Feel free to substitute your own horrible act of slaughter, then.
Unless you're arguing that the U.S. already totally secure, and monitoring the communications of suspected terrorist cells is wholly unnecessary on account of them (a) not existing and (b) not having any convenient methods of murdering large numbers of people all at once.
I honestly believe that Congress acknowledged a state of war, and that on that basis the President was authorized to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as conduct intelligence-gathering operations using all the means available to the Executive. This position is no more partisan than the one which would more narrowly interpret Congressional intent.
After all, as many people keep pointing out, Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of terrorism. Nor was the Hussein regime the worst perpetrator. While shutting down state sponsors of terror is an important part of the war, surely robust intellignece gathering operations are equally as important.
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped, because the government was actually following the law?
Oh, no doubt. Wouldn't it also be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped because the opposition faction understood and accepted that the government is, in fact, following the law?
I mean, the Administration is claiming that there are laws--and Constitutional obligations, even--that clearly and properly justify these wiretaps. You want to put an end to the wonder and discussion? Easy enough: simply accept the Administration's interpretation of the Constitution, rather than jumping on the partisan bandwagon and trying to apply FISA for political gain.
While you're at it, could you please bring back the unicorns and the fairies? Because, hey, wouldn't that be nice, too?
All I'm saying is, what do you think will further Bill Gates's plans for world domination? Reaching the hundreds of thousands of urban poor in the developing world, who already have TVs, a hackable power grid, and cell coverage? Or a few tens of thousands of rural poor who still don't have all three of these things?
Also, given Microsoft's occasional success at totally dominating whatever market it gets into, I'm inclined to believe that where I've seen shantytowns saturated with television aerials, Microsoft has seen actual statistical demographic data.
I suppose you could be right, though. Microsoft could be basing their entire strategy on leveraging something you say doesn't exist. After all, that's the kind of Microsoft thinking that lost them the PC market, and the browser market, and the console market, and the... oh, wait. Is my sarcasm showing?
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
And what if the tap is in addition to the legwork?
What if they're striking a compromise between timely intel and information management, by tapping anything they find on a terrorists computer, until such time as the results of the legwork confirm that it's either a hot number or a cold one? That's certainly how I would do it, at least in part.
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego, and it turns out that the cell that did it was all on that Pakistani computer's rolodex? The President has to go before Congress and tell them that even though the Consitution makes him responsible for national security, and even though he had those phone numbers in his possession for over a year, he was waiting for due process to play out before he started tapping them. He could defend himself at his impeachment hearing by complaining about information overload.
I assume, for the sake of argument, that the Tauntaun was more-or-less suited to the ice planet envirnment. If it had been out in the elements long enough to die, then Han probably (and reasonably!) figured that Luke had been out in the elements too long already. Thus, his first priority was to put several layers of insulating Tauntaun fat, flesh, and innards between Luke and the elements. Especially since the core of the Tauntaun's torso would be the last thing to cool off, and Luke would stay warmer longer the closer he was to it.
It's not at all clear that AT&T has done something illegal, if for no other reason than if they had, this lawsuit would not be necessary. The whole point of a lawsuit, after all, is to try to prove that somebody did something illegal. In fact, if the EFF loses this case, it will establish a precedent that what AT&T did is not illegal.
But even beyond that, the matter is highly controversial and hotly debated. There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime. There's the question of whether or not the definition of "military operations" includes intelligence-gathering operations conducted by the Executive. There's the question of the wisdom of arbitrarily curbing the Executive's constituional authority, which would make it more difficult for the Executive to fulfill its constitutional responsiblities.
And these are just a few of the more interesting (to me) questions of principle. There's also the practical questions: how much of what's being said about this issue is FUD from partisans, extremists, the media-industrial complex, etc.
Then there's the technical questions: You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up? Hope that number doesn't reach an active cell planning to smuggle an Iranian suitcase nuke across the Mexican border? Or do you say, I'm Executive, the Constitution gives me the responsibility to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to protect the country in time of war, and Congress has told me this is a time of war, so tap that fucker and let's see what's up?
Now, I admit that the responsible answer to that question depends a lot on the answers to the preceding questions. My point is that there is no consensus on the preceding questions, and therefore it's not at all obvious that AT&T did anything illegal.
There's nothing wrong with suing a company allegedly did something "obviously illegal". There is a problem with suing a company that did something not obviously illegal, and losing the suit. The problem is that this sets a precedent whereby the not obviously illegal act becomes obviously legal. This would be the oppsite of a Good Thing.
Personally, having forgotten to get fitted for a tinfoil beanie when I signed up for my/. account, I hope that the EFF does lose this suit, thus bolstering Bush's case for Executive freedom of action in military matters during wartime (subject to initial Legislative approval, of course).
I think you're confused about something. It seems as if Microsoft has identified a demographic for which the cell phone plus TV set solution would be better in some way than Negroponte's $100 laptop solution.
I mean, in Brazil alone there are probably a couple hundred thousand people living in favelas, in and around the major metropolitan areas. These people already have power, and TV sets, and these cities also have cell networks in place. And they're not the only two major metropolises full of poor people, either. That's got to be a huge demographic, and I really do think Microsoft has figured it out.
You also seem to be confused about something else, as well. Why would the lack of TV broadcasts and local TV broadcast infrastructure make this solution fail? The system would use the cell network for Internet access anyway. Not only that, but Internet access isn't even necessary. The user could always run applications directly from the phone, and store data there as well. That's not a trivial option, either. After all, it's not like cell phone processing power and data storage is decreasing with each generation.
Poor people living in the interior of Mato Grosso would have to make do with $100 laptops, I suppose. At least until the government put in a cell tower...
Anyway, what is your problem? That cell phones would need an electrical outlet to recharge, and poor people don't have electrical outlets or even TVs? Fair enough, except that I've pointed out that in Brazil alone there have to be a good couple hundred thousand poor people who have both power and TVs. And then you even agreed with me that poor people have TVs. So what is your problem? That not all poor people have TV broadcasts, but must watch pre-recorded programs? That doesn't really help your "poor people don't have TVs or power" line of reasoning, does it?
When I lived in Brazil, the hillsides and empty lots throughout the major cities of Rio and Sao Paulo were covered with "favelas". These plywood-and-cardboard shantytowns were home to tens of thousands of the poorest Brazilians, nationwide.
Whenever our route took us past a favela, my sisters and I would play a game. We'd try to find a shack, hovel, or lean-to that did not have a TV antenna standing over it.
It was a fun game, but very challenging.
It seems to me that Microsoft has its target market all figured out.
The ulterior motives of politicans and plutocrats have been so thoroughly deconstructed, demystified that they're hardly "ulterior" anymore. Gordon Gekko pretty much blew the whole conspiracy wide open.
So, without denying the kernel of truth that informs those particular cliches, I'm curious to know if scientists may also have ulterior motives. Ater all, it's unlikely that scientists would be free of human folly.
Your point about the pundits is well taken, although there are certainly many pundits who do believe in global warming.
However, pundits don't generally control the purse-strings and promotion lists at the major universities and research labs. So an ambitious scientist, if they had any sense, would play to their true masters and ignore the pundits.
You say their true masters are good science, but there are other possibilities...
For example, if a research lab receives government funding, then the purse strings are controlled by the politicians and the masses of people to which the politicians play. If the masses believe in global warming, then its in the politician's best interest to play to that belief. And if the politicians play to that belief, then that leads to increased financial and political support for scientists whose work appears to promote that particular political agenda.
Since the masses do seem to believe in global warming despite all the pundits who disagree, you at least have to acknowledge that there is a lot of financial and political pressure for scientists to support global warming theories, whether they sincerely believe in those theories or not.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that scientists alone among humans would be immune to political and finanical pressures, or that scientists alone among humans would be free of ulterior motives.
Ah. I was thinking something more like a too-low concentration of atmospheric oxygen to make breathing comfortable without some kind of aid.
Anyway, losing a life-sustaining atmosphere would not be a trivial matter.
Diving head first into progress is what humans do best, though. I suspect that in the long run, second-guessing our evolutionary strengths will be a greater threat to our survival than the side effects of playing to those strengths.
For one thing, by constantly creating and adapting to harmful environments of all kinds, we'll be much better prepared to deal with the exteme ice age and greenhouse phases of the earth's climate cycles.
Instead of your pointy-haired one-size-fits-all approach, how about if we tailor each solution to fit the needs and resources presented in context.
For example: Poor people in developing countries have a need for basic computing devices that are cheap and robust. One way to meet this need is to use off the shelf components and mature, common technologies. Therefore, it would make sense to meet the need in this way.
Is it just me, or is your final position of "sure, it would suck to have to carry an oxygen tank, but we could do it if we had to" a far cry from your starting position of "we could make it impossible to live!"
Humans find workarounds for difficult conditions all the time, and seem to thrive in the most unlikely and labor-intensive scenarios.
I'm willing to bet that under pressure, humans will continue to adapt and survive with the same unthinking but surprisingly successful aplomb that has marked our development so far.
For every human that wants to make the world unihabitable, two others like it just the way it is, and at least one of those is willing to go to lengths to fight for it.
Even then, very few people actually want to make the world literally "uninhabitable". In reality, At least two of those people want to make the world more inhabitable for themselves--an urge humanity shares with every other species that ever evolved.
What if this planet is nothing more than our den, our nest? Why shouldn't we make it more comfortable for ourselves? We have the whole galaxy to explore, and that's just for starters.
Have you considered the possibility that there are other factors involved? Isn't it possible that most scientists feel that their reputations won't be in jeopardy if they support global warming? Indeed, couldn't it be possible that some of the global warming proponents are not actually believers, but are simply trying to save their reputations by embracing a theory they don't really support?
I mean, if it's the case that few scientists are willing to risk their careers to oppose global warming, don't we have to consider that some scientists are willing to further their careers by pretending to support global warming?
Honestly, knowing how greedy we as a species can be...
Ironically, it's not our greed but our capacity to control it that sets us apart from other species. What other species is capable of practicing restraint? It's true that we humans don't always practice restraint, but every other species never practices restraint.
When was the last time a virus, or a wolf, or a salmon chose voluntarily not to expand to consume all the resources in its niche? they would n
Anglo Australians may not be as self-disciplined as aboriginals, but they're still models of self-discipline compared to the other foreign species that have been introduced to Australia. After all, it's not like Bart Simpson's frogs were going to set aside vast parklands free from froggy exploitation.
Human beings are the only species in all of history that will voluntarily not colonize, exploit, and ultimately consume every available piece of land and every available resource.
Besides, how can you say a human is greedy, but a virus isn't? They both evolved through evolution. They're both a product of natural processes. If anything, it's humanity's inability to simply obey its animal instincts that sets us apart, not the characteristic of "greed" that we share with every other organism we've ever met.
I was referring to the combination mousepad/hanzi writing tablet requested in the comment to which I was replying. If you go back through the thread, it should become clear to you that localized keyboards aren't actually relevant to anything I said.
See, it's exactly this kind of pointy-haired feature creep that takes a perfectly good basic product or service and turns it into a bloated, overpriced piece of crap.
It should ship with the bare minimum necessary to get things started. Once the regional economy picks up (in part because of programs like this one), you can start shipping $200 laptops with more advanced features.
I'm curious, when you're doing 10 people's job, and fearing for your livelihood, you still have time to sleep AND play?? And your health isn't completely dependant on supplements, pills and constant doctor visits?
Strangely, I'm an American, but I'm only doing the job of one or two people. Not only that, but I get paid really well, I find plenty of time to sleep and to play, and even though I don't exercise, take a lot of pills or supplements, and rarely visit the doctor, I'm still pretty healthy.
But the weirdest part, from your point of view, anyway, is that I have yet to meet a middle-class American whose experience differs from mine in any significant way. In fact, my neighborhood is full of fat and happy middle-class homeowners. They all seem to find enough time and energy to raise families, maintain their cars, go fishing, lounge in the hot tub, celebrate the holidays, keep pets, and sleep well at night.
I know that not all Americans live like this. A few live even better. A few more live much worse. But I'd love to know more about this horrible dystopian America you believe in so fervently. Surely if you're going to make such extreme generalizations, the vast majority of Americans must live as you describe. So where are they?
Look at it this way: They've based their compensation entirely on how much the world values Google.
Even if you make the tax-dodge argument, it still only works if their company's stock is worth enough to make such tax dodge worth considering.
Nothing about their salary is locked in. Either they continue to make decisions that keep the stock price high and their pockets full of phat cash, or they don't get paid.
Wasn't unseasonably cold in Canada just this very winter?
And didn't Europe just go through a couple weeks of unseasonably cold weather and unprecedented snowfall just last month? Or was it earlier this month?
I mean, I'm open-minded and all, but isn't there also a lot of evidence that the global warming we're observing is actually part of a millenial cycle independent of human activity?
And isn't there even a lot of evidence that the effect of human activity on global temperature changes is (barely) measurable, its effect may be negligible?
And didn't someone just announce results of new studies showing that trees may be responsible for producing between 10% and 30% of the ecosphere's methane emissions? If this new research is at all accurate, wouldn't this totally undermine the validity of the Kyoto Protocol, which grants pollution credits to nations that plant lots of trees? Wouldn't it mean, in effect, that Kyoto promotes global warming based on faulty science and a rush to judgement on issues we really don't fully understand?
I'm not saying that's the case, mind you. I'm just trying to keep an open mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh.
With me, a case of beer will get me to laugh in your face and tell you to go through the fucking process.
Then I'd drink the beer and kick you out of my office.
Feel free to substitute your own horrible act of slaughter, then.
Unless you're arguing that the U.S. already totally secure, and monitoring the communications of suspected terrorist cells is wholly unnecessary on account of them (a) not existing and (b) not having any convenient methods of murdering large numbers of people all at once.
I honestly believe that Congress acknowledged a state of war, and that on that basis the President was authorized to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as conduct intelligence-gathering operations using all the means available to the Executive. This position is no more partisan than the one which would more narrowly interpret Congressional intent.
After all, as many people keep pointing out, Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of terrorism. Nor was the Hussein regime the worst perpetrator. While shutting down state sponsors of terror is an important part of the war, surely robust intellignece gathering operations are equally as important.
No, I meant during wartime, a state of affairs Congress acknowledged shortly after 9/11.
In the passage you quoted, I said that the question was about the extent of the President's wartime authority, not its existence.
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped, because the government was actually following the law?
Oh, no doubt. Wouldn't it also be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped because the opposition faction understood and accepted that the government is, in fact, following the law?
I mean, the Administration is claiming that there are laws--and Constitutional obligations, even--that clearly and properly justify these wiretaps. You want to put an end to the wonder and discussion? Easy enough: simply accept the Administration's interpretation of the Constitution, rather than jumping on the partisan bandwagon and trying to apply FISA for political gain.
While you're at it, could you please bring back the unicorns and the fairies? Because, hey, wouldn't that be nice, too?
All I'm saying is, what do you think will further Bill Gates's plans for world domination? Reaching the hundreds of thousands of urban poor in the developing world, who already have TVs, a hackable power grid, and cell coverage? Or a few tens of thousands of rural poor who still don't have all three of these things?
Also, given Microsoft's occasional success at totally dominating whatever market it gets into, I'm inclined to believe that where I've seen shantytowns saturated with television aerials, Microsoft has seen actual statistical demographic data.
I suppose you could be right, though. Microsoft could be basing their entire strategy on leveraging something you say doesn't exist. After all, that's the kind of Microsoft thinking that lost them the PC market, and the browser market, and the console market, and the... oh, wait. Is my sarcasm showing?
Sorry 'bout that.
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
And what if the tap is in addition to the legwork?
What if they're striking a compromise between timely intel and information management, by tapping anything they find on a terrorists computer, until such time as the results of the legwork confirm that it's either a hot number or a cold one? That's certainly how I would do it, at least in part.
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego, and it turns out that the cell that did it was all on that Pakistani computer's rolodex? The President has to go before Congress and tell them that even though the Consitution makes him responsible for national security, and even though he had those phone numbers in his possession for over a year, he was waiting for due process to play out before he started tapping them. He could defend himself at his impeachment hearing by complaining about information overload.
I assume, for the sake of argument, that the Tauntaun was more-or-less suited to the ice planet envirnment. If it had been out in the elements long enough to die, then Han probably (and reasonably!) figured that Luke had been out in the elements too long already. Thus, his first priority was to put several layers of insulating Tauntaun fat, flesh, and innards between Luke and the elements. Especially since the core of the Tauntaun's torso would be the last thing to cool off, and Luke would stay warmer longer the closer he was to it.
It's not at all clear that AT&T has done something illegal, if for no other reason than if they had, this lawsuit would not be necessary. The whole point of a lawsuit, after all, is to try to prove that somebody did something illegal. In fact, if the EFF loses this case, it will establish a precedent that what AT&T did is not illegal.
/. account, I hope that the EFF does lose this suit, thus bolstering Bush's case for Executive freedom of action in military matters during wartime (subject to initial Legislative approval, of course).
But even beyond that, the matter is highly controversial and hotly debated. There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime. There's the question of whether or not the definition of "military operations" includes intelligence-gathering operations conducted by the Executive. There's the question of the wisdom of arbitrarily curbing the Executive's constituional authority, which would make it more difficult for the Executive to fulfill its constitutional responsiblities.
And these are just a few of the more interesting (to me) questions of principle. There's also the practical questions: how much of what's being said about this issue is FUD from partisans, extremists, the media-industrial complex, etc.
Then there's the technical questions: You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up? Hope that number doesn't reach an active cell planning to smuggle an Iranian suitcase nuke across the Mexican border? Or do you say, I'm Executive, the Constitution gives me the responsibility to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to protect the country in time of war, and Congress has told me this is a time of war, so tap that fucker and let's see what's up?
Now, I admit that the responsible answer to that question depends a lot on the answers to the preceding questions. My point is that there is no consensus on the preceding questions, and therefore it's not at all obvious that AT&T did anything illegal.
There's nothing wrong with suing a company allegedly did something "obviously illegal". There is a problem with suing a company that did something not obviously illegal, and losing the suit. The problem is that this sets a precedent whereby the not obviously illegal act becomes obviously legal. This would be the oppsite of a Good Thing.
Personally, having forgotten to get fitted for a tinfoil beanie when I signed up for my
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is good men do nothing.
Ironically, all that is necessary for good to fail is for good men to be ignorant.
I think you're confused about something. It seems as if Microsoft has identified a demographic for which the cell phone plus TV set solution would be better in some way than Negroponte's $100 laptop solution.
I mean, in Brazil alone there are probably a couple hundred thousand people living in favelas, in and around the major metropolitan areas. These people already have power, and TV sets, and these cities also have cell networks in place. And they're not the only two major metropolises full of poor people, either. That's got to be a huge demographic, and I really do think Microsoft has figured it out.
You also seem to be confused about something else, as well. Why would the lack of TV broadcasts and local TV broadcast infrastructure make this solution fail? The system would use the cell network for Internet access anyway. Not only that, but Internet access isn't even necessary. The user could always run applications directly from the phone, and store data there as well. That's not a trivial option, either. After all, it's not like cell phone processing power and data storage is decreasing with each generation.
Poor people living in the interior of Mato Grosso would have to make do with $100 laptops, I suppose. At least until the government put in a cell tower...
Anyway, what is your problem? That cell phones would need an electrical outlet to recharge, and poor people don't have electrical outlets or even TVs? Fair enough, except that I've pointed out that in Brazil alone there have to be a good couple hundred thousand poor people who have both power and TVs. And then you even agreed with me that poor people have TVs. So what is your problem? That not all poor people have TV broadcasts, but must watch pre-recorded programs? That doesn't really help your "poor people don't have TVs or power" line of reasoning, does it?
When I lived in Brazil, the hillsides and empty lots throughout the major cities of Rio and Sao Paulo were covered with "favelas". These plywood-and-cardboard shantytowns were home to tens of thousands of the poorest Brazilians, nationwide.
Whenever our route took us past a favela, my sisters and I would play a game. We'd try to find a shack, hovel, or lean-to that did not have a TV antenna standing over it.
It was a fun game, but very challenging.
It seems to me that Microsoft has its target market all figured out.
The ulterior motives of politicans and plutocrats have been so thoroughly deconstructed, demystified that they're hardly "ulterior" anymore. Gordon Gekko pretty much blew the whole conspiracy wide open.
So, without denying the kernel of truth that informs those particular cliches, I'm curious to know if scientists may also have ulterior motives. Ater all, it's unlikely that scientists would be free of human folly.
Your point about the pundits is well taken, although there are certainly many pundits who do believe in global warming.
However, pundits don't generally control the purse-strings and promotion lists at the major universities and research labs. So an ambitious scientist, if they had any sense, would play to their true masters and ignore the pundits.
You say their true masters are good science, but there are other possibilities...
For example, if a research lab receives government funding, then the purse strings are controlled by the politicians and the masses of people to which the politicians play. If the masses believe in global warming, then its in the politician's best interest to play to that belief. And if the politicians play to that belief, then that leads to increased financial and political support for scientists whose work appears to promote that particular political agenda.
Since the masses do seem to believe in global warming despite all the pundits who disagree, you at least have to acknowledge that there is a lot of financial and political pressure for scientists to support global warming theories, whether they sincerely believe in those theories or not.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that scientists alone among humans would be immune to political and finanical pressures, or that scientists alone among humans would be free of ulterior motives.
Ah. I was thinking something more like a too-low concentration of atmospheric oxygen to make breathing comfortable without some kind of aid.
Anyway, losing a life-sustaining atmosphere would not be a trivial matter.
Diving head first into progress is what humans do best, though. I suspect that in the long run, second-guessing our evolutionary strengths will be a greater threat to our survival than the side effects of playing to those strengths.
For one thing, by constantly creating and adapting to harmful environments of all kinds, we'll be much better prepared to deal with the exteme ice age and greenhouse phases of the earth's climate cycles.
Instead of your pointy-haired one-size-fits-all approach, how about if we tailor each solution to fit the needs and resources presented in context.
For example: Poor people in developing countries have a need for basic computing devices that are cheap and robust. One way to meet this need is to use off the shelf components and mature, common technologies. Therefore, it would make sense to meet the need in this way.
Is it just me, or is your final position of "sure, it would suck to have to carry an oxygen tank, but we could do it if we had to" a far cry from your starting position of "we could make it impossible to live!"
Humans find workarounds for difficult conditions all the time, and seem to thrive in the most unlikely and labor-intensive scenarios.
I'm willing to bet that under pressure, humans will continue to adapt and survive with the same unthinking but surprisingly successful aplomb that has marked our development so far.
For every human that wants to make the world unihabitable, two others like it just the way it is, and at least one of those is willing to go to lengths to fight for it.
Even then, very few people actually want to make the world literally "uninhabitable". In reality, At least two of those people want to make the world more inhabitable for themselves--an urge humanity shares with every other species that ever evolved.
What if this planet is nothing more than our den, our nest? Why shouldn't we make it more comfortable for ourselves? We have the whole galaxy to explore, and that's just for starters.
Have you considered the possibility that there are other factors involved? Isn't it possible that most scientists feel that their reputations won't be in jeopardy if they support global warming? Indeed, couldn't it be possible that some of the global warming proponents are not actually believers, but are simply trying to save their reputations by embracing a theory they don't really support?
I mean, if it's the case that few scientists are willing to risk their careers to oppose global warming, don't we have to consider that some scientists are willing to further their careers by pretending to support global warming?
After all, this is a politically charged topic.
Honestly, knowing how greedy we as a species can be...
Ironically, it's not our greed but our capacity to control it that sets us apart from other species. What other species is capable of practicing restraint? It's true that we humans don't always practice restraint, but every other species never practices restraint.
When was the last time a virus, or a wolf, or a salmon chose voluntarily not to expand to consume all the resources in its niche?
they would n
Anglo Australians may not be as self-disciplined as aboriginals, but they're still models of self-discipline compared to the other foreign species that have been introduced to Australia. After all, it's not like Bart Simpson's frogs were going to set aside vast parklands free from froggy exploitation.
Human beings are the only species in all of history that will voluntarily not colonize, exploit, and ultimately consume every available piece of land and every available resource.
Besides, how can you say a human is greedy, but a virus isn't? They both evolved through evolution. They're both a product of natural processes. If anything, it's humanity's inability to simply obey its animal instincts that sets us apart, not the characteristic of "greed" that we share with every other organism we've ever met.
Are all the 700000-series users complete tools, or just the two of you?
I was referring to the combination mousepad/hanzi writing tablet requested in the comment to which I was replying. If you go back through the thread, it should become clear to you that localized keyboards aren't actually relevant to anything I said.
See, it's exactly this kind of pointy-haired feature creep that takes a perfectly good basic product or service and turns it into a bloated, overpriced piece of crap.
It should ship with the bare minimum necessary to get things started. Once the regional economy picks up (in part because of programs like this one), you can start shipping $200 laptops with more advanced features.
I'm curious, when you're doing 10 people's job, and fearing for your livelihood, you still have time to sleep AND play?? And your health isn't completely dependant on supplements, pills and constant doctor visits?
Strangely, I'm an American, but I'm only doing the job of one or two people. Not only that, but I get paid really well, I find plenty of time to sleep and to play, and even though I don't exercise, take a lot of pills or supplements, and rarely visit the doctor, I'm still pretty healthy.
But the weirdest part, from your point of view, anyway, is that I have yet to meet a middle-class American whose experience differs from mine in any significant way. In fact, my neighborhood is full of fat and happy middle-class homeowners. They all seem to find enough time and energy to raise families, maintain their cars, go fishing, lounge in the hot tub, celebrate the holidays, keep pets, and sleep well at night.
I know that not all Americans live like this. A few live even better. A few more live much worse. But I'd love to know more about this horrible dystopian America you believe in so fervently. Surely if you're going to make such extreme generalizations, the vast majority of Americans must live as you describe. So where are they?
Look at it this way: They've based their compensation entirely on how much the world values Google.
Even if you make the tax-dodge argument, it still only works if their company's stock is worth enough to make such tax dodge worth considering.
Nothing about their salary is locked in. Either they continue to make decisions that keep the stock price high and their pockets full of phat cash, or they don't get paid.
Wasn't unseasonably cold in Canada just this very winter?
And didn't Europe just go through a couple weeks of unseasonably cold weather and unprecedented snowfall just last month? Or was it earlier this month?
I mean, I'm open-minded and all, but isn't there also a lot of evidence that the global warming we're observing is actually part of a millenial cycle independent of human activity?
And isn't there even a lot of evidence that the effect of human activity on global temperature changes is (barely) measurable, its effect may be negligible?
And didn't someone just announce results of new studies showing that trees may be responsible for producing between 10% and 30% of the ecosphere's methane emissions? If this new research is at all accurate, wouldn't this totally undermine the validity of the Kyoto Protocol, which grants pollution credits to nations that plant lots of trees? Wouldn't it mean, in effect, that Kyoto promotes global warming based on faulty science and a rush to judgement on issues we really don't fully understand?
I'm not saying that's the case, mind you. I'm just trying to keep an open mind.