other factors encourage folks to adopt other means to protect their family.
- utility: SUVs not only get the family around in comfort, but allow for folks to pick up home improvement supplies, load up gardening materials, etc.
We've already got enough taxes on behavior and laws on intent. Take responsibility for your life and let others be responsible for theirs.
*scoove*
When someone drives 50 miles each way for their commute, alone, in a 3 ton truck, something is not right.
So steal their money from them via taxes (and give the money to whom)? Afraid to allow them to be stupid and suffer their own natural consequences?
I drive a large diesel truck since its required for operating my orchard, as well as being used on the job building rural telecom networks (yea, it's my truck and I bought it. Bite me). You may see me driving 50 miles alone to the city to a meeting, or perhaps a run for orchard supplies. You'd better believe I'm aware of the cost (why do you think I bought the Diesel? 21 MPG highway vs. 10 on the gas engine, and compatibility with biodiesel which I can't wait to run), but then again, it's apparent I'm more aware of the situation than you are.
Per family incomes being too high, god bless them wherever they are at. If they're being foolish with their money, the next (or potentially current) recession will cure that stupidity.
Since these folks are already accountable for their higher costs, potential economic risks, loss of money that could be used for other things, etc., and that doesn't satisfy you, it's apparent that there are more fundamental reactions at work (e.g. class/income jealousy, relativistic justification of theft, etc.).
As we say in our parts, "Mind your own damn business."
*scoove*
Either that or taxing cars/SUVs that get really poor mileage
I drive a Camaro SS. It's considered a sports car for obvious reasons. My gas milage rating is 17 in the city, and 26 on the highway (with a 6 speed transmission). In reality, I get by on $10 every two weeks. Mostly because of the distances I drive, the lack of traffic in the area in which I live, and of course my driving habits which make a lot of use low-end torque (I keep my RPMs on the tach under 2500 because I can't afford to take the needle to 6000!) and I don't speed.
In the end, I could easily say that the gas milage I get in a sports car are as good, or better than most SUVs.
The reason I point this out is that here in Tennessee, I had to pay various "Luxury" taxes on my car. I assume at least a part of those taxes were because of the larger engine.
Unless I am mistaken, this same tax is also applied to the price of SUVs, and if it isn't. It should be.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
The environmental damage from the burning of the dealership is just the thing they are trying to prevent. Funny that they don't seem to recognize that.
Environmentalists --
They destroy the environment by burning vehicles (and the fuels contained within) to help the environment. The logic is this -- if nobody can drive any of those SUVs, then the potential savings of 10 (or more) years of pollution has been saved x (Times) the number of vehicles destroyed.
The logic is sound, but it's a good thing they're all a bunch of pussies. A really good environementalist plot, if they TRUELY believed in it, would be applied more librally to other facets of life.
A TRUE environmental ploy should be all inclusive! Why stop at SUVs? Go for the sport cars, luxury vehicles, and anything not absolutely essential for daily activities. With that being said, there would only be a good market for small, efficient cars, and medium sized, useful trucks. Nothing else should be allowed.
They should then move on to other wastes. Such as pregnant women, since each baby born generates hundreds of thousands of pounds of waste material per year (in the form of both natural, and un-natural wastes such as post-consumer product and secondary polution). Children should only be manufactured for the purposes of racial procreation, and of course to increase the manual labor workforce. Children can be used as effective workers.
They could then of course destroy all domesticated animals, since the sheltering and caring for such animals produces extra waste (both economic and ecological) as it creates a very large pet care produt industry, one that surely generates extra garbage and other waste matrials each year. Only animals with actual value producing attributed shall be allowed to consume resources.
After they have eliminated all non-critical vehicular transport, children, and domesticated pets, they should turn to their own yards, where they are putting precious land to waste by growing grass instead of produce. This must be rectified by using every square foot of land to it's fullest potential.
Since maintaining the home-grown produce would become a full time job, not to mention one that provides self sufficience, there would be no need for jobs other than things such as paying utility bills, which an Environmentalist wouldn't wish to continue doing anyway since Power and Water utilities tend to be rooted in environmental damage. Instead, everyone should just dig a well and learn to live without central heat and air. Television is dying anyway, and without radio, the RIAA would be a problem that just vanished on it's own. As for the rest of the media, nobody would miss them. And the internet? Who uses it anyway?
...
Thank god the environmentalists are too narrow visioned to see the RIGHT way to make the rest of us miserable! Their uncreativity is a good thing.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
What, you say? Arson is not an act of violence? Tell that to the firemen who risk their lives trying to put it out! One of these days, one of these arson fires IS going to kill someone... I wonder what these twits will say then?
In Arizona, it is legal to shoot to kill to stop arson of an occupied building. Maybe these clowns should come to Phoenix. We would show them a good time!
Of course, one of these loons was here. He was showing his love of the environment by burning houses under construction next to our mountain preserves. Never you mind that he himself had a house on the preserve! Never you mind that burning these houses added pollution to the environment, and used up water and wood - which these environmentalists are supposedly so much in love with.
There is no excuse for destroying private property in a democratic society. If this were a dictatorship, then the destruction of the dictator's property would be OK. But these days, people seem to believe that just because they don't like something, they can violate the law and peoples' rights with acts of violence! They seem to think that because a "corporation" is an owner, it must be evil - so go ahead and destroy its property. Well, how many of these people have pension funds invested in corporations? How many other people lose some of their savings as these corporations lose money and opportunity.
These ecofreaks are nothing more than misfits. They are poorly informed about environmental issues, and are rather narcissistally pretending to be heroes and heorins... but really they are just scum.
The only good weather is bad weather.
"It is clear from credit reports and demographic databases"
I hardly think that looking up the fake address I used to register my domains allowed you to look up credit reports and demographic databases... If you really wanted to impress me, how about a social security number or credit card number?
If I wanted to keep this stuff anonymous, I would post AC. Pretending to be l33t like you did is just lame.
"how can you justify that when a simple injunction or (at most) arrest would accomplish the same thing?"
Has the CEO of Ford been arrested for putting Explorers on the road with tires known to suffer problems when underinflated, and then telling consumers to prevent rollovers by underinflating those same tires? Was it not insane for the CEO of Ford to allow this to be done, putting the lives of millions of people at risk?
Is it not insane for me to look out for my best interests, and to defend myself from corporate greed and a weak government by any means necessary?
"maybe you should move to afghanistan."
Of course, after all Americans are incapable of terrorism. They would never blow up their own government buildings, or abortion clinics.
Once you get the nano-bomb tech, you can wreack some heavy-duty havoc among whatever nations you haven't dealt with before this time. Though I never found using my eco-terrorists to spread nano-disease among enemy cities to be as fulfilling as you'd think it should be.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm sure it's more like these are isolated instances, and may not be tied to some conspiracy. Maybe these are disgruntled workers or plain accidents. The fact that the police have no leads is very suspicious. Maybe blaming eco-terrorists is a way to explain it away; kind of like blaming space ships for "crop circles". So while I wouldn't suggest that the stories are being made up completely, I wouldn't be surprised if there were pressure from the white house or their lobbying interests to blame the incidents on a huge environmental terrorist group, just for the sympathy.
In fact, before I start chasing "eco-terrorists", I'd investigate those incidents at SUV dealerships a bit more. I keep hearing that large, gas-guzzling SUVs are cheap these days: Lincoln is selling their Navigator at 0% financing, and you can buy a Chevy Suburban for $6-8k off. Typically you don't discount a "hot" car, even it it is at the end of a model year. From what I've heard, with gas prices where they are, it costs about $80 to fill up the tank on one of those behemoths. Maybe they're torching their own inventory. I mean, car dealerships are always saying how crazy they are.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Not all SUVs are limited to 'primitive part-time 4WD'. There are many models with 'advanced AWD systems', including several which offer shift-on-the-fly between 2WD/4-LO/4-HI/AWD.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
So it's okay to burn down a man's house if the target is rich, you are sure nobody is inside, and you have a political cause to advance?
Lastly, these people are cowards. Just as the animal rights activists never throw red paint on a big biker's leathers, these eco-arsonists go after the easy targets, not anybody who can shoot back- figuratively or literally.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Even the full size domestic 'sports coupe' designs are either being discontinued, or re-introduced as little tin cans with tiny little minimal displacement engines.
Sure, some people are swayed by marketing, but many people buy SUVs because they are the modern equivalent of the full-sized passenger car, a breed killed off by mandated mileage requirements and emissions laws.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Eco-terrorist correctly implies that these people are loons. Terrorism is never an answer to anything.
Pro-life rights activists are not all gun-wielding freaks. Please make the distinction. I support the inalienable right to life that we all have, but I haven't shot people that disagree with me.
Note that the term "anti-abortionist" is often used because of the negative connotation that "anti" anything carries with it, which is why I don't use it. (The media plays on that one real well. Follow the news and count the times "anti-abortion" is used vs "pro-life".) If we're going to head that way, let's use terms like "anti-life rights activists" too.
Violent resistance is a tough one to defend. In cases I believe it's justified. I look at the Revolution of 1776 as a case in point.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
Just got to remember that although this kind of activity does interfere with the operation of people's businesses, it has no health risks of it's own and is not violent and chaotic.
Maybe another road user who is endangered and inconvenienced by these vehicles. Taller vehicles block visibility. Heavier vehicles increase injuries and fatalities in crashes. Nobody was complaining about SUV's when they were owned by a small minority. The resentment has risen as they totally change the character of the roads. They are imposing costs on other road users and not compensating us.
I would hope in the future, things like burning down SUV dealerships should be reserved for when there is a "clear and present danger" to the enviornment.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
...in thinking about the environment, they wouldn't have done such a thing. But no, these guys were extremists, who didn't care about what they were doing as long as they made a point. This obvious shortage of brain use then failed to think about:
1) The balasts in the starter engine containing mercury. If it came in contact with the right chemicals (which is possible in the burning of an automobile), it would produce harmful toxins which will polute the environment and kill off some air-borne animals. Even if it didn't burn, loose mercury is always good for killing off those unwanted living organisims, like dumb customers.
2) The oil, rubber tires, and gasoline. All of those produce harmful toxins when they burn, as well as produce carbon monoxide. Perhaps they should have warn shirts as well saying "How 'bout a nice breath of CO? It's to die for!"
3) The freon. Freon doesn't burn well, but easily escapes a burning viechle and floats up into the atmosphere to knock around some ozone molecules that keep this planet alive.
...not to mention the greenhouse gases released from the fire, even more toxins released in the burning of any other of the fluids (transmission, brake, power anything...it's all poisonous), and the pile of junk left over after the barbeque that has to be hauled to the scrap heap.
Brilliant, guys. Protest a polutant-causing viechle by poluting yourself. Bravo.
Umm.... should we really have that problem in the first place?
Maybe not, but if you're right, we'd better stop vandalizing cars and start sterilizing people. That's the only way to deal with the problem in the long run, in the view of all the neo-Malthusians on here.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Well I have yet to see a CEO assasinated by environmentalist wackos.
Not for lack of trying.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Funny thing is, I have never seen any of these "responsible" people willing to assume liability for damages in case it is too late. Are you?
More religiosity.
I could sell you anything on that basis. Are you sure you're willing to assume liability for the state of your own immortal soul if you fail to believe in the Great Pumpkin?
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At heart, your argument ("but... but... what if...?") amounts to a demand that we all move back into the caves, just to be safe.
Thanks, but I gave at the airport.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
The big problem I see with current trends (especially in the U.S.) is that nothing we're doing is sustainable. We're using up our natural resources at a frightening fast rate. We're still polluting like mad, we're pumping tremendous amounts of C02 and methane into the atmosphere and eventually we'll kill off the human race or just most of the planet. If every one in the world lived like the US did, we'd need 3 Earths to handle the demand on natural resources.
Unfortunately, from the extent of your hyperbole above, it sounds like you've adopted the opinion of a very few, largely-self-styled experts as if they were handed down to Moses on stone tablets. (Sorry -- it really is tough to avoid the "religion" metaphor when discussing these things.)
Are you aware that as recently as the 1970s we were supposedly heading for another ice age? At least, we were according to the same clique of "environmental scientists" who are now telling us we're heading for imminent global heat death.
The effects you're talking about constitute, in the words of Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims." Do you really think it's unreasonable for us to demand "extraordinary proof" to go along with them?
In short, read what you're writing, for Pete's sake, and understand what you're asking of the rest of us. If you successfully convince me to buy that happy neo-Malthusian crap you're selling, you'll have compelled me to rearrange my lifestyle more drastically than anything short of a severe car crash, life-threatening disease, or limited nuclear war could have done. I'd have to destroy my own car (of course, we ran out of fossil fuels about 10 years ago according to the prevailing environmental opinions^h^h^h^h^hscience of the 70s era, so no great loss there), stop washing my clothes, and swear not to reproduce (of course, not washing my clothes should take care of that problem nicely).
No, I'm not going to take decisions like this lightly... and no, you're not going to win me, or any other typical American I know, over to your cause by resorting to violence and vandalism. At a minimum, it's going to take irrefutable proof of anthropogenic contributions to global warming and undeniable evidence of consequential harm. We don't have that right now, and we won't for a long time, if ever. Will it be too late then? Maybe.
But then, I'm willing to bet that somehow, things aren't quite as bad as you're making them sound.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
She is practically booed every time she tells someone that she works in genetics
:-(
That really sucks. It's no different from the Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo and Copernicus, if you think about it. When a gang of ignorant religious wackos (which is what this tree-spiking, library-burning, SUV-vandalizing thing is: a religion) disagrees with you, it's unlikely that your differences will be resoved in any civil forum.
Unfortunately, the enviro-wackos won't be happy until we're all living in trees and caves. They simply aren't interested in solving the problems of how to clothe, feed, and house six billion+ healthy homo sapiens at anything beyond a subsistence level.
Make no mistake: today it's the "rich" who are their targets of convenience. Tomorrow, it will be you.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Probably not one of his best, but still good for its ability to make you think about things.
By the way, and totally off on a tangent... Are there any Neal Stephenson books that don't involve large boats as a major plot device?
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
He did an unspeakable evil, no doubt about it. But the way his execution was covered by the media played right into his hands, in my opinion. I for one, had no pressing need to know where they stuck the fucking needle!
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Although you're right about the actual reaction being screwy (like it's that easy to get rid of polychlorinated hydrocarbons), but if some genetic engineer spliced up a bug in this fashion, I'd be willing to bet a lot that it'd mutate to take advantage of the energy gain pretty damned quickly. The moral of the story is that if you don't think through the possible consequences before doing something, you're gonna get your ass burned.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Doesn't surprise me. The number of individual armed citizens with a whole station worth of police oficers to back them up if they kill somebody wrongly is rather low. The average armed citizen has far more liability to worry about than the average LEO does. Behavior follows suit.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I bought one of these vehicles. I pay for my choice to do so by having to buy more gasoline. Simple economics. I believe the benefits of driving an SUV are worth the increased costs of driving one. The extra money I spend on gasoline pays for a) the extra resources I am using b) extra taxes I pay to help counter the environmental effects of SUV's.
This has to be a troll, because no one can be so daft as to claim the validity of land claims dating back thousands of years. By that measure, I am sure everyone has some sort of claim on just about every piece of land in the world.
God help us if the Italians figure out this loophole.
Internal combustion engines use gasoline, not money, to burn!
It sounds like I need to give you a lesson in economics. The cost of the gasoline is the monetary value placed by the gas station on the gasoline. In short, the gas station values the money I give it more than it values the gasoline. I pay more for my SUV habit because I burn more.
If I paid for all of the world's remaining deposits of coal, oil, petroleum, etc. at a fair price I'd certainly have paid for the resources I'm using, but that wouldn't really matter, as every current automobile on the roads would be rendered completely useless.
If you paid for all the remaining deposits of natural resources, that implies that someone was willing to give them all up. It is very hard to compare the economics with purchasing an inconsequential percentage of a resource to exhausting it. The price curve marches towards infinity. As you purchase a greater % of the total supply, subsequent quantities become more and more expensive because they come to have greater and greater value to those who are selling it.
And that's leaving aside issues of pollution and safety. Throwing money at an issue doesn't make it any less of an issue, and to think that it does is the ultimate folly of a modern capitalist economy.
Money is not a capitalist concept. If we had no money and no capitalism, we will still have a concept of value. Money is simply a metric of that value. If society values a gallon of gasoline more than I do, it can pay more money for that gallon of gasoline.
Oh, and with respect to pollution and safety... That's why gasoline is so heavily taxed. I favor higher taxes on it. I think Americans are babies about energy prices. A gallong of gas should cost $3/gallon or about that much. If it did, I would certainly reconsider driving an SUV.
And on the renewable resource issue, IMHO, the sooner we run oout the better. Because the sooner we run out, the sooner we will find a better source of energy. With gas prices as outrageously cheap as they are today and oil reserves being so plentiful, there is no incentive to find alternative sources of energy.
Those acts were acts of war against non-civilian, combatant targets in the context of a declared war. That is not terrorism, it is called guerrila warfare.
There has been a great deal of mention that 'burning the dealerships releases more pollutants than letting people drive the SUVs to begin with' but I think you people are failing to grasp the singular point of the action: This is merely a means to strike at the brazen greed and shameless covetous of a society that would encourage these hoggish vehicles against better judgement and obvious evidence.
This is a wakeup call to the self-obsessed Americans more concerned with their comfort, ego strokings and illusions of rugged safety than a protest of fossil-fuels and emissions. You folks can try and argue your way out of it, but the facts remain: SUV's are horrible in so many ways that no amount of mental footwork is going to save you from the backlash. People hate these things, and for good reason IMHO. SUV owners, get out while you still can. Get out while you are still able to salvage some self respect. These vehicles represent a blight on our national pride, and will be cast in the light of evil throughout our future history. Think for a change. Make the right decision!
Burning the dealerships is not the way to combat this problem. I was hoping that gasoline prices would stay high this summer (they are much cheaper in the US than other countries). But they seem to be heading back down now as well.
I would love to see SUVs included in the federal bill that mandates a fleet average for gasoline mileage from a car company. Either that or taxing cars/SUVs that get really poor mileage (some sort of environment destruction tax) would help flip this recent trend.
Let's not even get into the problems SUVs cause on the road by decreasing the visibility of those around them . . .
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
First off, the USA is a politically (and morally) corrupt, greed based, corporate society.
Once you truly understand what that means -- that the interests of the people of the USA come behind the interests of the corporations -- then you can understand the violence and hate towards the car makers and the government.
I don't in any way condone these acts, but I understand the frustration that leads to it. Like knowing, without a doubt, that these SUVs are classified as 'utility trucks' when they are nothing of the sort. It's a scam to get past federal sately and economy laws -- laws that keep us safe in our vehicles and extend a non-renewable resource.
Genetically altered food? In a perfect world I would be all for it. But, once again, anyone familiar with corporate drug manufacturers and the FDA knows how many drug manufacturers falsify tests of safety and efficacy to get approval for their drug. This means managers, scientists and researchers all participate in a falsehood, that, without government oversight, could poison you at worst or at a minimum cost money and perform no good. If anyone really thinks the genetic companies would not do the same thing for profit, please raise your hand. We need America's idiots identified.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There was a time when the USA was known as 'the home of the free and the brave'. Scratch a little under the surface nowadays, and it has, in many ways, become a digusting parody of the Constitution, where corporate interests have clearly taken precedence in all three branches of government.
No one wants violence. The courts should be addressing these issues before it comes to that. But as I have said, there is evidence that the government has lost touch with the people. How long does a thinking, feeling person live in a society based on such falsehoods before they lash out? Their entire life? As the songs says '...it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees...'
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
As a history refresher, in 1859 John Brown decided (and knew) in his heart that slavery was wrong, and had to be stopped by any means necessary.
He killed a lot of slavers, then decided to take over a federal armory, arm blacks, and spill blood throughout the south, until slavery was stopped.
He was caught and executed by the federal government. Just months later, the USA broke into one of the bloodiest, deadliest wars in history, with both sides using the name 'John Brown' as an excuse.
If it wasn't for John Brown, and the blood he spilled, maybe you could go buy yourself a black man today. Some of you probably like the idea.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
...until the winners write the history of it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
To all you people saying how can property destruction ever be justified: What about the Boston Tea Party? A bunch of radicals opposed to the system dressed up in disguises and trashed some corporations property and it is one of the most celebrated acts of "terrorism" in history.
If it is, be prepared for more and more of it to exist behind walls. Gated communities are already multiplying--get ready for that trend to super-accelerate. The more intelligent and reasonable won't fight back through counter-terrorism, they'll start to leave. Be prepared to have these bio-terrorists auditing YOUR lifestyle, and trashing elements of it when they don't approve. Your silent approval of this sort of activity will mean that eventually you'll find these folks on your doorstep. You reap what you sow.
For example, how many Slashdot readers work with computers? Really? That many? Well, did you know that computer research will eventually lead to artificial intelligence, and with that the end of the human race? So of course you won't mind if I break into your house with a crowbar to rectify the situation. Or maybe I'll just wander by Slashdot headquarters one of these days with a few gallons of gasoline. Think I'm wrong about my macabre predictions? Prove it!
The fact is that this kind of unilateral action is simply NOT right. You want to protest? Get a bunch of friends together and burn your own damn SUVs. Support scientific efforts to determine whether or not the risks outweight the benefits when it comes to GE crops and plants. But DON'T talk to me only about risks with no mention of benefits. I consider the prospect of the continued disease and death in the developing world to be a risk. I consider the notion of ploughing under every arable acre of North America (to make up for the lower yields we see with chemical-free, GE-free farming) to be a risk. You want me to respect your opinion? Then do the F*CKING work, or shut the F*CK up.
One last note: do think that these actions are reasonable because the police sometimes seem to sympathize with these activists and condone their crimes by botching the investigations of these crimes? Then consider the company you're keeping. The police who wouldn't investigate crimes against blacks in the South. The state that wouldn't protect the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany. The right to security of person and property goes both ways. You don't give it, you don't get it.
In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.
How about:
ALL gasoline, diesel, coal, and ethanol powered vehicles of any sort? They aren't as bad as those terrible SUVs but they do pollute the environment!
Why stop at vehicles? We certainly can't use any fossil fuels for generating electricity! Think of the pollution!
After that we'll take on nuclear power: musn't forget the eco-lessons of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl!
Next I nominate commercial farming. Who needs food, anyway?
Last, but certainly not least, we have to stop the spread of entropy! If we don't, the universe will certainly die of it!!! Sure, this means completely obliterating life as we know it -- as well as most of the rest of the contents of the universe -- but the end certainly justifies the means, right?
--john
Regardless of how you feel ethically about what the Eco-Terrorists are doing, there are two *major* points to consider:
... as did our organization.
1. Terrorism has one, and only one effective place in revolutionary history. Terrorism is a very effective way to dissuade a colonial pover from maintaining its commercial operations in your country. However, all attempts to use terrorism against domestic authority result instead in a backlash against the terrorists; there has been no occasion, historically, where this has not been true. In fact, this principle is so effective that from 1970-72 the FBI's COINTELPRO branch used it to destroy the Black Panthers, simply by having undercover agents urge them on to more and more outrageous acts (more about this later).
Thus, whatever you feel about the goals of the "eco-terrorists", their methods will, if anything, cause the opposite of the desired reaction. Non-violence is not just ethical; it's essential for survival.
2. In all probablity, some of the "eco-terrorists" are CIA operatives *posing* as radical environmentalists in order to inspire a counter-reaction. Think about whose father remains the de-facto "old man" of the CIA, and which U.S. executive officer is currently have a lot of trouble with environmentalists in Congress.
You may be ready to dismiss this as "conspiracy theories", but it's not far-feteched at all. When I was a member of a certian radical environmental organization ('scuse the vagueness, this could still lead to legal trouble for me) we decided the best way to stop a certain factory operation was to unionize the factory workers. Two undercover FBI agents in our organization (as it turned out) used the organizing effort to sneak into the factory and sabotage the equipment, against organizational policy. The result nearly killed some of the workers and the unionization effort broke up
-Josh
Some of the comments on this board boil down to "i'm a smart masters-degree educated geneticist, and *i* know that GMO's are okay, and eco-terrorists are stupid." it is exactly this kind of attitude that people are protesting against.
the fact is scientists don't KNOW much. many think they know and many know enough to make some useful applications. but do they know enough to be given billions and billions of dollars, free reign to do whatever they want, and a massive police force available to beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees? no.
Do you know your history? For instance, in San Diego at the biotech industry conference last week, your tax dollars paid for a huge police presence so that cops could dress up as black bloc and march next to peaceful protesters. Your tax dollars paid for hundreds to be ticketed for holding signs and walking down the sidewalk.
At UC Berekely, Novartis is paying millions and millions to convert their "academic" research lab in to a corporate research lab.
In Oakland, two popular redwood forest activists were bombed in their car. The FBI's involvement in the case is highly suspect, and the FBI blamed the activists themselves for planting the bomb! The trial against the FBI finally begins this fall, and I highly doubt any "concerned" geneticists will be coming out to support this or even know what it is.
In the Pacific Northwest, police repression against environmental groups is huge, and is backed by right-wing industry front groups. Police in Humboldt County watch as industry thugs come down and physically attack protesters. Police themselves are trained to hold a protesters eye open to apply pepper spray with a cotton swab.
Who are the terrorists again?
Meanwhile, the timber industry is buying off congresspeople left and right. The oil/energy industry just purchased a whole damn presidential election.
Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have realized that people have the power to overthrow the corporate institutions that are ruling our life. And they are doing something about it. Are you still just sitting on your ass reading some website?? For more news see SF Indymedia
If you think that violent repression, misinformation, and terrorism does not occur by the U.S. Government on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens, then you do not understand why eco-terrorism is happening. In fact, you probably don't understand much. Please try to find out what is happening, and don't just rely on CNN and Slashdot as your news source.
bjord.org
news from the revolution
Yes, a 1997 Honda Accord pollutes more than a 2001 Ford Excursion. The Accord first met LEV requirements in 1998, and the 2001 Exursion is LEV certified. The Excursion may use twice the gas, but it has lower emissions per mile than does the Accord. The Exursion will more quickly deplete us of our fossil fuel supply, but the greenies want that.
I'm somewhat biased, as my life was saved by our suburban when a drunk driver smashed into the back of us at 55mph (It also saved the lives of the five teenagers in the Hyundai Excel in front of us). Personally I prefer full-size pickups myself, but I can entirely understand the reasons people buy SUVs. No I don't need one, but I also don't "need" a 15k RPM hard drive and a gig of RAM.
Is torching an SUV dealership justifiable? Michael, are you a complete moron? Could someone please add a checkbox to slashcode to filter out articles that are complete RADICAL left-wing bullshit? Some of us here are just programmers who want to hear about the latest technology... and I can't readily filter out articles related to "Science" to obtain this!
--
But there is considerable dispute over what caused it--among scientists
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the problem if you think this is relevant. Global warming is a prediction based on the observed effects of gases, not a retrospective attempt to explain current temperatures. Even if currently observed temperature rises were entirely natural, that's quite possibly BAD news, because a) it doesn't even remotely suggest that global warming won't result from our greenhouse gases, and b) it means any greenhouse warming will be IN ADDITION TO natural warming, which means even deeper shit than artificial warming alone.
Like everyone else I guess, I kinda hope that it will never really eventuate, but day by day, the evidence gets even less contraversial. There may be disagreement among "scientists", but disagreement among reputable scientists of high standing is becoming awfully difficult to find.
No.
No.
No.
Problem solved.
Excuse me?!? I didn't see a single solution in that entire post. All you did was disagree with a bunch of thoughts regarding possible solutions.
"Drugs are Bad, mkay."
There, I've just solved the world's drug problems.
:-)
There's other, worse, examples -- The infamous (Slashdot) PT Crusier which is legally considered a truck even though it's based on a Dodge Neon.
Also, the Honda CRV was previously marketed as a Civic Wagon and now mysteriously has become officially a truck.
I agree with the intent of the original law -- give farmers and other rural road types an exemption. However, I can't help to worry that driving up to your ski lodge in Tahoe will some how be categorized as "rural road" use.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
"'Drugs are Bad, mkay.' There, I've just solved the world's drug problems."
Yup!
He learns FAST!
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
"Are these sorts of actions justifiable?"
No.
"Is it right to destroy property in an effort to prevent this sort of gambling with our quality of life?"
No.
"Is that the most productive way to deal with bio-engineering risks?"
No.
Problem solved.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
"environmentalists are ... nihilists" environmentalists are the furthest thing from nihilists. We believe that mankind has a future, and the best way to assure that is to moderate our consumption to stay in line with our ability to produce. We're working to provide for our children. Who are you working for?
"Environmentalism is *not* a science." Of course it isn't. It is a political movement, backed by *everything* science has told us over the last 50 years about sustaining humanity's future.
I won't even get into your absurd attempts at psychoanalysis. Please put down the Ayn Rand (a religion if ever there was one) and grow up.
That being said, here's my dilemma: If I have control over a limited resource, then I charge as much as I can for it. If my resource isn't all that limited, then I have to lower my costs in competition with others, but never below the cost of my resource (unless for strategy reasons, yadda, yadda, yadda).
One of the underlying beliefs of the eco-terrorists is that some group is using up more resources than they should be allowed to use. But if that group is producing more, then why shouldn't they also get to use them?
I could go on with examples, but I should need to. The argument should swing towards, "Is there actual value being produced?" and "Is the world paying too much for too little," or some other tripe like that. Not, "How dare rich people spend money."
Just my 2 cents on a lazy Sunday...
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Against SUVs, that is:
"I'm changing the climate! Ask me how!" bumper stickers.
The SUV Ticket.
The SUV Poseur Page
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Among the evil activites done...
"they stomped on the grass"
Boy those hippies are crazy !!!
Now I really need to get my save the broccoli shirt made.
www.fuckbunny.org ||||| punkrock chicks..
from getting people to agree with them, drive people away
I wonder why their media-coverage has shot up recently... maybe The Man would like the moderate support to begin associating radical (non-violent type) environmentalists with the image of The Terrorist that they have been cleverly cultivating in American Media.. This will keep the masses from joining the pro-sustainability advocates. This is nott a conspiracy it is self-motivated, self-directing self-interest from all members of the American Plutocracy. If the masses stop buying needless crap - what happens to all their made-up-economics
I always hate hearing shallow vapid arugments like of logging equipment, effectively releasing all sorts of toxins into the air and spilling diesel and motor oil all over the ground
You shouldnt off-handedly dismiss this action. I do not think spilling chemicals in the forest (buring the equipment) is a *good* thing either - BUT - I understand their motivation, i never the less also support their action. The damage that that equipment could cause is a greater tragedy than the smaller chemical spill. Is this rationalizing - yes. But what you fail to admit is that calling someone a hypocrite and dismissing their arguments is cheap and lazy - it becomes easier for you to use this escape hatch (the hypocrite-arugment you used above) than dealing with the real issues.
Taxes are the things you pay, in concert with your neighbour, to commit to SHARING the common costs of supporting your community. Stop paying taxes and the capitalists will be happy to reap a profit off of all your essential community services (think: phone, water, gas, elec... then think roads, police, courts, elections, schools). You can bet that the right capitalist will offer these services, with lower real value, at higher prices and with zero certainty. If you havnt got the money, you havnt got the service. Now, this everything-in-the-free-market idea might appeal to a fiercly-individual-self-centered-myopic-egotist but the rest of the world (everyone outside the USA) like the idea of sharing a fuck of alot. Taxes == sharing the costs of maintaining your community for the good of all. !Taxes == entrenching capitalist control of your life && fueling the race to the bottom as everything gets sucked into the free-market.
I know its tough - but please choose wisely.
consume more fuel and subsequently cost more.
where is the method to collect money from the SUVs internal-combustion-engine for the *POLLUTION* it causes.
The problem with free-market economics vs. Environment is that the capitalists are *NOT* paying for the destruction, there should be a mechanism where the economic system takes these into account. Until there is - your argument is moot, becaues you adovate the needless, selfless destruction of something that you do not own, and argue that the economics are the only relevant issue. Frankly, the economics are broken and unhealthy. This is another point where capitalism fails as a way to organize our affairs.
You're missing something very fundamental here: Production costs. The production costs for producing a car, in terms of pollution, you should drive it a long time before this becomes a relevant problem. I don't know how long, but the math should be done.
Of course it isn't. Eco-terrorists are not enviromentalists, it's as simple as that. There's nothing left-wing about that.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I remember this clearly: It was many, many years ago, it was September, I was a newbie, and went onto the USENET, and subscribed to all the groups that I had an interest in. I have always regarded myself an environmentalist, and besides, I'm pretty left-wing too. So, I got subscribed to a bunch of environmentalism groups, such as talk.environmentalism.
To my huge surprise, I found myself arguing against most of the folks there almost all the time. What a bunch of wackos.
I wrote some stuff, among those, this thing I put on my web site titled "Environmental terrorism is just terrorism!"
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Yeah, I drive a big SUV. A 3/4 ton, 4x4, 1985 Chevy Suburban, to be precise. Big honkin' truck... and I live in an urban area, so I guess I'm scum, right, michael?
Of course, you might want to know why I own such a truck, before you set fire to it or slash my tires.
When I bought the truck (used; think of it as recycling), I was living in Colorado's San Juan mountains. My wife was an EMT and Red Cross manager in a small mountain town 50 miles from the nearest hospital; I helped out search & rescue when some urban nitwit got lost in the wilderness. A big truck was a necessity, not an ego trip...
Now I live in the Tampa-St. Pete area of Florida -- quite a change, from mountain wilderness to seaside retirement mecca. A good job brought me down here -- and I'm still driving the big truck. Why?
Well, my wife continues her Red Cross work -- we often have supplies to move, or people to haul. And in the event of a hurricane, my fully-loaded medical kit, big winch, and four-wheel drive might just save someone's butt or property.
As for the environment -- well, let's just say I've got plenty of scars to prove my devotion to mother earth. Who set you (or the Earth Liberation Front) up as gods to determine who is being morally correct or not? Maybe the owners of that SUV dealership are scum -- or maybe they're damned fine citizens who work hard to make the world better.
We have a society of law, michael. I'm sure you appreciate such laws when they keep numb-nut right wingers from slaughtering gays, or when copyright protects some precious piece of "free" software. But you're perfectly willing to break the laws that protected you when a moral high horse takes you for a ride...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
All about me
So, what climates would justify an SUV? My parents and inlaws live 5 hours away, here in Minnesota. While it is cold, winter only lasts from October through April. Should we have to fork out even more money to buy a summer vehicle for the 6 months in the year when we can be pretty confident? Keep in mind that you have a lot of stuff for a week+ visit with two active adults and a 1 1/2 year old.
In moderately deep snow, yes a 4WD vehicle is going to have an advantage. But not on ice.
A 4WD truck or SUV is good on ice and snow. A 4WD truck or SUV in 2WD mode is bad in both. Many accidents you see on icy days are from people that:
1. Are not used to driving a taller, larger vehicle and forget that it doesn't handle like a car.
2. Don't try 4WD until it's too late.
3. Need to change their tires.
4. Are in too much of a hurry and would likely end up in the ditch, no matter what they are driving.
science is a religion
My "massive" Grand Cherokee stops very well, thank you. You should always leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front of you, anyway. Of course, I learned how to drive behind the wheel of a 1978 Dodge Maxivan (think of the stretched, full-size vans you see with 5 rows of seats).
What exactly is the benefit of having 4WD?
First of all, for some people you should be making a comparison between a minivan or van and an SUV. We need a larger vehicle to just fit in all of our stuff when we travel (suitcases, stroller, backpack, diaperbag, diapers, food, toys, presents, etc.). Small children use a LOT of stuff.
Have you ever noticed the number of cars that hydroplane in standing water or heavy downpours vs larger 4WDs? Offhand, I can't think of anybody I know who has with a truck or SUV, but I can with FWD cars. I don't know the capabilities of the person who was driving the 4Runner. I do know that a lot of people don't know how to drive in winter conditions, even if they are good with their own vehicle under good weather. Also, front-wheel drive vehicles act quite differently than rear-wheel drive vehicles. If the person didn't have the 4WD engaged, I'd say they didn't have much of a chance.
4WD vehicles are good for large amounts of snow muddy roads, and potholes. If you are in conditions that require chains, a 4WD would usually be a good match (BTW, they make chains for SUVs too-I used to have a set for my Bronco II). If you are using chains because of glare ice, you might want to rethink your travel plans anyway, unless you want to go slow (chains are not designed for extended driving at highway speeds). Snow tires don't work well on ice-they tend to have too big of a foot print. But, IANATE (I Am Not A Tire Expert).
Large parts of the US are sparsely inhabited by urban standards, with low maintainance roads being the rule. Result: several days until a snowplow comes through, muddy lanes from spring run-off and heavy rain, and potholes big enough to break tie rods and bottom out smaller vehicles. Shovel it out? Not if you live a half mile from the nearest main road. Drive around? Sometimes miles out of the way, if one exists. Go around the potholes? Not to smart to try dodging in heavy traffic, and sometimes they go all the way across the street.
Many of the people I know who drive pickups or SUVs live in cities and rural areas that can't afford to take care of their own streets.
science is a religion
I'm sorry, but no matter how crappy SUVs are (and I'm the first to admit I deplore the things), no matter WHAT, violence and destruction are not the solutions. Extreme leftists are always going on about how evil and brutal "the system" is, and how "property is violence," etc. Well... how does throwing bricks at cops or busting up a Starbucks or burning Romania Chevrolet compare to that? Is that any less violent and brutal? Not on your life. It's certainly more juvenile.
I'm tired of the Socratic moral superiority always claimed by radical Leftists, and how they always seem to think they're on the inside track, that somehow, they're better than "the common people," who are reluctant to "rise up and take action." Maybe the common people are happy the way they are... ever thought of that?
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Yeah, be a good little worker bee. Otherwise Uncle Sam will have to give you a spanking.
Its the stereotypical extreme-leftist retort: "If you dont agree with me, you must be a TV-made media clone controlled by the government!!!"
Listen, buddy, spouting nonsense about how evil SUV's are and the evils of the corporate 'system' and the flaws of the 'common man' who is controlled by Uncle Sam isnt thinking outside the box any more than your so-called 'worker bee'. I live in Eugene, OR, where alot of this radical left BS is going down, and i can tell you, its not original at all. When you've heard 100 people who look all alike throwing around the same rhetoric, it beings to lose its sparkle and sheen, and starts to look more and more like hackneyed phraseology and cliche sloganism.
And torching SUV dealerships is pretty damn harmful to the environment too. Fumes from paint and oil and plastic and any number of other things go billowing into the atmosphere in quantities that can be quite damaging, esp. if theres a large number of the things burning. And to what end? So youve torched 50 SUVs... Ford can make that many more in an hour. Youve accomplished exactly nothing. Any sort of justification for this is pure arrogance and just putting on the blinders to what is really going on, which is simple criminality. If you really want to change the system, try doing it in a way that will garner real support, rather than Socratic, self-important extremist support. Whether you like it or not, your cause will succeed or fail on the shoulders of 'the common man.'
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
All this does nothing but reinforce the general perception that these guys, regardless of their cause, are nothing but a bunch of braindead violent miscreants... I think that's somewhat wrong... There *IS* a voice of reason in there.. but i think it gets effectively drowned out by the fools.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Why is it okay for Ford to make Excursions? Why isn't it okay? There are a million things that are worse than SUV's. I'm no friend of massive Lexus SUV's, I assure you, but people should have a choice. We live in a capitalist system, whether you like it or not, and there is a market for large SUV-type cars. Clearly, you and I both differ in our opinions, but I don't feel 'enslaved' by corporations. I dont feel that Nike is my master. I have a brain. If i like a nike product, and its the right price, i'll buy it. such a thing has yet to happen, but *shrug*. Basing your whole life and ideology around mistrust and paranoia isnt the way i, or many people choose to live. Questioning the media isnt elitism, but to out and out brand it the tool of evil, or to do the same with the government, or to think that somehow YOU have the inside track, *IS* elitism and pretty arrogant.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
I take offense at how you seem to think that people who drive SUVs are pure evil, or fat and lazy. I dislike the way many SUV drivers act, as if they were in impregnable tanks, sure. But *shrug* if they want to blow the money on something that, as oil prices climb, will become even more of a burden, thats just fine with me. We live in a society where we have to put up with what we view as other peoples' wrongs (neo-Nazism, etc.) so that we can preserve our own freedom of choice. I think it would be pretty sucky if i lived in a place where everyone had to drive Geos, by federal mandate, or where i couldnt express my opinion about how lame neo-Nazis are. and of course, everyone has the right to diss on SUV drivers, corporations, etc... but they DONT have the right to start destroying things based on their views.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
That is pure hogwash. I live in the middle of oregon, and i used to live on the south coast, and ive been all around the state... and to say 'most of the forests' in oregon have been destroyed' is a lie. Sorry.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Unfortunately, a moment's thought makes clear that such "logic" is utterly specious. The problem is that the notion of what's right and wrong is entirely in the mind of the person or people deciding to commit the act, and thus it's possible to justify essentially any action using this premise. For example, someone could argue that abortion clinics are bad because they kill unborn babies, and use that as justification to bomb an abortion clinic. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates could argue that pro-lifers are impinging on women's fundamental reproductive rights, and use that as justification to bomb the headquarters of a pro-life group. Genetically modified foods are bad for the ecosystem? Destroy the tractors used to plow the fields in which they'll be planted! But wait: GM foods are more productive per acre (say, for the sake of argument), meaning organic farms occupy more land per calorie produced -- and agriculture is already using too much of our land, so we'd better destroy the tractors used by the organic farmers!
The problem with this kind of vigilante "justice" (for lack of a better term) is that there are two or more sides to every argument, and in many cases all the participants will be able to claim that they are acting in a morally responsible fashion, simply because their value systems or premises differ. And if you condone violence or destruction of property as a means of enacting social change, you're basically saying that the rule of law is moot and that, simply speaking, might makes right. I don't know about you, but that's not a world I want to live in.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I am extremely disappointed with how environmental groups have handled the whole "GMO" (a term I hate as it encourages the notion that a Holstein cow or a iceberg lettuce is a naturally occurring, "unmodified" creature) thing. Sure, care needs to be taken. Arguably a lot more care needs to be taken. But environmentalists have jumped on this bandwagon because it's an easy way to frighten donors and activists, without the slightest regard for the facts. Even responsible groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have gone for emotion over reason.
I'm a long-time Sierra Club member and put in some time trying to correct some basic misunderstanding on the part of the anti-GMO project leader. She wrote me some courteous responses but ultimately had nothing to say beyond some nonsense about how everyone should eat "natural" foods.
The real tragedy is that the alternative to insect-resistant potatoes isn't that people are going to start eating acorns and grass. They're going to keep eating food that's been drenched in pesticides, fertilizers and hormones, much of which winds in rivers and oceans. We'll have missed the chance to make the world cleaner and safer and the guilt will be on the heads of the activists who couldn't be troubled to educate themselves and their leaders who knew better but decided to attack a convenient boogeyman instead of addressing the real problem.
By the way, the appeal of casually destroying other people's work is indicative of how overrun Slashdot has become by people who have never created anything useful in their lives, but base their self-esteem on how much they can claim other people owe them. No one who has genuinely invested his or her life in creating -- art, software, a business, knowledge -- could be so blase about saying "Well, I think this is bad so I'm going to destroy it."
I'd question how this all fits in with Michael's smarmy "anti-censorship" views but, at this point, the utter hypocracy of Slashdot editors is so self-evident it hardly bears mention.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
The argument is that if you allow one change to be made against something that is unacceptable then you will get itterative changes until nothing is left.
The reality is that any democracy is an equilibrium. Sure, it's not a totally stable one, but it'll still form an equilibrium. Start prohibiting a given right and you'll get support, maybe even go passed the reasonable point but then the counter movement will start getting support and it'll start to swing back towards the 'acceptable' balance point. It won't carry on swinging until it falls off the far end of the scale. Sure, not everyone will get what they want but it will vary roughly around the average acceptable point.
Take a look at smoking which people tried making the same claims for. Smoking isn't illegal. Yes, it's now largely illegal to do the things that make others suffer. Yes, there are some people pushing for it to be completely illegal. There are also growing numbers pushing back against it going any further because it's generally felt that it has gone far enough. California, probably the most anti-smoking state, has commercials all over the radio whinging on about smoking and the end result is that people are so sick of holier than thou anti smokers that their support is dwindling and the pace of change has all but slowed to a halt. That's the point - you reach an equilibrium.
If you try add a tax to SUVs, you'll probably get it supported (though there're so many SUV drivers around I wouldn't guarantee it). If you subsequently tried to ban them, yeah, you may even get that through (especially as the issue may have gained public support by that point). Next you'd try banning cars, only you'd find you've lost public support as they're judged way too useful a concept. Sure you'd end up with them controlled more but not banned. Take a look at the most environmentally active nations on earth - have any of them banned cars? Of course not. So, now we're going to ban power generation of any type, farming and all the rest of it? Don't be ridiculous.
I'm sorry, it's a nice emotive argument to make, and it convinces a lot of people with even relatively reasonable intellects, but it's also just not true. Mind you, everyone has the right to spout crap and try and get people to believe them. That's part of the equilibrium that's democracy too - you may even get support for a while until people start to realise and it too swings back against you.
Hmmm... No.
Anything else I can help clear up?
---
Based on what research? You want to compare and entire history of evolution, with all its checks and balances, to human controled evolution, which seems to have little outside a few years of "studies". You can NOT say at all there is no effect on the enviroment. You don't know what kind of subtle changes in how genes mututate in the enviroment of the grown corn (as its natural pedators eat it). Too little time has passed to see its impact on evolution both in the corn plant and in the its predators (including us).
I'm not some eco-terrorist and quite frankly I most likely eat genetic engineer corn all the time, but to say sometime like it has no envriomental impact, is just hogwash.
Burn Hollywood Burn
"the torching of an SUV dealership"
Good to see nothing of value was lost.
end communication
The kicker here is a crappy gas mpg tax already exists - for cars - SUV's are exempt. Adding insult to injury, they are exempt from lux tax as well... no wonder abominations like the lincon navigator exist.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Big != Safe. Buy a high-performance MANUEVERABLE 2 ton mercedes with pop-up rollbars and side air bags if you want to be safe.
---
Know someone who is stealing cable? Report them!
You must be one of the people who think 4WD solves everybody's problems with driving in ice and snow.
I was driving home from Tahoe in near blizzard conditions, lots of snow on the ground, very slippery. I was in my Honda Accord with chains much like every other sane car driver. The Toyota 4Runner in front of me had snow tires. Care to guess which one of us lost control and ended up being t-boned by an oncoming car? By the way, this occured as the driver started braking.
Tell me, how well does 4WD help when you're trying to stop your massive SUV? What exactly is the benefit of having 4WD? Do you even know?
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention: There is comprehensive, undisputable, sound, scientific EVIDENCE that global warming is quite real and human activity caused it. You can choose to believe otherwise but then you'd be wrong.
Your parents didn't get approval to have you share the planet with me. May I kill you? Why should I care what they, or you, think of my "personal actions".
Everyone on the side of genetic modification forgets that things are just fine the way they are, it's the way humans USE them that's the problem. not getting enough vitamins in your food? maybe because your oppressive government isn't making the right provisions for your health!
It's so ridiculous. We have the gall to think that we are fixing things when we are only making them worse. Solve the problems with humans before you start messing with everything else, or we'll ALL be sorry.
--- it's pelvis to be cube
We'll all be fascinated to see (though not necessarily to smell!) your car that runs on crude oil.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
As I've said elsewhere, I commute exclusively by bicycle and subway (in that order, riding the subway once or twice per month). I hope that entitles me to an opinion here.
The old cheapies are already on the road. Allowing them to remain there does not cause a net increase in the amount of pollution. The same cannot be said for the purchase and operation of new SUVs.
First, worry about not making the situation worse. Then worry about making it better.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Old, dirty power plants are not taken offline because they are dirty. They are only taken offline when they become so old that maintenance costs exceed the cost of constructing and operating a new plant.
Anyway, when we're talking about the decision to purchase an SUV, we're talking about the specific point when someone who is in the market for a car is deciding which sort of car to get. They can get one that pollutes a lot or one that pollutes a little. It doesn't matter what anyone else is driving, or how much pollution is being generated by farting cows or paper mills or mad scientists. The decision being made is unaffected by, and unaffecting of, all the red herrings in the world.
To be honest, the pollution is a secondary issue for me - salient, but secondary. I just find cars to be very unpleasant in cities. They are dangerous and antisocial and slow and disruptive. I am wowed by the overwhelming stupidity of having a car in a city - why spend all that money to have a slow way to get around that makes you fat and mean? - but I do not think the fascinating sociopathology question justifies the ill effects it visits upon the rest of the city's residents.
I don't go to suburbs or small towns (less than 1m metro population) in the USA unless strongly compelled, so I couldn't care less what goes on there. Conduct Main Street smash-em-up derbies seven nights a week if you like. Change the driving age to 9. But in cities, every car taken off the road accomplishes a lot toward increasing quality of life for the inhabitants. I want to be able to walk through a green light without being honked at, without having to clamber over cars that have backed up through the crosswalk because their drivers are too idiotic to see that they need to wait until the intersection is clear. I want to hear sounds of people playing music and kids screaming and friends talking, not of someone's maladjusted engine idling outside my window (stinking up my apartment) or speeding up the street. I don't want to pick up the paper and learn about yet another child run down by a driver who doesn't understand the words "Slow - School zone". I don't want to pay the increased housing costs resulting from 25% of available land area being in service to cars.
The only pleasant thing about cars in cities is how much time they buy me. When I have to meet someone who has to take a 15-minute drive from a comparable distance, I can leave 5 minutes before the meeting time and still beat them there, because the bike is that much faster.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Nonetheless, it's not priced in accordance with its scarcity, because of the nature of competition (and level of economic development) among its producers. If the oil were all in the hands of a bunch of Norways (instead of economically schizophrenic Saudi Arabias and Venezuelas), you can bet it'd last longer and cost a whole lot more, because Norway doesn't have the cash flow issues that preclude other countries from rationally extracting the most income (taking into account time value of money). As it is, however, they are dragged into the race to the bottom (unless they wanted to just put off all production until everyone else ran out).
Rarely. Every once in a while MPM Ali Al-Naimi will work up a lather and get someone at an OPEC meeting to suggest that countries should start adhering to the production quotas they'd agreed to, and they all mutter assent, and then just keep on selling all they can. OPEC ain't what it used to be.
Good luck. The Saudis have been trying for some time to develop their refinery business (the apparent culmination of their strategy to guarantee long-term economic viability by diversifying away from petrochemicals and into "services") but it's still not particularly competitive.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
So there's a difference between vigilante justice and corporate decisions? Wake the fuck up. Our country has a system in place that gives corporations all the rights of individuals but not all the responsibilities. What would happen to you if you built 100 engines that spewed the equibvalent of 100 Ford Excursions? Nothing nice. But we reward Ford for it.
Personally, I would never kill anyone unless I had to. But torching an SUV dealership does far less damage than SUV's themselves cause.
Carnivore are in operation on the Internet, you just moved way up on a couple of watch lists.
Yeah, be a good little worker bee. Otherwise Uncle Sam will have to give you a spanking.
Art At Home
I'm from Oregon, too by the way. I feel your pain about bicycle protests and tree-ins. I had to move to NYC to get away from that crap. But this doesn't change what I said about corporate responsibility. Typically this issue is countered with the "red-tape" boogy man. To question the way our media presents issues to us is not elitism. Try reading a foreign paper about US issues in parallel with a local one. Ra Ra America!
Answer me this. Why is it OK for Ford to make Excursions?
Art At Home
2. There is a demand for Excursions and demand drives the market.
3. Consumers have the right to buy what they want.
Why is it legal to make them? Your concept of your rights and freedoms fails to take into account the right of others to a clean environment. This is indeed the United States, and all of your rights are balanced with the rights of others, unless of course you happen to be a large corporation. You could take a broader view of safety, like the safety of other drivers. Would you want to die because an Excursion is the only thing that their sedentary, obese family will fit in?
Art At Home
Wow. That's shockingly ignorant. We use our military power to hold down gas prices. It's basically a divide and conquer thing. We keep the middle east fucked up because we want it that way.
Art At Home
Also, the status quo is not a without a value system. Is it wrong to propose a different one? The current value system in America has very little to do with what it's architects envisioned. Especially with regard to the economy. Even Adam Smith advocated market supervision by the government.
Art At Home
I don't see where you're getting this information on my personal life and attitude. I'm not a paranoid conspiracy freak. If you got that impression from visiting my page, you missed the joke. My favorite humor has to do with black helicopters and UFOs.
I don't believe the media is a tool of evil, but I don't harbor the illusion that the NY Times, Reuters, or CNN are any different from MSNBC. The value system they reflect is inseparable from their ownership. There's a great article over on plastic about the Stalin-esque propaganda vocabulary that our government uses today, on the right and left. Terms like "pro-life", "faith-based", "affirmative action", etc. Terms that the mainstream media repeat like parrots. And what's with the 'elitism' thing? So it's OK to question the media, but voicing your opinion when you disagree isn't? Does pointing out their glaring conflicts of interest imply that I have some sort of 'inside-track'?
I'm no friend of massive Lexus SUV's, I assure you, but people should have a choice. We live in a capitalist system, whether you like it or not, and there is a market for large SUV-type cars ...I don't feel 'enslaved' by corporations. I dont feel that Nike is my master. I have a brain. If i like a nike product, and its the right price, i'll buy it.
I think you're equating consumer choice with freedom. People want SUVs and the companies are building them, but that doesn't mean that the consumers are running the show. You're not allowed to sell anything you want in America, and there's nothing inherently anti-capitalist about adding to that list. Maybe anti-libertarian, but that's different. The right wing in America has created a false dichotomy between near total laissez-faire economics and socialism, which is ridiculous. Even Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) advocated fairly extensive market regulation.
It's not that I feel enslaved, people do have to work somewhere, right? Corporations have the same rights as individuals under US law, which is OK. But when it comes to responsibility, they revert to amorphous entities with no one responsible. You can't send a corporation to jail, or do anything remotely near to it. I think (some) people feel that the legal system is an ineffective way to deal with Corporate America. That won't change until they're made more accountable. When I wrote "wake the fuck up", I should have followed it with "this is not a level playing field."
Art At Home
Imagine if some other nation decided that Washington was a separate country, and the Gates family was royalty.
Art At Home
well, that's kind of subjective, since the vast majority of people who live and work in Kuwait aren't citizens.
Art At Home
International conglomerates routinely engage in disinformation campaigns, gross exaggeration of reality and outright lies to push their points of view, in addition spending millions to influence politics. Excuse me if I don't feel like getting up in arms about Greenpeace or the Sierra Club stretching the facts to make people aware of issues that the industries responsible for them very much hoped would fly right under the radar of public scrutiny.
I am a degreed chemist, a reasonably well-educated person who follows biotech news fairly closely. I think GMO technology (who cares if you like the term? It's accurate) holds massive potential for benefitting humanity but like any powerful tool, it's clear that it could cause significant harm. I would like to see GMO projects receiving some kind of regulated oversight, I would like to see significantly more safety testing of GMO foods, and I certainly feel I have the right to know if what I'm consuming contains GMO products. The agritech/biotech industries are blocking all of these moderate requests.
The Starlink corn issue is instructive. A company produces a seed that results in a food product that is not approved for human consumption due to proven allergenic potential. The company fails to take any significant action to keep this food product segregated from human food products, or even to properly inform farmers that this is a necessity. The corn shows up in taco shells and the company gets crucified. Their response? They try to get their product an emergency exemption - with no justification except that dealing with the situation they created is going to cost them. Whether this corn is a true health danger is irrelevant. What is relevant is the incredible short-sightedness, failure to create appropriate safegaurds, and arrogance in the face of legitimate public concerns.
Companies that are staking their businesses on developing GMO technologies bear as much responsibility if not more for public backlash and potential slowdowns and interruptions of research as ecological organizations. When they start handling GMO responsibly they will find it much easier to reap its benefits.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Do they not understand that torching an entire dealership would probably harm the environment more than if every one of those vehicles were being used normally?
Punch out yer 'cats! Richen up yer fuel mixture! There's no replacement for displacement. All that good stuff. I'm proud of my 14mpg, the smell of my exhaust, and the way I can total a small car with my truck.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Or words to that effect...
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
A quick visit to Dictionary.com yields the following:
terrorism n
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Vandalism n
Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property.
While both are techically correct, terrorism seems to be the more precise term for what happened, wouldn't you say?
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Ahh, the true cry of a hypocrit. You are willing to protest something, but not to take responsibility for your protest. Hate to tell you but if you REALLY care in your cause, you need to be willing to go to jail for it. It makes you look weak and afraid if you hide from your own actions.
Destroying property != censorship.
Ok, fine, so what would you call it if Monsanto sent in representitives and burned down your offices?
Yes, a 1997 Honda Accord pollutes more than a 2001 Ford Excursion. The Accord first met LEV requirements in 1998, and the 2001 Exursion is LEV certified. The Excursion may use twice the gas, but it has lower emissions per mile than does the Accord. The Exursion will more quickly deplete us of our fossil fuel supply, but the greenies want that. Correct only if you look solely at hyrdocarbon emissions, and at the smaller, lighter Explorer. I can't find emissions data for the Excursion, but being generous and using the 2WD Explorer (also LEV certified in 2001), it still doesn't add up if you look at all emissions:
/. to accept it, as it doesn't take <pre> tags, and it doesn't take American Express®.
Now imagine you'd gotten a 2001 Accord instead of the 2001 Excursion or Explorer. Or a Beetle. Or (heavens!) a Toyota Prius!
But for fun, let's assume your original statement was 100% correct. Do you think that the extra metal, plastic, rubber, etc. that go into an Excursion beyond what goes into the Accord is free? That there's no environmental impact of that? That tires from a heavy vehicle somehow wear more slowly and contribute less to water pollution than a smaller vehicle? Or that the refining, distribution and sales of more gasoline are without cost or environmental impact?
Somebody should invent a "actual cost-o-meter"® that shows what our actions and choices actually cost, both in terms of real money and impact on the environment. Of course, then I'd log off Slashdot, power down my computer, and (gasp!) go outside. Which I'll be doing shortly to take the clothes off the line...
values are driving 12,500 miles per year
year/make/model MPG Fuel Fuel $ CO2 CO N oxides Hydrocarbons
2001 EXPLORER 2WD 17.1 mpg 733 gal $1172 14655 lb 223.1 lb 25.0 lb 6.6 lb
1997 ACCORD 25.0 mpg 500 gal $800 10000 lb 193.0 lb 24.1 lb 9.0 lb
2001 EXPEDITION 4WD 14.7 mpg 851 gal $1361 17015 lb 223.1 lb 25.0 lb 6.6 lb
2001 ACCORD 26.1 mpg 479 gal $766 9581 lb 175.7 lb 18.0 lb 4.7 lb
2001 Toyota Prius 48.6 mpg 257 gal $412 5144 lb 103.3 lb 1.8 lb 1.2 lb
2001 Ford Focus 28.7 mpg 436 gal $698 8725 lb 193.0 lb 18.0 lb 5.7 lb
source: EDF's 'tailpipe tally'
Sorry about the lack of coulmns; that's the only way I could get
Wind the clock forward a couple of hundred years.
A bunch of people take direct action against what they feel is an unjust system; they destroy some property by setting fire to it. A bunch rich geeks see the threat to their lifestyle and denounce the crime calling for the full force of law to be brought to bear on the criminals.
Sad really.
Oh and anyone who thinks that destroying property is the morally the same as taking human life is a dangerously long way down the slippery slope to having no moral understanding at all.
Cheers.
Kant would argue that it not right do these things BECAUSE of the implicit wrongness of those actions.
Ethics class was one of those classes in college that those of us that loved to argue actually looked forward to in the day.
The environmental damage from the burning of the dealership is just the thing they are trying to prevent. Funny that they don't seem to recognize that.
There is an interesting debate going on in parts of Europe right now concerning the insertion of engineered plants / animals into the food chain (acceptance in Yurp isn't as high as in the US). There was a radio interview the other day in which a point was brought up which I thought was interesting:
Engineered food is an unknown risk, but in a new way. Other large-scale risks can be calculated with more precision, e.g. nuclear power, direct contamination of water supply etc. Engineered food may have a very large scale impact 20 years down the road, and however small chances are, they must be "multiplied" by this potential impact. The question was of insurance, and the point was: insurance in this instance is doing nothing other than allowing companies to take risks they would otherwise not take, by paying for someone else to take over not only the risk, but actually the accountability.
The worst-case scenario would be a cross between Thalidomid ("Contergan") for the masses and, well, lots and lots of insurance companies in chapter 13.
yes, we have no bananas
These actions are justifyable from a moral standpoint. When the established government is commiting crimes, the only way to respond to that is overthrowing the government (something that could take 100's of years through democracy, and even then it's not guarenteed success. If lets say the green party got the next president, I find it very likely that the armed forces in cohort with the corporations would arrange a coup d'etat.)
The other way is civil disobedience. That's how the civil rights movement won in the 60's. Now, 40 years after, I am sure most people agree that the civil rights movement did the right thing. If they had obeyed the government, U.S would still have been an apartheid state.
Getting rid of the SUV's could be done really easily: Introduce extra taxes for vehicles with bas gas milage. And on top of that, have taxes on gasoline. We know from experience that increasing the proce of gas will steer consumers towards more efficient cars. That's how the U.S. car industry almost died in the 70s and 80s. Many countries have extreme gas taxation. The consumers complain, but it works. Fewer cars are on the road, and the cars are smaller. The only way to speak to consumers, is through the wallet.
Unfortunately there is absolutely NO political will to get these taxes in place. I'd alomst be tempted to have U.N. collect these taxes, because the environmental damages are not constrained to the habitat of the perpetrators. If you want to play environmental pig, you have to pay the price.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
It seems to me that torching an SUV dealership would release a lot of non-environmentally friendly garbage into the air. Kind of counter productive for the eco-terrorists when you think about it.
I agree that often eco-terrorism is sometimes crazy teenagers playing with matches, or extreme ignorant firebugs, but NOT ALWAYS. For example, there was a case in Arizona where half-built luxury homes on the edge of a nature preserve were being burned down by a group of mountain bikers. Though in MOST cases this would be unacceptable, consider: 1.) All the targets were half-constructed mansions, thus uninhabited. Evidence shows the eco-arsonists took great pains not to put other people's safety at risk. 2.) They were LUXURY homes. One still shouldn't burn any home down, generally, but at least it wasn't low-income housing or something like that. The owners of these mansions would have to be INSANELY wealthy, and probably they own other homes elsewhere, so it doesn't hurt THEM too bad. 3.) The message had to be sent. In Arizona, it is all too obvious that developers' money is in control of the government. Previously untouched wilderness is being developed at an acre per hour. That is obscene! There's absolutely NO planning or limits on growth. A bill to slow down development WAS introduced, but an influx of money killed it. Obviously SOMETHING had to be done! So the eco-arsonists started torching some half-built mansions, not to burn down every luxury home in the state, duh, but to attract the media and increase public awareness, in the hopes that government officials might listen to the people rather than their wallets, or else be voted out of office. And they have been somewhat successful. I'm not recommending that everyone go out and burn down buildings. The eco-arsonists, in a newspaper interview, showed that they take their job seriously. They extensively plan each fire, to make sure no one is hurt. They care about the environment and realized the problem before others paid attention. And they have enough faith in democracy to risk their lives in order to rally the public behind this important issue. No one is hurt, the environment at stake.... I think these eco-terrorists are justified. Not to say the SUV-burning ones being discussed are justified, though. They seem ignorant, unproductive, and rather insane. I'm just arguing that not all eco-terrorists are wrong.
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
In Oregon recently, some eco-terror people recently burned down a bunch of trees that were genetically modified for purposes of bio-remediayion. It amazes me what ignorance people display through much of eco-terrorism. I consider myself to be a pretty environmentally friendly guy. However, I also happen to be in love with someone who is a researcher in plant genetics (lucky me!), and I've learned how ignorant I was. I used to be one of the people how vowed against all Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO), now I see a great deal of value. For example, in some countries, many people have vitamin deficiencies that can lead to blindness (I think this is vitamin K but I can't remember). Some researchers are working on (or may have finished) corn that grows with the vitamin in it. They did this using genetics. Now go tell a few million parents that their children can grow up without blindess. This corn has no impact on the environment that is different from regular corn. This does not mean that GMO companies should be allowed to act with impunity; and most geneticists agree. There needs be very careful controls on the development and use of GMO's. (Monarch butterflies being a good example of the potential problems). How 'bout another sample: Bio-remediation. What if we created a harmless bacteria that can clean up toxic waste. I know someone working on such a project. She is practically booed every time she tells someone that she works in genetics, but it seems to me like she is doing some very interesting work. In conclusion, if we can create wood that is more efficient, crops that are disease or weather resistant etc, we can solve a lot of problems. Let's just be careful when making them. I heard a quote from a geneticist talking about creating "hardier" crops through Genetic Modification. He said, "The person who has no food has only one problem. The person who has food has many problems." I think his point is well taken, by me at least. That, for those of us who have food, it is easy to complain about GM stuff. And for those who would destory this kind of work, maybe you should go to the far east and tell two parents that their children are going to have to grow up blind, because you destroyed the test field where the GM corn was being grown. -Hobo
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
There are 2 (and only 2) reasons why one should own an SUV.
1) You do serious off-roading. This does not mean driving down a dirt road, or even a muddy road. It most certainly does not mean driving on ice or snow. This pertains to people who take their vehicles over combinations of large rocks, standing water, mud, loose dirt, etc.
2) You have a large family and you frequently tow a large payload (such as a boat).
In all other cases, an SUV is the wrong vehicle for the job, and if you are considering it you need to seriously analyze your choice of vehicle. SUVs are not safe. They are more dangerous in single car collisions (such as when you lose control of the vehicle and hit a guardrail, ditch, telephone pole, etc.), they are less able to handle emergency situations (such as swerving or hard braking to avoid road obstructions). Their Body-On-Frame construction means that in a collision with a smaller car, the brunt of the force will be transferred to the other vehicle, and in a collision with a larger vehicle (such as another SUV), the occupants will suffer the brunt of the force.
Please read the following sites for information regarding the myths of SUV "safety" and their ability to "handle" inclement weather.
Why SUVs are inferior on-road and off-road
Why technically advanced All-Wheel Drive systems are better than primitive part-time 4WD
On a side note, some have mentioned in defense that SUVs are taxed higher through the gasoline tax. Consider that many high-end sports cars (such as Porsche 911 Turbos, Ferarris, and such) are tacked with gas-guzzler taxes even though they get better mileage than the king of inefficency, the Ford Excursion V10 (8 city/10 HWY) and you will start to see the "fairness" of the fact that these vehicles don't have to stand up to the same crash standards, construction standards, or fuel standards that other vehicles do.