put a heating pad under the cage/tank. I think a lot of them like it better with the heat source underneath anyway but I might be thinking of amphibians.
A citizen of a government is someone who has surrendered a portion of their natural (god given) rights to state in exchange for protection of their life and liberty. This is protection from forign nations and nationals, protection from nature, and protection from our fellow man. In other words, you don't get to be selfish and act in ways that might deprive others of their safety and liberty.
Federalism implies some powers are left to the states. One area that is not is interstate trade. This is not an implied power. It's right there in black and white. The federal government gets to regulate what goods for commercial resale are moved from one state to another. We are not living under the Articles of Confederation as some Libertarians seem to think. State and national governments are co-equal.
He's against the federal government doing just about anything as long as it's not making it a felony to burn the American Flag or an $8 million subsidy for the the shrimp industry in his district:
Ron Paul is as much a Libertarian as John Edwards is a Socialist.
Which also means, beyond a doubt, that they will keep a stranglehold on the patent. I consider "energy independance" to mean no country or corporate body has control.
The idea of Google as the power company on top of everything else is a bit much for me.
Depends on what you compare it to. Compare it to a Hummer and it's a huge improvement. Compare it to any of the hybrids currently in production and it's in the same ballpark. There are also regional differences since some places are more dependent on coal than others. The car is thus more environmentaly friendly when you drive it in Ohio than when you drive it in California.
It does make efforts at reducing electricity consumption seen kinda silly since switching to plugin hybrids will cause such a huge spike in demand that forgetting to turn off the lights when you leave the room for a few minutes.
I do think that we are going to start seeing a lot more stuff marketed as eco-friendly when in fact it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The real danger with this is that people will think they are making a difference and doing their part and thus become complacent. Until the problem is solved, nobody has done their part.
I thought I had stats on this bookmarked but can seem to find it at the moment. Firefox has been eating bookmarks recently.
There's a direct link between social instability and terrorism. Even Bush agrees with this. Well. He has it half right. It's not poverty. It's instability. Chaos breeds chaos. Investing in public infrastructure can help a lot. Now I admit to being a bit of a technological utopian, but I there really is a strong case to be made for technological advancement fostering freedom, democracy, and social stability.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of scientifically literate people on the left who have never objected to nuclear power. Like most scientifically literate people, we don't wake up in the morning and decide to disagree with the lays of physics. That's not to say that there aren't idiots on both the left and right who after being told what to think get it all confused. That's how we end up with global warming denialists who have no problem with nuclear power and Luddite environmentalists who quake at the mention of neutron.
Here's the real hard pill to swallow. The UN offers are based around nuclear proliferation concerns. We're pretty much been saying "you will pay us to play in the kiddie pool or we'll bomb you." They want heavy water reactors and breeders and I don't blame them. They are cheaper, more efficient and don't leave near as much waste hanging around.
Just because we're perfectly happy with 1960s era reactor technology that was never intended for use on land doesn't mean we should be forcing our low technological standards on the third world.
Telling them that they have to use inferior technology and be totally dependent on other nations to get it is kinda insulting, particualrly when Canada is hooking India and Pakistan up with CANDU technology. I think something like CANDU is what they were going for anyway but I might be thinking of Turkey.
Ammending the constitution to define a zygote as a peson is not in any a consistent with a libertarian position on liberty.
If you read the above link you'll see he's opposed to federal funds for all family planning efforts, not just abortion. He's also opposed to gay equality.
There's a reason he's a republican. Libertarians consider the right to be left alone and unmolested sacred. They wouldn't let him get away with using elected office to impose his religious views on the country.
There are two possible explanations for why middle eastern nations might want nuclear technology. One is that they want to blow us up. The other is that there are vast areas of their counties that don't have electricity. We accuse them of wanting to destroy the planet and we're the ones who ordered 300 new coal plants this year, knowing that industrial coal is the single largest contributer to greenhouse emissions. We should be helping Iran build nuclear power plants, not encouraging them to keep burning oil for power when peak oil and global warming are looming in the future.
Once you dig into his record a bit more you'll find that while he's opposed to big government, he's also opposed to the separation of church and state. You know what you get when you have a skeleton state and encourage religious groups to provide social services? You get Hamas. If organized religion is larger and more powerful than the government of the state hosting it, it will become the government of the state hosting it.
No thank you. I admit that government could really use an enema right about now, but given the choice, I'll take a corrupt oligarchy over a corrupt theocracy any day.
It defines the only circumstances under which warentless wiretap may take place and specifies that if it's done under any other circumstances all hell will break loose.
This is what Bush wants changed.
An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover-- (a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater; (b) punitive damages; and (c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
A $100 a day for every person with a telephone over a few years . . . Ouch.
That comes out to several trillion per teleco.
As I've been arguing elsewhere in this thread, there's a good faith argument to made that some form of retroactive liability shield is needed to keep this from totally tanking the economy. That would bankrupt the whole telecom industry at once (and deliver it to google.) I personally don't want gmail on my cell phone.
It's not the executive who are being granted immunity. It's the corporation, meaning the stockholders.
The CEOs were always going to skate. That's the whole point of corporate personhood, to shield corporate executives from liability. So long as there's no fraud involved they will still get multi-million dollar bonuses no matter what happens. If the democrats try to squeeze them I'm sure some of the neocon companies that moved headquarters to the UAE would be more than happy to use the money they embezzled from the CPA to pay them to play golf in Dubai for the rest of their lives.
I want the responsible CEOs and the politicians who were giving them a reach-arounds to spend the rest of their lives in jail, Bush and Cheney included.
I don't want an Enron ending where a couple yahoos spend five years in club fed while most of the guilty parties skate and 100,000 people have their lives ruined.
Bankrupting the telecos is not in the interest of the greater good. Neither is having taxpayers pay trillions to bail them out after the lawsuits with half that going to lawyers. Shielding the telecos from liability seems like the best of only shitty options.
If this isn't a clear indication of why corporate personhood is fucked up, I don't know what is. The guy who scrubs the toilets in the executive washrooms at AT&T didn't do anything wrong, but he stands lose his job and however much of his retirement plan is invested in the company. He's one of the people who had his phone tapped. The stock holders didn't do anything wrong. The people who expect the terms of their cell phone contracts to be honored didn't do anything wrong. When a corporate "person" breaks the law, it's not the actual parties who are responsible that pay the price. It's everybody else. The responsible CEOs will get five years worth of bonuses lumped together under the guise of a severance package. $5 says they go on to work for Halliburton and Bechtel in Dubai where they can't be served with subpoenas.
Slashdot Mirror
put a heating pad under the cage/tank. I think a lot of them like it better with the heat source underneath anyway but I might be thinking of amphibians.
You'll still be able to get halogens, FWIW.
From the perspective of social contract theory, government exists to protect citizens from sociopathic greedheads.
Check your wiring.
They can be a lot more sensitive to surges and fluctuations than incandescents.
If you've got compact fluorescents going out every six months, you're probobly going through PC components faster than you need to be as well.
two words:
Social Contract.
A citizen of a government is someone who has surrendered a portion of their natural (god given) rights to state in exchange for protection of their life and liberty. This is protection from forign nations and nationals, protection from nature, and protection from our fellow man. In other words, you don't get to be selfish and act in ways that might deprive others of their safety and liberty.
Federalism implies some powers are left to the states. One area that is not is interstate trade. This is not an implied power. It's right there in black and white. The federal government gets to regulate what goods for commercial resale are moved from one state to another. We are not living under the Articles of Confederation as some Libertarians seem to think. State and national governments are co-equal.
It's not socialized. It's universal. Private insurance and private health care companies still provide everything.
That's why it's such a crock. It's basically expanding access to the broken system that lets you die when it's not profitable to save your life.
He's against the federal government doing just about anything as long as it's not making it a felony to burn the American Flag or an $8 million subsidy for the the shrimp industry in his district:
Ron Paul is as much a Libertarian as John Edwards is a Socialist.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html
I was thinking about a new segway model.
Or we could just abolish money. That's just as practical and reduces the level of complexity in our society immensely.
A side effect is that all the leftover currency could be given away as free origami paper.
Which also means, beyond a doubt, that they will keep a stranglehold on the patent. I consider "energy independance" to mean no country or corporate body has control.
The idea of Google as the power company on top of everything else is a bit much for me.
Depends on what you compare it to. Compare it to a Hummer and it's a huge improvement. Compare it to any of the hybrids currently in production and it's in the same ballpark. There are also regional differences since some places are more dependent on coal than others. The car is thus more environmentaly friendly when you drive it in Ohio than when you drive it in California.
It does make efforts at reducing electricity consumption seen kinda silly since switching to plugin hybrids will cause such a huge spike in demand that forgetting to turn off the lights when you leave the room for a few minutes.
I do think that we are going to start seeing a lot more stuff marketed as eco-friendly when in fact it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The real danger with this is that people will think they are making a difference and doing their part and thus become complacent. Until the problem is solved, nobody has done their part.
I thought I had stats on this bookmarked but can seem to find it at the moment. Firefox has been eating bookmarks recently.
Actualy, I ditched mutt in favor of cone about six months ago. It's got a good chance of stealing the mutt crown.
There's a direct link between social instability and terrorism. Even Bush agrees with this. Well. He has it half right. It's not poverty. It's instability. Chaos breeds chaos. Investing in public infrastructure can help a lot. Now I admit to being a bit of a technological utopian, but I there really is a strong case to be made for technological advancement fostering freedom, democracy, and social stability.
That straw man needs a brain.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of scientifically literate people on the left who have never objected to nuclear power. Like most scientifically literate people, we don't wake up in the morning and decide to disagree with the lays of physics. That's not to say that there aren't idiots on both the left and right who after being told what to think get it all confused. That's how we end up with global warming denialists who have no problem with nuclear power and Luddite environmentalists who quake at the mention of neutron.
Here's the real hard pill to swallow. The UN offers are based around nuclear proliferation concerns. We're pretty much been saying "you will pay us to play in the kiddie pool or we'll bomb you." They want heavy water reactors and breeders and I don't blame them. They are cheaper, more efficient and don't leave near as much waste hanging around.
Just because we're perfectly happy with 1960s era reactor technology that was never intended for use on land doesn't mean we should be forcing our low technological standards on the third world.
Telling them that they have to use inferior technology and be totally dependent on other nations to get it is kinda insulting, particualrly when Canada is hooking India and Pakistan up with CANDU technology. I think something like CANDU is what they were going for anyway but I might be thinking of Turkey.
Here you go:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
That's what he's been up to in congress.
Ammending the constitution to define a zygote as a peson is not in any a consistent with a libertarian position on liberty.
If you read the above link you'll see he's opposed to federal funds for all family planning efforts, not just abortion. He's also opposed to gay equality.
There's a reason he's a republican. Libertarians consider the right to be left alone and unmolested sacred. They wouldn't let him get away with using elected office to impose his religious views on the country.
I don't buy it.
There are two possible explanations for why middle eastern nations might want nuclear technology. One is that they want to blow us up. The other is that there are vast areas of their counties that don't have electricity. We accuse them of wanting to destroy the planet and we're the ones who ordered 300 new coal plants this year, knowing that industrial coal is the single largest contributer to greenhouse emissions. We should be helping Iran build nuclear power plants, not encouraging them to keep burning oil for power when peak oil and global warming are looming in the future.
Really?
Then why does he vote like a Christian fascist?
Once you dig into his record a bit more you'll find that while he's opposed to big government, he's also opposed to the separation of church and state. You know what you get when you have a skeleton state and encourage religious groups to provide social services? You get Hamas. If organized religion is larger and more powerful than the government of the state hosting it, it will become the government of the state hosting it.
No thank you. I admit that government could really use an enema right about now, but given the choice, I'll take a corrupt oligarchy over a corrupt theocracy any day.
Anyone been using it for a while without any problems?
I've not evaluated it recently. Horde is a PITA to set up and this doesn't give me confidence in the SM team.
in my sig
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001810----000-.html
It defines the only circumstances under which warentless wiretap may take place and specifies that if it's done under any other circumstances all hell will break loose.
This is what Bush wants changed.
A $100 a day for every person with a telephone over a few years . . . Ouch.
That comes out to several trillion per teleco.
As I've been arguing elsewhere in this thread, there's a good faith argument to made that some form of retroactive liability shield is needed to keep this from totally tanking the economy. That would bankrupt the whole telecom industry at once (and deliver it to google.) I personally don't want gmail on my cell phone.
It's not the executive who are being granted immunity. It's the corporation, meaning the stockholders.
The CEOs were always going to skate. That's the whole point of corporate personhood, to shield corporate executives from liability. So long as there's no fraud involved they will still get multi-million dollar bonuses no matter what happens. If the democrats try to squeeze them I'm sure some of the neocon companies that moved headquarters to the UAE would be more than happy to use the money they embezzled from the CPA to pay them to play golf in Dubai for the rest of their lives.
I want the responsible CEOs and the politicians who were giving them a reach-arounds to spend the rest of their lives in jail, Bush and Cheney included.
I don't want an Enron ending where a couple yahoos spend five years in club fed while most of the guilty parties skate and 100,000 people have their lives ruined.
Bankrupting the telecos is not in the interest of the greater good. Neither is having taxpayers pay trillions to bail them out after the lawsuits with half that going to lawyers. Shielding the telecos from liability seems like the best of only shitty options.
If this isn't a clear indication of why corporate personhood is fucked up, I don't know what is. The guy who scrubs the toilets in the executive washrooms at AT&T didn't do anything wrong, but he stands lose his job and however much of his retirement plan is invested in the company. He's one of the people who had his phone tapped. The stock holders didn't do anything wrong. The people who expect the terms of their cell phone contracts to be honored didn't do anything wrong. When a corporate "person" breaks the law, it's not the actual parties who are responsible that pay the price. It's everybody else. The responsible CEOs will get five years worth of bonuses lumped together under the guise of a severance package. $5 says they go on to work for Halliburton and Bechtel in Dubai where they can't be served with subpoenas.
I'm all for justice, but justice this ain't.