Or they could work on policies that reward significant improvement throughout the year. A rough start can be just that. Mandating that everything is at least 50%, even when a student gets a 0%, is a terrible idea.
Exactly. I feel that they are trying to adjust for the produced phenotype (results) with some technical manipulation instead of fixing the actual issue, which is whether kids are actually learning or not and how to get them all involved.
Fix everything where it really begins. A system where age directly tells what a kid should and should not know, and if they don't have it, they're failing instead of just behind a year, and other kids who are way more advanced just ride on As instead of moving up to more challenging tasks that they can handle with their drive.
Free up the age 'quantization', involve teachers who will take the time to involve kids more personally with respect relationships instead of 'indoctrinating oppressors' as they are often viewed.
No no there kiddo. I didn't jump to conclusion based on your view, what I did was jump on you for making ridiculous assumptions about global warming activism as being a 'control' issue, that 'they' want to control you.
Here's your original statement: -------------- "What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable. -----------
I think that it is pretty ridiculous to point fingers at 'they' and say what you are saying. Most people, scientists or educated citizens, that are concerned about global warming are looking for a solution to the problem. 'They' are largely not discriminate of a 'technological' solution (as you misrepresented the act of the article) as the answer, nor are 'they' concerned with directly some ethical/moral 'badness' that you suggest. What 'they' want is a stable and expectable ecosystem for our species as well as others to maintain our evolved presence on earth. Technological solutions would not be ignored by intelligent global warming activists.
So next time you want to point fingers and bring up ridiculous assumptions, you'll want to do it when someone who knows better isn't looking. That way you won't get attacked for such stupid claims. It isn't about control, its about an answer. -----
Now, about the pumping CO2 underground. I think there have been enough discussions about this specific article here on slashdot for you to see that the potentials for problems in pumping CO2 underground. The potential for this 'technological solution' to become completely ineffective and slap us in the face tenfold.
A more viable technological solution might include some form of enzyme that converts CO2 molecules into carbon crystals with oxygen as a product. This would basically be a return of the products to the reactants. Another solution might involve using microorganisms that have been specifically produced, such as algae, to consume and metabolize that CO2 (respirating O2) into lipid vacuoles (making usable oil).
As I said before, your assumptions about people are ridiculous and extreme. We (as in most people concerned about human activity changing our environments) are not opposed to technological solutions at all; we are not trying to control you; we are simply seeking responsibility and solutions regarding human impact on the environment that could lead to a rapid change for which many species are not adequately evolved.
Boy, you really showed me. I provided a theory as to people's motivations ASIDE from the scientific reasons, and you totally obliterated my argument by pointing out that environmentalist are simply right, and that their motivations are correct.
I've never been subject to such a rhetorical lashing. I've soiled myself in shame, and will NEVER, EVER question people's motivations again. You have proven to me unequivocally that everything a person says should be taken at face value as true and right, and I'm mortified that I ever thought otherwise.
Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you'll take your ridiculously irrational flamboyance and stick it where your education came from.
P.S. If you understood simple chemistry you wouldn't feel like you're being lied to by thousands of scientists. Do you know what the scientific method is? If you understood that, you'd find science to have much more validity. If you also came to understand the impact of various chemicals on living organisms, or the heavily evident theory of evolution regarding current organism's adaptations to current environments.... well.. you'd be in for a lot of actual understanding, wouldn't you?
"What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Go get an education; specifically in chemistry, ecology, and biology. Then maybe you won't be spewing completely ridiculous hypotheses for why educated people trust scientific research that provides serious data that implicates global climate change. If you could actually understand the data it would be hard for you to pretend it doesn't exist.
The coal industry ni the US has gotten waiver after waiver for our cleaner plants. I dont believe they will ever implement an expensive technology unless someone puts a gun to their head. But they can't becasue what do you do if they just decide not to operate?
Strange you should say that. About 3 years ago I recall President Bush signing a bill to allot $2BN to coal industries to make clean coal plants. My friends and I had joked about coal-powered hoverboards in the future, etc.... So if these companies are requiring waivers, what did they spend the 2BN on? Oh right... THEY TOOK IT HOME!
Next Month's News: US Gov pays $100BN in tax dollars to save failing Coal companies in economic crisis. While citizens are outraged at the privatization of profits and socialization of loss, elected officials calmly responded "The terrorists are going to kill us all. Oil is how they profit from us! Only coal can save us!"
really, how much CO2 is generated in removing the nitrogen from the air used to combust the lignite ?
And all the other factors as well, such as the energy required to cool so much hot CO2 that much.
This is a big effort to make a turd smell like a rose. IT IS STILL A TURD. There are loads of other ways to generate energy, ways with no relevant emissions/waste products and reusable/recyclable materials. Example: Solar, wind, etc.
Here in the US we've spent a lot of money to get our hands on more oil. If we had simply invested that same amount into intelligent and clean choices, we'd have energy costing us pennies on the bill and electric cars all over carlots. We wouldn't even have to lie to our citizens about what we're doing! We could just say: "Hey! We're going to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on making your energy needs nonexistant, and on top of that, it'll be much better for the environment we rely on for life!"
No... I learned about alcoholism, pussy, and going out and having fun when I was in the Army. I'm a married parent now, so College is not about 'party time' for me.
There need to me more med schools with more seats as well.
The barriers to becoming a Dr. are steadily increasing. The MCAT averages for acceptance to med schools have gone up about 1 full point in each section in the last 10 years, with average GPA going up a full.10 in the last 10 years as well.
This is ridiculous. In a country with a growing necessity for medicine, we have a very tight bottleneck at producing the people who can fulfill those needs.
Shall I say, "Self Preservation'?... just a thought...
...it should be a highschool requirement. What the hell is happening to our education?
I completely agree. I am a premed student taking the first of two semesters of O-Chem right now and this knowledge, while complex, is not beyond the capacity of any teenager. Most the things I have learned in my path to Dr. have been reiterations of the same concepts from High School.
Why do we even call it "High" school. The education you get isn't worth much more than a labor position at your local clothing stores or burger joints. And learn how to make yourself a shoddy cabinet or run laps...
I look back on my experiences in high school, and while I had a lot of fun and learned a few things, I wish that my time was not wasted and that I had been given the opportunity to ACTUALLY LEARN THINGS.
Our current public education in the US is a sham. The teachers deserve credit and respect, but the information and the atmosphere is much too casual and elementary.
We need more schools available so we can differentiate students based on their drive and capabilities. AP courses are not cutting it.... Especially when the universities that the AP courses are supposed to apply to end up DENYING the AP credit. Or when students are surrounded by distracting social garbage and drama when they would normally actually be interested in learning something. Students that care to focus should be give the atmosphere to do so. Students that like to fuck off should not be on the same campus as the students that are there to learn.
So I come to Slashdot to find out if others have experienced this adversarial relationship between business and tech, and if so, what was the effect on the overall success of the business?"
Yes, it is extremely prevalent here! On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have had any negative effects. Actually, standing in the way of various technologies seems to have made our business more successful!
Opinions here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, Exxon Mobile Corporation.
This was modded "funny". Lol... what if this guy was serious! lol.
Yes, as we all know diesel is not made from oil. Thus big oil would not be able to sell diesel. And it certainly doesn't come from the same cracking towers used to produce gasoline.
Cut your sarcastic crap. We all know it is from the same crude. But 65 mpg? cant' have that. Cars gotta average something in the 20s in the US. That's how it'll be for a while longer.
I lived in the UK for 5 months, I drove a Ford Mondeo 2004 that got 45mpg no matter how I drove it. Diesel. great car. Why couldn't I have that car here? riiiiight....
you make twice as much from a person getting 32mpg than a person getting 64. wake up man.
They have fixed the problem by creating affordable and effective catalytic converts for diesel.
Check out VW's new TDI they just released for the US. Way more low end torque than gasoline and almost 50 mpg. I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
Yep. I'm sure the actual 'business reason' is a large financial donation from oil companies.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Car can't be sold for 'business reasons'. I won't go into depth. Just know that you won't have access and please stfu.
The problem is that things are not so simple. You cannot equate a life to money. Obviously you can, but many people, including myself, will disagree that they can be equally represented with 'simple' arguments.
Furthermore, money is a concept and product of mankind's creations. Like spam, bread, copyrights, etc. Humans are a product of an amazing series of events that gave rise to what we are today. Life is precious beyond all money. This is my opinion, and you can attempt to argue with me (and others) about some balance between life/money, but this is a fundamental belief, not one of critical debate.
I hold life, especially that of my own species, to be much more precious than money ever could be. You, in simplifying complex things, have found a way to convince yourself otherwise. Good job.
And in all your keen observation you could not come up with an alternate response than to use my own of "I would pity you"? Please grow up.
If this is a Slashvertisement, they've got the audience wrong. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows how to copy a DVD without having to pay 20 bucks to Real Networks
....or install their garbage programs that are basically bloatware with little tricky adware-esque properties to them as well.
Realnetworks have made *horrible* products in the last 8 years. I will never install realplayer again since it always bloats out into something much much bigger and worthless than most people ever intend. We just want something that will play an.rm because some guy hasn't figured out the concept of mp3 yet. We don't need all the other garbage and *usually* have all of those bases covered without bloaty mcbloaterson's special bloat formula.
So if I walk up to a guy on a street, and I ask him "where does John Smith live, I'm going to shoot him in the head with this gun", it's perfectly ok for him to tell me, and he shouldn't be held accountable for anything. Is that right?
While I would tell you that, yes, that man does not have a moral obligation to protect John Smith from you; I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.
By your logic why are drug traffickers held accountable?
A drug trafficker actually owns and then distributes the drug.
In your analogy, a torrent site would be like you walking up to a guy on the street, asking him "you know where I can buy some weed?" and he tells you "oh.. there's a guy over there I think.. he might not be there anymore... but there's a bunch of these guys around.. umm.. maybe that guy over there possibly." while pointing. He's not moving or selling the drugs, he is referring you to them.
Furthermore, it is the not the explicit intent of these sites to aid in 'finding drugs', but rather to aid in helping people find what they ask for and relaying the information as to where it is.
And here I thought dropping an ice cube into the ocean was a really far fetched idea and nobody would take it seriously.
The reason this one is not so far fetched is because we (as in most people) are very habited to treating symptoms instead of causes.
This idea is no different. Good idea to put a slow on what we've already done; bad idea to put an answer to the big picture of human impact on the environment.
Ex: If you arrest a man who abuses his girlfriend, he will not be able to abuse her while in jail. Symptom treated. If you counsel the woman on her tendency to date abusive men, she will not likely enter relationships that can lead to abusive outcomes/symptoms. Problem prevented.
You seriously believe that if someone does not say something that you can assume whatever you want of their opinion? If you do not know what my opinion is, then to speak of my opinion would be ignorant on your part. Good job.
Go back to what I wrote. Read what I said. Those are the things I said and opine. Anything else you've attempted to divert this conversation into is of your own ridiculous error. Grow up.
I didn't say the majority of what you claim I am saying, supporting, etc.
Go back and read what I wrote. You call me an 'ass-clown', but you've made a fool of yourself with your ridiculous assumptions.
I don't know who taught you to draw so many false inferences and ridiculous assumptions, but you'll continue have trouble with online discussions in the future as you did here if you keep it up. You know how it goes... Assume = Ass out of U and Me. Except I didn't do any assuming, so its all on you buddy.
You wrote a lot of words, made a lot of false assumptions, and attempted to perpetuate misinformation about human impact on the environment (aka global warming).
In all that, you still reinforced my point by saying "So to recap, Sure the US pollutes more. That's because it does more."
Thank you.
Efficiency, restriction, and your other elaborate reasonings, have no actual impact on the REAL end result: We pollute more than those we complain about. The reasoning you provided are only diversion of focus from one topic to another. We could be talking about efficiency, but we aren't. We are talking about pollution production and whether one country ought point fingers at another country of equivalent pollution production.
If you want to change the subject to your ballpark, just say "I'm going to argue about efficiency, not real pollution."
Slashdot Mirror
Or they could work on policies that reward significant improvement throughout the year. A rough start can be just that. Mandating that everything is at least 50%, even when a student gets a 0%, is a terrible idea.
Exactly. I feel that they are trying to adjust for the produced phenotype (results) with some technical manipulation instead of fixing the actual issue, which is whether kids are actually learning or not and how to get them all involved.
Fix everything where it really begins. A system where age directly tells what a kid should and should not know, and if they don't have it, they're failing instead of just behind a year, and other kids who are way more advanced just ride on As instead of moving up to more challenging tasks that they can handle with their drive.
Free up the age 'quantization', involve teachers who will take the time to involve kids more personally with respect relationships instead of 'indoctrinating oppressors' as they are often viewed.
This sounds like a very cool service.
No no there kiddo. I didn't jump to conclusion based on your view, what I did was jump on you for making ridiculous assumptions about global warming activism as being a 'control' issue, that 'they' want to control you.
Here's your original statement:
--------------
"What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.
-----------
I think that it is pretty ridiculous to point fingers at 'they' and say what you are saying. Most people, scientists or educated citizens, that are concerned about global warming are looking for a solution to the problem. 'They' are largely not discriminate of a 'technological' solution (as you misrepresented the act of the article) as the answer, nor are 'they' concerned with directly some ethical/moral 'badness' that you suggest. What 'they' want is a stable and expectable ecosystem for our species as well as others to maintain our evolved presence on earth. Technological solutions would not be ignored by intelligent global warming activists.
So next time you want to point fingers and bring up ridiculous assumptions, you'll want to do it when someone who knows better isn't looking. That way you won't get attacked for such stupid claims. It isn't about control, its about an answer.
-----
Now, about the pumping CO2 underground. I think there have been enough discussions about this specific article here on slashdot for you to see that the potentials for problems in pumping CO2 underground. The potential for this 'technological solution' to become completely ineffective and slap us in the face tenfold.
A more viable technological solution might include some form of enzyme that converts CO2 molecules into carbon crystals with oxygen as a product. This would basically be a return of the products to the reactants. Another solution might involve using microorganisms that have been specifically produced, such as algae, to consume and metabolize that CO2 (respirating O2) into lipid vacuoles (making usable oil).
As I said before, your assumptions about people are ridiculous and extreme. We (as in most people concerned about human activity changing our environments) are not opposed to technological solutions at all; we are not trying to control you; we are simply seeking responsibility and solutions regarding human impact on the environment that could lead to a rapid change for which many species are not adequately evolved.
Boy, you really showed me. I provided a theory as to people's motivations ASIDE from the scientific reasons, and you totally obliterated my argument by pointing out that environmentalist are simply right, and that their motivations are correct.
I've never been subject to such a rhetorical lashing. I've soiled myself in shame, and will NEVER, EVER question people's motivations again. You have proven to me unequivocally that everything a person says should be taken at face value as true and right, and I'm mortified that I ever thought otherwise.
Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you'll take your ridiculously irrational flamboyance and stick it where your education came from.
P.S. If you understood simple chemistry you wouldn't feel like you're being lied to by thousands of scientists. Do you know what the scientific method is? If you understood that, you'd find science to have much more validity. If you also came to understand the impact of various chemicals on living organisms, or the heavily evident theory of evolution regarding current organism's adaptations to current environments.... well.. you'd be in for a lot of actual understanding, wouldn't you?
Go learn. Wipe your butt. Go learn.
"What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Go get an education; specifically in chemistry, ecology, and biology. Then maybe you won't be spewing completely ridiculous hypotheses for why educated people trust scientific research that provides serious data that implicates global climate change. If you could actually understand the data it would be hard for you to pretend it doesn't exist.
LEARN. Do it before you speak.
The coal industry ni the US has gotten waiver after waiver for our cleaner plants.
I dont believe they will ever implement an expensive technology unless someone puts a gun to their head. But they can't becasue what do you do if they just decide not to operate?
Strange you should say that. About 3 years ago I recall President Bush signing a bill to allot $2BN to coal industries to make clean coal plants. My friends and I had joked about coal-powered hoverboards in the future, etc.... So if these companies are requiring waivers, what did they spend the 2BN on? Oh right... THEY TOOK IT HOME!
Next Month's News: US Gov pays $100BN in tax dollars to save failing Coal companies in economic crisis. While citizens are outraged at the privatization of profits and socialization of loss, elected officials calmly responded "The terrorists are going to kill us all. Oil is how they profit from us! Only coal can save us!"
really, how much CO2 is generated in removing the nitrogen from the air used to combust the lignite ?
And all the other factors as well, such as the energy required to cool so much hot CO2 that much.
This is a big effort to make a turd smell like a rose. IT IS STILL A TURD. There are loads of other ways to generate energy, ways with no relevant emissions/waste products and reusable/recyclable materials. Example: Solar, wind, etc.
Here in the US we've spent a lot of money to get our hands on more oil. If we had simply invested that same amount into intelligent and clean choices, we'd have energy costing us pennies on the bill and electric cars all over carlots. We wouldn't even have to lie to our citizens about what we're doing! We could just say: "Hey! We're going to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on making your energy needs nonexistant, and on top of that, it'll be much better for the environment we rely on for life!"
No... I learned about alcoholism, pussy, and going out and having fun when I was in the Army. I'm a married parent now, so College is not about 'party time' for me.
There need to me more med schools with more seats as well.
The barriers to becoming a Dr. are steadily increasing. The MCAT averages for acceptance to med schools have gone up about 1 full point in each section in the last 10 years, with average GPA going up a full .10 in the last 10 years as well.
This is ridiculous. In a country with a growing necessity for medicine, we have a very tight bottleneck at producing the people who can fulfill those needs.
Shall I say, "Self Preservation'? ... just a thought...
...it should be a highschool requirement.
What the hell is happening to our education?
I completely agree. I am a premed student taking the first of two semesters of O-Chem right now and this knowledge, while complex, is not beyond the capacity of any teenager. Most the things I have learned in my path to Dr. have been reiterations of the same concepts from High School.
Why do we even call it "High" school. The education you get isn't worth much more than a labor position at your local clothing stores or burger joints. And learn how to make yourself a shoddy cabinet or run laps...
I look back on my experiences in high school, and while I had a lot of fun and learned a few things, I wish that my time was not wasted and that I had been given the opportunity to ACTUALLY LEARN THINGS.
Our current public education in the US is a sham. The teachers deserve credit and respect, but the information and the atmosphere is much too casual and elementary.
We need more schools available so we can differentiate students based on their drive and capabilities. AP courses are not cutting it.... Especially when the universities that the AP courses are supposed to apply to end up DENYING the AP credit. Or when students are surrounded by distracting social garbage and drama when they would normally actually be interested in learning something. Students that care to focus should be give the atmosphere to do so. Students that like to fuck off should not be on the same campus as the students that are there to learn.
DARE to teach kids: "DRM Abuse Resistance Education, We love --- to be -- a DRM nation!"
thank you.
this is obviously an attempt to harass him. these lawyers should be de-barred (or whatever the correct term is).
So I come to Slashdot to find out if others have experienced this adversarial relationship between business and tech, and if so, what was the effect on the overall success of the business?"
Yes, it is extremely prevalent here! On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have had any negative effects. Actually, standing in the way of various technologies seems to have made our business more successful!
Opinions here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, Exxon Mobile Corporation.
This was modded "funny". Lol... what if this guy was serious! lol.
Yes, as we all know diesel is not made from oil. Thus big oil would not be able to sell diesel. And it certainly doesn't come from the same cracking towers used to produce gasoline.
Cut your sarcastic crap. We all know it is from the same crude. But 65 mpg? cant' have that. Cars gotta average something in the 20s in the US. That's how it'll be for a while longer.
I lived in the UK for 5 months, I drove a Ford Mondeo 2004 that got 45mpg no matter how I drove it. Diesel. great car. Why couldn't I have that car here? riiiiight....
you make twice as much from a person getting 32mpg than a person getting 64. wake up man.
They have fixed the problem by creating affordable and effective catalytic converts for diesel.
Check out VW's new TDI they just released for the US. Way more low end torque than gasoline and almost 50 mpg. I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
Yep. I'm sure the actual 'business reason' is a large financial donation from oil companies.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Car can't be sold for 'business reasons'. I won't go into depth. Just know that you won't have access and please stfu.
Yep. Its called OSINT. nothing new.
The problem is that things are not so simple. You cannot equate a life to money. Obviously you can, but many people, including myself, will disagree that they can be equally represented with 'simple' arguments.
Furthermore, money is a concept and product of mankind's creations. Like spam, bread, copyrights, etc. Humans are a product of an amazing series of events that gave rise to what we are today. Life is precious beyond all money. This is my opinion, and you can attempt to argue with me (and others) about some balance between life/money, but this is a fundamental belief, not one of critical debate.
I hold life, especially that of my own species, to be much more precious than money ever could be. You, in simplifying complex things, have found a way to convince yourself otherwise. Good job.
And in all your keen observation you could not come up with an alternate response than to use my own of "I would pity you"? Please grow up.
If this is a Slashvertisement, they've got the audience wrong. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows how to copy a DVD without having to pay 20 bucks to Real Networks
....or install their garbage programs that are basically bloatware with little tricky adware-esque properties to them as well.
Realnetworks have made *horrible* products in the last 8 years. I will never install realplayer again since it always bloats out into something much much bigger and worthless than most people ever intend. We just want something that will play an .rm because some guy hasn't figured out the concept of mp3 yet. We don't need all the other garbage and *usually* have all of those bases covered without bloaty mcbloaterson's special bloat formula.
did I say bloat enough?
So if I walk up to a guy on a street, and I ask him "where does John Smith live, I'm going to shoot him in the head with this gun", it's perfectly ok for him to tell me, and he shouldn't be held accountable for anything. Is that right?
While I would tell you that, yes, that man does not have a moral obligation to protect John Smith from you; I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.
By your logic why are drug traffickers held accountable?
A drug trafficker actually owns and then distributes the drug.
In your analogy, a torrent site would be like you walking up to a guy on the street, asking him "you know where I can buy some weed?" and he tells you "oh.. there's a guy over there I think.. he might not be there anymore... but there's a bunch of these guys around.. umm.. maybe that guy over there possibly." while pointing. He's not moving or selling the drugs, he is referring you to them.
Furthermore, it is the not the explicit intent of these sites to aid in 'finding drugs', but rather to aid in helping people find what they ask for and relaying the information as to where it is.
Get it?
And here I thought dropping an ice cube into the ocean was a really far fetched idea and nobody would take it seriously.
The reason this one is not so far fetched is because we (as in most people) are very habited to treating symptoms instead of causes.
This idea is no different. Good idea to put a slow on what we've already done; bad idea to put an answer to the big picture of human impact on the environment.
Ex: If you arrest a man who abuses his girlfriend, he will not be able to abuse her while in jail. Symptom treated. If you counsel the woman on her tendency to date abusive men, she will not likely enter relationships that can lead to abusive outcomes/symptoms. Problem prevented.
You pride yourself on ignorance, clearly.
You seriously believe that if someone does not say something that you can assume whatever you want of their opinion? If you do not know what my opinion is, then to speak of my opinion would be ignorant on your part. Good job.
Go back to what I wrote. Read what I said. Those are the things I said and opine. Anything else you've attempted to divert this conversation into is of your own ridiculous error. Grow up.
I didn't say the majority of what you claim I am saying, supporting, etc.
Go back and read what I wrote. You call me an 'ass-clown', but you've made a fool of yourself with your ridiculous assumptions.
I don't know who taught you to draw so many false inferences and ridiculous assumptions, but you'll continue have trouble with online discussions in the future as you did here if you keep it up. You know how it goes... Assume = Ass out of U and Me. Except I didn't do any assuming, so its all on you buddy.
Call the RIAA. i'm sure you'll find all the answers you need. Especially the desire to fear.
You wrote a lot of words, made a lot of false assumptions, and attempted to perpetuate misinformation about human impact on the environment (aka global warming).
In all that, you still reinforced my point by saying "So to recap, Sure the US pollutes more. That's because it does more."
Thank you.
Efficiency, restriction, and your other elaborate reasonings, have no actual impact on the REAL end result: We pollute more than those we complain about. The reasoning you provided are only diversion of focus from one topic to another. We could be talking about efficiency, but we aren't. We are talking about pollution production and whether one country ought point fingers at another country of equivalent pollution production.
If you want to change the subject to your ballpark, just say "I'm going to argue about efficiency, not real pollution."