The FCC's statements on net neutrality clearly leave an exception for government. It's overriding net neutrality but not the FCC's stance on net neutrality.
Once the government gains new useful powers like those granted to the DHS, it is extremely difficult to dislodge them. Once the power is there, there's no reason for them to ever think of giving it up.
So much for net neutrality... Every time something like the Swine flu comes around they'll use it as an excuse to intervene. Perhaps even use it as an excuse to buy a few billion $$ of equipment to facilitate their meddling.
If commerical encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups, then I'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now. That is a troubling thought.
They are not concerned for what is good for the people. They don't want the law solely because they are afraid that it will lead to citizens making use of encryption that makes it harder for them to snoop. Pure selfish interest.
a solution to the problem could be to set up a system to remove Oxygen from these areas to prevent fires liek some airlines are trying to do with heir fuel tanks. Remove the Oxygen so there isn't an oxidizer to allow fires to continue and spread.
nonsense. If your rights are not protected there can be no market. There'd be no recourse for someone stealing your property without compensation and zero reason to cooperate.
This is the key pivot of your arguement, and i have no idea how you can so cleanly equate pollution to rights violation.
You don't see any act of violence against me if you poison my water, air, food etc? isn't that pollution? isn't that a violation of individual rights? I suggest you read up on Milton Friedman's work on the subject.
1000 cows, the river is unhealthy to fish from
it's also unsafe to drink from and thus this pollution is illegal trespass. You can't dump your trash on your neighbor's yard for this reason nor can you pollute the water of someone down stream. That would be a violation of their water and fishing rights in addition to trespass. A free market does not exist if no one is held accountable for their actions. This is something that very few people are willing to understand. A very simple test can be applied to any action regarding pollution: did you cause anyone else harm by your actions? If your cows pollute the river that's too far. If your cows did not then no problem. It's as simple as that. If you are regulating people to death then there is a good chance that you have regulations on the books that don't actually fulfil the role of restricting one individual from harming another. Anything less than total rights protection is an immoral hidden subsidy to industry. Anything more restrictive is counter-productive.
Technically if you did find a way to actually offset your emissions there wouldn't be any problem. Who cares if you fly your jet around if you take the appropriate measures to remove an equivalent amount of CO2 from the air that was released by the jet? You are acting like cap and trade is evil solely because it is a merket based solution to the problem. That isn't environmentalism, that's anti-capitalism. True environmentalism requires that we utilize all tools available to us to protect the environment and that includes "evil capitalist market based solutions."
ok here are a few examples: *MTBE an ingredient in much older oxygenated gasoline was found to leak into the water supply. Oxygenated fuel was supposed to address smog issues and reduce carbon monoxide. *Ethanol a common oxygenate and alternative biofuel is made chiefly from fermented Corn which is both inefficient, consumes significant quantities of Corn and uses large quantities of fertillizer which is now causing problems with eutrophication of bodies of water. *demonisation of nuclear power resulted in a further increase of the building of coal plants which emit large quantities of CO2 which exasperates global warming as well as copious quantities of radioactive Thorium and Uranium rich flue ash as well as Mercury and several known carcinogens.
The mainstream movement has resulted in a few success stories such as the NOx/SOx cap and trade emission reductions, stronger controls on known pollutants and an overall greater concern of the public for environmental issues over the years however, there is an aweful lot of policies in the movement that have been harmful and need to be changed, the negative stance on nuclear power being one of them.
The republicans haven't been frugal for years. What needs to happen to protect both the environment and remain frugal is: *the military budget needs to be slashed. subsidies for all industry must be eliminated. *make corporations completely accountable for environmental damage from the stockholders to the CEO. *shift taxation to consumption to both clean up the tax system and discourage waste. *encourage the creation of a market for the trade of CO2 as a resource for use in materials synthesis and biofuel production. This creates an economic incentive to capture CO2 and use it as a resource just like ancient microbes used the former cell toxin Oxygen as an electron acceptor. *set aside military funding for research into military applications of alternative fuels and waste reduction. The synthesis of aviation fuel from CO2 on board nuclear aircraft carriers as an example. The tech significantly reduces the nuclear aircraft carrier's vulnerability to attack on supply ships since it would produce its own aviation fuel. *strengthen property rights to include general pollution as trespass thus allowing property owners to legally force polluters to clean up their act.
there are a lot of ways to improve our environment that do not involve massive spending. Unfortunately, I doubt very much of it will actually come to pass. It's too popular to just throw money at a problem and hope it gets fixed or worse, pretend there isn't one.
During a recession, what I am suggesting is exactly what occurs. The problem more than anything, is that our government believes that industry has a right to exist at any cost. If consumers as they are so lovingly called reduce their spending habits, the idiots in D.C. call it a "crisis" that supposedly needs more government spending to fix.
It's possible for CO2 to be both the cause of climate change and for the proposed solutions to be very very wrong. The problem is that both sides have polarized to the point where a sensible solution is out of the question. The left is completely convinced that heavy government control is the only way to solve the problem and the right is convinced there is no problem. It's not hard to see that situation as being insane.
A free market requires that everyone's property and individual rights be respected. Pollution and environmental damage are forms of rights violation so these "far-right free-market wackos" aren't so much free market as corporatist. To them environmental protection is not a priority but many such as myself argue that environmental protection is necessary for individual and property rights to be protected which is a requirement for any capitalist/free market to function properly.
You know, I consider myself to be somewhat of an environmentalist and sadly I'd have to agree with you. The left environmental movement seems to be using environmental concerns as a means to bash Capitalism rather than meaningfully protect the environment. I remember back in college talking to the local environmental group on campus and there was frankly, very little talk of actually protecting the environment and more talk about subsidies for "green jobs" and such. I left with a sense that the environmental movement as a whole was going down the wrong road. Instead of embracing the frugality of the economic right as a means to discourage waste, the movement has encouraged subsidies and general corporate welfare as the means. I don't believe that their strategy will improve environmental or economic conditions.
Teach them to be frugal individuals. Reduce what you buy, re-use what you have and recycle any cans and bottles that you can. REcycling your cans can make you a decent amount of change that you can save for later. Bottles often have a few cents that can be recovered by recycling them. Turn off your lights when you're not using them, replace incandescent bulbs for high efficiency bulbs to save money on your electric bill. It won't eliminate your carbon footprint by any stretch but every last bit helps both environmentally and in monetary terms.
People keep chickens, turkeys and rabbits as "pets" all the time. Altough you shouldn't don't get too attached to the ones you're going to be having for dinner later. The type of pet someone gets is often influenced by economics. College students like me may opt for a cheaper gold fish or a hamster instead of a dog or a cat. If things get to the point where peoples' resources are strained, we'll probably see a major decrease in the popularity of larger, more costly pets in favor of smaller ones that are easier on the wallet.
Take a look at the world sir. The richest countries in the world also tend to have the lowest birth rates. That is not a coincidence. Fewer children to raise means more resources devoted to more productive uses such as taking care of the few children they already have or starting a business or a multitude of other things you did not consider.
"Murder" is specifically the taking of a human life -- not an animal life, a plant life, the life of a fungus, or anything else. It must be human. Merely "being alive" affords you no special status on this planet, as we're perfectly content to slaughter all kinds of life wholesale. But we draw the line at humans.
Provide evidence that indicates that an unborn child is not human.
There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form. Most of them are far superior to us in physical abilities; they can run faster, jump higher, shred with claws, cut with teeth, fly, breathe underwater, have a variety of senses and appendages we don't have, and so forth. But we have one thing no other life form seems to have -- our ability to rationalise, abstract, conceptualise.. in short, our ability to think. Other forms of life can certainly think to some degree but there is something unique about our abilities.
Does that mean that persons with mental defects are somehow not human? How about people with alzheimer's and very young born children? Are they inhuman because they lack some of these qualities you speak of? No sir... you are unequivocally wrong. A dog has the mental capacity of a 2 year old child yet you would not say that the line was drawn at that point; the dog is thought of being less than the human despite similar mental capacity. You value human life on a fairly arbitrary scale that favors your opinion but has little to do with reality.
No. There are some pro-lifers who base their position partly on the idea that an unwanted pregnancy is the result of immoral behavior on the mother's part. It's that level of idiocy that I am opposed to, not the general concept of the pro-life movement.
Slashdot Mirror
The FCC's statements on net neutrality clearly leave an exception for government. It's overriding net neutrality but not the FCC's stance on net neutrality.
Once the government gains new useful powers like those granted to the DHS, it is extremely difficult to dislodge them. Once the power is there, there's no reason for them to ever think of giving it up.
So much for net neutrality... Every time something like the Swine flu comes around they'll use it as an excuse to intervene. Perhaps even use it as an excuse to buy a few billion $$ of equipment to facilitate their meddling.
If commerical encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups, then I'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now. That is a troubling thought.
They probably thought that a three strikes rule would be easier for people to remember. It's a rule that isn't based on justice but intimidation.
They are not concerned for what is good for the people. They don't want the law solely because they are afraid that it will lead to citizens making use of encryption that makes it harder for them to snoop. Pure selfish interest.
a solution to the problem could be to set up a system to remove Oxygen from these areas to prevent fires liek some airlines are trying to do with heir fuel tanks. Remove the Oxygen so there isn't an oxidizer to allow fires to continue and spread.
nonsense. If your rights are not protected there can be no market. There'd be no recourse for someone stealing your property without compensation and zero reason to cooperate.
You don't see any act of violence against me if you poison my water, air, food etc? isn't that pollution? isn't that a violation of individual rights? I suggest you read up on Milton Friedman's work on the subject.
it's also unsafe to drink from and thus this pollution is illegal trespass. You can't dump your trash on your neighbor's yard for this reason nor can you pollute the water of someone down stream. That would be a violation of their water and fishing rights in addition to trespass. A free market does not exist if no one is held accountable for their actions. This is something that very few people are willing to understand. A very simple test can be applied to any action regarding pollution: did you cause anyone else harm by your actions? If your cows pollute the river that's too far. If your cows did not then no problem. It's as simple as that. If you are regulating people to death then there is a good chance that you have regulations on the books that don't actually fulfil the role of restricting one individual from harming another. Anything less than total rights protection is an immoral hidden subsidy to industry. Anything more restrictive is counter-productive.
Technically if you did find a way to actually offset your emissions there wouldn't be any problem.
Who cares if you fly your jet around if you take the appropriate measures to remove an equivalent amount of CO2 from the air that was released by the jet? You are acting like cap and trade is evil solely because it is a merket based solution to the problem. That isn't environmentalism, that's anti-capitalism. True environmentalism requires that we utilize all tools available to us to protect the environment and that includes "evil capitalist market based solutions."
ok here are a few examples:
*MTBE an ingredient in much older oxygenated gasoline was found to leak into the water supply. Oxygenated fuel was supposed to address smog issues and reduce carbon monoxide.
*Ethanol a common oxygenate and alternative biofuel is made chiefly from fermented Corn which is both inefficient, consumes significant quantities of Corn and uses large quantities of fertillizer which is now causing problems with eutrophication of bodies of water.
*demonisation of nuclear power resulted in a further increase of the building of coal plants which emit large quantities of CO2 which exasperates global warming as well as copious quantities of radioactive Thorium and Uranium rich flue ash as well as Mercury and several known carcinogens.
The mainstream movement has resulted in a few success stories such as the NOx/SOx cap and trade emission reductions, stronger controls on known pollutants and an overall greater concern of the public for environmental issues over the years however, there is an aweful lot of policies in the movement that have been harmful and need to be changed, the negative stance on nuclear power being one of them.
The republicans haven't been frugal for years. What needs to happen to protect both the environment and remain frugal is:
*the military budget needs to be slashed.
subsidies for all industry must be eliminated.
*make corporations completely accountable for environmental damage from the stockholders to the CEO.
*shift taxation to consumption to both clean up the tax system and discourage waste.
*encourage the creation of a market for the trade of CO2 as a resource for use in materials synthesis and biofuel production. This creates an economic incentive to capture CO2 and use it as a resource just like ancient microbes used the former cell toxin Oxygen as an electron acceptor.
*set aside military funding for research into military applications of alternative fuels and waste reduction. The synthesis of aviation fuel from CO2 on board nuclear aircraft carriers as an example. The tech significantly reduces the nuclear aircraft carrier's vulnerability to attack on supply ships since it would produce its own aviation fuel.
*strengthen property rights to include general pollution as trespass thus allowing property owners to legally force polluters to clean up their act.
there are a lot of ways to improve our environment that do not involve massive spending. Unfortunately, I doubt very much of it will actually come to pass. It's too popular to just throw money at a problem and hope it gets fixed or worse, pretend there isn't one.
During a recession, what I am suggesting is exactly what occurs. The problem more than anything, is that our government believes that industry has a right to exist at any cost. If consumers as they are so lovingly called reduce their spending habits, the idiots in D.C. call it a "crisis" that supposedly needs more government spending to fix.
It's possible for CO2 to be both the cause of climate change and for the proposed solutions to be very very wrong. The problem is that both sides have polarized to the point where a sensible solution is out of the question. The left is completely convinced that heavy government control is the only way to solve the problem and the right is convinced there is no problem. It's not hard to see that situation as being insane.
A free market requires that everyone's property and individual rights be respected. Pollution and environmental damage are forms of rights violation so these "far-right free-market wackos" aren't so much free market as corporatist. To them environmental protection is not a priority but many such as myself argue that environmental protection is necessary for individual and property rights to be protected which is a requirement for any capitalist/free market to function properly.
You know, I consider myself to be somewhat of an environmentalist and sadly I'd have to agree with you. The left environmental movement seems to be using environmental concerns as a means to bash Capitalism rather than meaningfully protect the environment. I remember back in college talking to the local environmental group on campus and there was frankly, very little talk of actually protecting the environment and more talk about subsidies for "green jobs" and such. I left with a sense that the environmental movement as a whole was going down the wrong road. Instead of embracing the frugality of the economic right as a means to discourage waste, the movement has encouraged subsidies and general corporate welfare as the means. I don't believe that their strategy will improve environmental or economic conditions.
Teach them to be frugal individuals. Reduce what you buy, re-use what you have and recycle any cans and bottles that you can. REcycling your cans can make you a decent amount of change that you can save for later. Bottles often have a few cents that can be recovered by recycling them. Turn off your lights when you're not using them, replace incandescent bulbs for high efficiency bulbs to save money on your electric bill. It won't eliminate your carbon footprint by any stretch but every last bit helps both environmentally and in monetary terms.
Hannibal Lecter is that you?
Agreed. Energy consumption is an economics problem not strictly a pet problem.
People keep chickens, turkeys and rabbits as "pets" all the time. Altough you shouldn't don't get too attached to the ones you're going to be having for dinner later. The type of pet someone gets is often influenced by economics. College students like me may opt for a cheaper gold fish or a hamster instead of a dog or a cat. If things get to the point where peoples' resources are strained, we'll probably see a major decrease in the popularity of larger, more costly pets in favor of smaller ones that are easier on the wallet.
Take a look at the world sir. The richest countries in the world also tend to have the lowest birth rates. That is not a coincidence. Fewer children to raise means more resources devoted to more productive uses such as taking care of the few children they already have or starting a business or a multitude of other things you did not consider.
Provide evidence that indicates that an unborn child is not human.
Does that mean that persons with mental defects are somehow not human?
How about people with alzheimer's and very young born children? Are they inhuman because they lack some of these qualities you speak of? No sir... you are unequivocally wrong. A dog has the mental capacity of a 2 year old child yet you would not say that the line was drawn at that point; the dog is thought of being less than the human despite similar mental capacity. You value human life on a fairly arbitrary scale that favors your opinion but has little to do with reality.
You joke but I've got relatives who believe exactly that. The sad part is, they're not uncommon... JUst crazy.
No. There are some pro-lifers who base their position partly on the idea that an unwanted pregnancy is the result of immoral behavior on the mother's part. It's that level of idiocy that I am opposed to, not the general concept of the pro-life movement.
not what I meant... I meant that rape can cause an unwanted pregnancy through no fault of the mother.
Even if these terrorists did exist, it wouldn't be worth throwing our freedoms away to stop them.