I wouldn't mind slowing development down to save the world, but I have a lot of things that I could do without. People in Africa or China might not be so keen on that idea though. People who are on the losing side of a statues-que don't really care a lot to maintain it, even if it is the current weather patterns.
Would it be cheaper to just mitigate the change? Build irrigation canals from Alaska and quadruple the levies on the Mississippi? I think we should do whatever is cheaper in the long run. I don't think it will be trying to change ourselves to fit the planet, I think we should embrace global warming and finally take control of the environment itself and put the final nail in Gia's coffin. Stories like this help give hope that there are people out there actually trying to solve the problem by moving forward instead of advocating a return to the 1930's
BTW to the "environmentalists" out there, their isn't a "natural" environment anywhere in the US, small things like the introduction of earth worms and bee's and fire suppression have dramatically changes the very nature of our forests, even before that, the Natives engaged in controlled burns and selective harvesting. The entire planet is a garden people have been modifying. I just want you to know that nature has been dead for a long time. when you protect the trees and the forest it is exactly the same as if you were debating whether or not to pull up the daisy's in your back yard. Environmentalism is a luxury like gardening. Though I still agree with you when it comes to green spaces in cities and arsenic and Mercury in the air.
I wish politicians were smart enough to care what happens when push comes to shove, but when it comes to war it seems having the last man standing counts as "victory." I got it backwards though, it was Pakistan that didn't sign the no first use policy back when, owing to the larger Indian military, I guess Pakistan felt the ability to launch first was it's trump card. I'll have to look up Pakistan's current First use policy. It would make sense for them to not sign though, like how the US reserved the right to first use during the cold war.
I am not Pakistani, but you don't know what your talking about. I looked up the article, and I had it backwards. India proposed to Pakistan that neither should use nuclear weapons first in a conflict with each other, Pakistan was the one who refused and an Indian official's response was that Pakistan had far more to lose from an nuclear exchange then India did. India has a first strike policy BTW it is no first strike. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/doctrine/990817-indnucld.htm
A first strike policy is basically this: Country A, if invade by ground troops from country B, reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear force. The US reserved the right to first strike during the cold war to counter the vastly superior ground forces of the USSR if they decided to take western Europe. I was wondering what the policy India and Pakistan had toward this.
I'm sure you can argue that, but during WWII the US was a military dictatorship that had more in common with fascism then democracy. It's a lot of that same lingering federal centralization and Military-industrial bullshit that causes most of the problems today IMAO. The nuclear bomb has probably done more for peace then any invention ever. India-Pakistan included.
I wonder about India's stance on first strike policy? I read once in the mid 90's that India stated that it reserves the right to launch a first strike if there were a ground invasion, when asked to sign a treaty with Pakistan saying neither nation would use nukes. The reasoning was that India could stand to receive far more Nukes then Pakistan and that by agreeing to not use them Pakistan would be in a better position attack. Do you know if they still have that stance or what the current stance on First strike and tactical use are?
You're an idiot. I'm sure you'd say it's hypocritical to only let the psycho kid have safety scissors too? Iran, North Korea, are balls to the walls nuts. We try hard not to let them have nukes because THEY WOULD USE THEM. Last I checked, India is doing better as far as democracy then some of the other "BIG" countries that have recently invaded a smaller one.
I am no Biologist but I have often wondered at thew high levels of successful evolution mammals can do compared to the relatively slow levels that reptiles and insects seem to have. The idea of "Junk DNA" being merely unused DNA would make a lot more seance then it just being nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if our ability to digest rotten meat, or our spine structure being different, or our forearms being longer were all still there. It would allow for much faster adaption if instead of reinventing new structures at random all our bodies had to do was express other "Junk" genes at random.
I haven't robed anyone recently because it was made illegal. The people who say unethical shouldn't be illegal are usually the ones who are unethical and push for relaxing of constraints on things like lending. I agree though, it should be a civil case, where the harm done to the second party from actual malice on the part of the company should result in a payout. If AT&T knew, like the tobacco companies, that their product was a money pit they should have to pay out. Charlatans exist everywhere.
I understand the need to protect the American job market if everyone else is doing it, but why would you opt for that over free trade? as far as I can see, Comparative advantage is one of the few economic theories that have actually held true and proven itself able to raise standards of living while coming damn close to being Pareto efficient. You might be looking at it from a America only gain and see it as a loss, but on the whole the facts seem to point that the gains to all parties far out way the short term losses middle class America has suffered. As a poor person I am thankful for the ability to buy iPods and clothing that free trade has allowed, while the persons manurfacturing them also seem to be thankful for jobs that are more then agriculture.
Basically, STOP TRYING TO FUCK WITH MY STANDARD OF LIVING SO SOME MIDDLES CLASS DICK CAN KEEP HIS WORTHLESS JOB AT MY EXPENSE.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's the help the poor by giving them money, while destroying their jobs mindset, that gives the republicans so much ammo. If more dems took a note from Clinton, maybe you guys wouldn't need to rely on the republicans fucking everything up to get your guy in.
How much do you think the code changes from year to year? That is a terrible analogy, the basics that determine a good electrician from bad never change, never have, never will. Learning how to do something good is far better then learning the latest tricks, your analogy is basically comparing a professional programmer who knows how to write solid code to a "Microsoft Certified" script kiddie who reads up on the latest exploits. I wouldn't want code written by the latter, why would I want my house wired by his meat-space equivalent?
What you said is really an example of why unions suck. What you end up with are people who only know how to pass code, not do a good job. Thus you need more code to try and keep them inline, until the electricians handbook becomes an encyclopedia.
HEY wait a minuet, H5N1 is the bird flu (as learned from Wikipedia). Birds came from dinosaurs (as learned from Jurassic Park). Dinosaurs were killed by disease (from the summery). Maybe bird flu is what killed the dinosaurs and where're next!
WTF, what year is it in Canada? 1905? I think you're onto something though, and after the States take over the NWP we can then take over the Suez Canal and build a canal through Panama, then there would be no way to stop our Dreadnoughts from ruling the high sea's!
Change is not always easy, even if the end result is better for humanity, look at the Columbian exchange, where select groups of people were nearly extinct while others thrived, or in industries where one group is turned out by machines, yet both have net positive effects on the whole. I'm not saying global warming will be good for humanity, I'm just saying looking at individual losses isn't a good way to judge something.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Far too much of the anti-globalism movement suffers from what I'd call neo-paternalism, or basically an updated version of "The White Man's Burden" where it seems almost assumed that westerners know whats in the best interest of developing nations. I have had to watch to many people in the west call for the shutting down of sweat shops While my Korean roommate tells me he owes his livelihood to the labor intensive work of his forefathers. I don't think it's a straw man argument if the person argued against is actually a scarecrow without a brain.
Hey ass-hat, why don't you be the 4% that gets shaved off of that equation, why don't you go live in a fucking dumpster for a year to save all that carbon you obviously care so much about. Why don't you let your kids starve because you need to protect the fresh air in a country where they drive cars bigger then many homes in China instead of posting about how everyone else needs to change according to your whim.
Heres a concept that I'm sure you never thought of with your head so far up your ass: maybe the west didn't innocently fuck up it's environment, and maybe China isn't doing the same, MAYBE poor people just don't give a fuck about the environment. You ever think of that while siting in your high chair extolling the virtues of your wisdom from 10,000 miles away? Maybe, and this is a crazy idea, living in a polluted city and working in a sweat shop is a better option then starving in a dirt field! crazy I know, but it seems there has to be something to this whole industrializing thing since almost every country is getting on the band wagon.
hay, maybe I'm biased since I've had to live with Chines and Korean immigrants in school, who have basically told me that developing nations like exported labor and don't really care about the pollution if it means work and the only ones who do care are people like you with skewed agendas who have no problem condemning people in other countries to die for hazy ideals. I guess you'd be one to comment on crypto-fascists, it takes one to know one.
My biggest problem with pollution and climate change is the lack of empirical data regarding effects and cost. Sure china pollutes A lot, but what is the cost, how much damage is done? are people in Beijing better of with pollution and consumer goods then they were before or would be without? same with global warming. Would it be cheaper to just build giant irrigation canals and levies and let the planet heat up or would it be cheaper to build 1000 nukeplants and go full electric and keep the planet the same? My concern is with getting straight answers and every side tries to skew them towards their belief. I agree with you 100%. It seems no one is really taking the global warming question seriously, sure they're getting angry and up in arms, but that doesn't solve anything, it's all just shouting from their pulpit. The whole god damned thing reminds me of the story "Ship of Fools," by Ted Kaczynski
Honestly, I don't think Godwin's law applies to threads about Russia or totalitarianism. It would be like using a car analogy in a thread about carburetors.
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
The problem with that is it's the Radicals from the GOP that are currently buttfucking our country like it's a new inmate, with the support of the rest of the party.
I started thinking for myself, and I came to the conclusion that any group that can put forth and support Bush is a group that isn't worth even a second chance no matter how nice the non-crazies are.
It's no surprise that you'd say you'd turn out any ideals you have if there's profit. Hypocrisy and dirty practices are the basis of GOP politics, how else could they have continued to exist after fielding such terrible people like nixon, reagan and bush.
And whats that crap you were saying about government spending? spending is bad? That right there is why I'll never vote GOP. Not because I disagree, which I don't, but because how can you say that with any dignity after your party's golden boy has sunk nearly $1 trillion into a pointless war and no-bid contracts.
WOW! are you serious? you're not like, trolling, or something? It's hard to believe that anyone could be as fucking smart as you. Yes, lets hope an inmate kills him, because some guy in prison has more insight into justice than the courts that have over 1000 years of law behind them, genius. Lets hope they rape him and beat him too, and give him aids and force him into sexual slavery because everyone know the best way to correct people is ritualistic torture.
Lets advocate all of this on someone for moral reasons based on their being a "vile piece of garbage" and not on the crime they committed.
While were at it we could just start killing every one we (as in the guy in charge) deem morally repugnant. Like homos and the poor.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind slowing development down to save the world, but I have a lot of things that I could do without. People in Africa or China might not be so keen on that idea though. People who are on the losing side of a statues-que don't really care a lot to maintain it, even if it is the current weather patterns.
Would it be cheaper to just mitigate the change? Build irrigation canals from Alaska and quadruple the levies on the Mississippi? I think we should do whatever is cheaper in the long run. I don't think it will be trying to change ourselves to fit the planet, I think we should embrace global warming and finally take control of the environment itself and put the final nail in Gia's coffin. Stories like this help give hope that there are people out there actually trying to solve the problem by moving forward instead of advocating a return to the 1930's
BTW to the "environmentalists" out there, their isn't a "natural" environment anywhere in the US, small things like the introduction of earth worms and bee's and fire suppression have dramatically changes the very nature of our forests, even before that, the Natives engaged in controlled burns and selective harvesting. The entire planet is a garden people have been modifying. I just want you to know that nature has been dead for a long time. when you protect the trees and the forest it is exactly the same as if you were debating whether or not to pull up the daisy's in your back yard. Environmentalism is a luxury like gardening. Though I still agree with you when it comes to green spaces in cities and arsenic and Mercury in the air.
I wish politicians were smart enough to care what happens when push comes to shove, but when it comes to war it seems having the last man standing counts as "victory."
I got it backwards though, it was Pakistan that didn't sign the no first use policy back when, owing to the larger Indian military, I guess Pakistan felt the ability to launch first was it's trump card. I'll have to look up Pakistan's current First use policy. It would make sense for them to not sign though, like how the US reserved the right to first use during the cold war.
I am not Pakistani, but you don't know what your talking about. I looked up the article, and I had it backwards. India proposed to Pakistan that neither should use nuclear weapons first in a conflict with each other, Pakistan was the one who refused and an Indian official's response was that Pakistan had far more to lose from an nuclear exchange then India did. India has a first strike policy BTW it is no first strike. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/doctrine/990817-indnucld.htm
A first strike policy is basically this: Country A, if invade by ground troops from country B, reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear force. The US reserved the right to first strike during the cold war to counter the vastly superior ground forces of the USSR if they decided to take western Europe. I was wondering what the policy India and Pakistan had toward this.
I'm sure you can argue that, but during WWII the US was a military dictatorship that had more in common with fascism then democracy. It's a lot of that same lingering federal centralization and Military-industrial bullshit that causes most of the problems today IMAO. The nuclear bomb has probably done more for peace then any invention ever. India-Pakistan included.
I wonder about India's stance on first strike policy? I read once in the mid 90's that India stated that it reserves the right to launch a first strike if there were a ground invasion, when asked to sign a treaty with Pakistan saying neither nation would use nukes. The reasoning was that India could stand to receive far more Nukes then Pakistan and that by agreeing to not use them Pakistan would be in a better position attack. Do you know if they still have that stance or what the current stance on First strike and tactical use are?
You're an idiot. I'm sure you'd say it's hypocritical to only let the psycho kid have safety scissors too? Iran, North Korea, are balls to the walls nuts. We try hard not to let them have nukes because THEY WOULD USE THEM. Last I checked, India is doing better as far as democracy then some of the other "BIG" countries that have recently invaded a smaller one.
I am no Biologist but I have often wondered at thew high levels of successful evolution mammals can do compared to the relatively slow levels that reptiles and insects seem to have. The idea of "Junk DNA" being merely unused DNA would make a lot more seance then it just being nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if our ability to digest rotten meat, or our spine structure being different, or our forearms being longer were all still there. It would allow for much faster adaption if instead of reinventing new structures at random all our bodies had to do was express other "Junk" genes at random.
you can't legislate ethical behavior,
I haven't robed anyone recently because it was made illegal. The people who say unethical shouldn't be illegal are usually the ones who are unethical and push for relaxing of constraints on things like lending. I agree though, it should be a civil case, where the harm done to the second party from actual malice on the part of the company should result in a payout. If AT&T knew, like the tobacco companies, that their product was a money pit they should have to pay out. Charlatans exist everywhere.
I understand the need to protect the American job market if everyone else is doing it, but why would you opt for that over free trade? as far as I can see, Comparative advantage is one of the few economic theories that have actually held true and proven itself able to raise standards of living while coming damn close to being Pareto efficient. You might be looking at it from a America only gain and see it as a loss, but on the whole the facts seem to point that the gains to all parties far out way the short term losses middle class America has suffered. As a poor person I am thankful for the ability to buy iPods and clothing that free trade has allowed, while the persons manurfacturing them also seem to be thankful for jobs that are more then agriculture.
Basically, STOP TRYING TO FUCK WITH MY STANDARD OF LIVING SO SOME MIDDLES CLASS DICK CAN KEEP HIS WORTHLESS JOB AT MY EXPENSE.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's the help the poor by giving them money, while destroying their jobs mindset, that gives the republicans so much ammo. If more dems took a note from Clinton, maybe you guys wouldn't need to rely on the republicans fucking everything up to get your guy in.
How much do you think the code changes from year to year? That is a terrible analogy, the basics that determine a good electrician from bad never change, never have, never will. Learning how to do something good is far better then learning the latest tricks, your analogy is basically comparing a professional programmer who knows how to write solid code to a "Microsoft Certified" script kiddie who reads up on the latest exploits. I wouldn't want code written by the latter, why would I want my house wired by his meat-space equivalent?
What you said is really an example of why unions suck. What you end up with are people who only know how to pass code, not do a good job. Thus you need more code to try and keep them inline, until the electricians handbook becomes an encyclopedia.
HEY wait a minuet, H5N1 is the bird flu (as learned from Wikipedia). Birds came from dinosaurs (as learned from Jurassic Park). Dinosaurs were killed by disease (from the summery). Maybe bird flu is what killed the dinosaurs and where're next!
Exactly! Thats basically how they showed the romance between the egg and the box in the latest Pixar flick.
No, they meant it as it is. Nobody cared enough about them to study and classify them until now.
WTF, what year is it in Canada? 1905? I think you're onto something though, and after the States take over the NWP we can then take over the Suez Canal and build a canal through Panama, then there would be no way to stop our Dreadnoughts from ruling the high sea's!
Change is not always easy, even if the end result is better for humanity, look at the Columbian exchange, where select groups of people were nearly extinct while others thrived, or in industries where one group is turned out by machines, yet both have net positive effects on the whole. I'm not saying global warming will be good for humanity, I'm just saying looking at individual losses isn't a good way to judge something.
I thought thats basically what a goatse link was.
Far too much of the anti-globalism movement suffers from what I'd call neo-paternalism, or basically an updated version of "The White Man's Burden" where it seems almost assumed that westerners know whats in the best interest of developing nations. I have had to watch to many people in the west call for the shutting down of sweat shops While my Korean roommate tells me he owes his livelihood to the labor intensive work of his forefathers.
I don't think it's a straw man argument if the person argued against is actually a scarecrow without a brain.
Hey ass-hat, why don't you be the 4% that gets shaved off of that equation, why don't you go live in a fucking dumpster for a year to save all that carbon you obviously care so much about. Why don't you let your kids starve because you need to protect the fresh air in a country where they drive cars bigger then many homes in China instead of posting about how everyone else needs to change according to your whim.
Heres a concept that I'm sure you never thought of with your head so far up your ass: maybe the west didn't innocently fuck up it's environment, and maybe China isn't doing the same, MAYBE poor people just don't give a fuck about the environment. You ever think of that while siting in your high chair extolling the virtues of your wisdom from 10,000 miles away? Maybe, and this is a crazy idea, living in a polluted city and working in a sweat shop is a better option then starving in a dirt field! crazy I know, but it seems there has to be something to this whole industrializing thing since almost every country is getting on the band wagon.
hay, maybe I'm biased since I've had to live with Chines and Korean immigrants in school, who have basically told me that developing nations like exported labor and don't really care about the pollution if it means work and the only ones who do care are people like you with skewed agendas who have no problem condemning people in other countries to die for hazy ideals. I guess you'd be one to comment on crypto-fascists, it takes one to know one.
My biggest problem with pollution and climate change is the lack of empirical data regarding effects and cost. Sure china pollutes A lot, but what is the cost, how much damage is done? are people in Beijing better of with pollution and consumer goods then they were before or would be without? same with global warming. Would it be cheaper to just build giant irrigation canals and levies and let the planet heat up or would it be cheaper to build 1000 nukeplants and go full electric and keep the planet the same? My concern is with getting straight answers and every side tries to skew them towards their belief. I agree with you 100%. It seems no one is really taking the global warming question seriously, sure they're getting angry and up in arms, but that doesn't solve anything, it's all just shouting from their pulpit. The whole god damned thing reminds me of the story "Ship of Fools," by Ted Kaczynski
Not so, just replace terrorist with capitalist, same scare tactic, different name.
Honestly, I don't think Godwin's law applies to threads about Russia or totalitarianism. It would be like using a car analogy in a thread about carburetors.
Patent laws are like landfills, every country has them, and they all stink.
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
The problem with that is it's the Radicals from the GOP that are currently buttfucking our country like it's a new inmate, with the support of the rest of the party.
I started thinking for myself, and I came to the conclusion that any group that can put forth and support Bush is a group that isn't worth even a second chance no matter how nice the non-crazies are.
It's no surprise that you'd say you'd turn out any ideals you have if there's profit. Hypocrisy and dirty practices are the basis of GOP politics, how else could they have continued to exist after fielding such terrible people like nixon, reagan and bush.
And whats that crap you were saying about government spending? spending is bad? That right there is why I'll never vote GOP. Not because I disagree, which I don't, but because how can you say that with any dignity after your party's golden boy has sunk nearly $1 trillion into a pointless war and no-bid contracts.
The feds have proved conclusively in case after case, that they can't be trusted with any power.
Fixed that for you.
WOW! are you serious? you're not like, trolling, or something? It's hard to believe that anyone could be as fucking smart as you. Yes, lets hope an inmate kills him, because some guy in prison has more insight into justice than the courts that have over 1000 years of law behind them, genius. Lets hope they rape him and beat him too, and give him aids and force him into sexual slavery because everyone know the best way to correct people is ritualistic torture.
Lets advocate all of this on someone for moral reasons based on their being a "vile piece of garbage" and not on the crime they committed.
While were at it we could just start killing every one we (as in the guy in charge) deem morally repugnant. Like homos and the poor.