"And I don't see why I should have to take on the onerous task of defending myself "
I laughed at this. Yes, why should you take any personal responsibility at all right?
It's funny, some people like to be self-reliant to some degree, but many of us are happy to foist the unpleasantries of life on those can do them for us.
Strangely, you think that your personal safety, YOUR LIFE, which by any measure is your most valuable possession, is not important enough for you to take an active role in safeguarding.
Since we're talking specifically about YOUR life however, I may, this one time, be inclined to agree.
As an aside, I notice you ran and hod after firing off a snarky remark in reply to my claim of taxation at gunpoint. Was that because my reply completely proved you wrong or because being intelligent and informed is also something you are happy to let someone else do for you?
Listen, I didn't mention taxation, so bringing it up as a response to my question is not really useful.
So, please answer the question I asked, and please try to do so without straying off into things I'm not at all interested in hearing your opinion restated on.
"Your bitch is about why *you* should pay for someone else. Well, get over it."
Is that your answer, "get over it" followed by a ridiculous statement you couldn't possibly know to be true, and is nonsensical on its face?
"1. Tax CO2, like coal 2. coal more expensive than nuclear 3. pass expense on to consumers"
Fixed your post to make it accurate. Argue with history if you don't like it.
Nothing you said in any way addresses my point, it only further enlightens us to the fact that you're incapable of discussing this intelligently.
In other words, all those clever assumptions you make don't occur in reality, all the "get it?? not yet?" and "Still don't get it?" are douchy, childish, and dead wrong. Don't like it? Well don't complain to me, go talk to the rest of the world. They're the ones that have shown you're wrong for the entirety of human history.
"Drilling there will change things, and not for the better. Period."
That is a prediction, which you claimed could not be made.
So, were you lying then or now?
"And on a personal note, quit being such a nit-picky douchebag."
Quit lying and I won't have to continue proving you wrong, which you obviously interpret as being a "nit-picky douchebage". It says a lot about you that insisting on honesty is being a "nit-picky douchebag".
"I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization."
Well, I believe that when I go to work, make a living, and adhere to certain societal norms that result in my ability to take of my health care needs being met, taking money from me at gunpoint against my will to meet the needs of people who fail to take care of their own health care needs is tyrannical.
"Yes, statistics prove that brandishings and the possible arming of people stops of crime."
FYP.
Regardless, owning a gun is my right. I really couldn't give a fuck what your opinion about that is, and no amount of after the fact whinging, name calling (gun nuts?) or fake assertions by you can change that in any way.
I look forward to putting some rounds downrange. Any chance you could send me a picture?
"Do you REALLY need me to define this mysterious word "some" for you? You know, less than all?"
No actually, I need you to answer the question I asked not make one up to answer.
Reread what you're obviously not smart enough to understand and get back when you realize what I asked isn't what you answered.
That will give you a chance to find a better excuse than "you were a meanie" as your reason for not providing a source (just try the truth, you were lying and making shit up, that will work better).
"The article was in a dead tree journal from the '80s. Had you not come off as a braying ass in your post I might feel more helpful in looking back through the stacks."
Of course, it's my fault you have no source.
No guy, you were lying and you just needed an excuse, no matter how retarded.
The Wikipedia article you quoted from starts out with this:
"Ownership of Bell Laboratories was evenly split between AT&T and Western Electric
No it doesn't you stupid lying fuck.
It starts out with THIS
"In 1925 Western Electric Research Laboratories and part of the engineering department of AT&T were consolidated to form Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. as a separate entity."
THAT sentence is RIGHT BEFORE the one you posted. Not only are you wrong, you're a lying twat, who intentionally avoided the sentence I posted in order to pretend you weren't a fucking moron.
Look up what "separate entity" means and then die from AIDS.
"Err... yes. "Pay to pollute" => pollution costs money => you can make a bigger profit by passing along the costs, in the form of increased cost to the consumer => Profit! Economics 101, hello?"
Welcome to reality, my version above actually happens. Your version seems to be a drug induced fantasy, culminating in the humorous (because you're ignorant of economics) jibe "Economics 101, hello?".
Companies, when forced between spending money on lowering costs through reducing pollution, or simply charging customers more, are going to choose lowering costs through reducing pollution? REALLY?
"If you impose a carbon tax , however, forcing companies that emit a lot of CO2 to pay for it, then that will make electricity generation from coal more expensive, and thus hopefully cause electric utility companies to build nuclear power plants, wind turbines, and solar panels, instead."
Please explain why you think the companies won't simply pass the cost on like they always do?
That is inevitably the problem with taxing producers, they simply raise their cost and the consumers get screwed. Do you really want to rely on your hope, and the possibility that eventually people will get pissed enough to force the energy producers into building more power plants/wind turbines/solar panels?
Taxing them isn't the answer, at least not for changing behavior.
""If fat people could control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets (i.e., will power), they would""
That in no way says anything even remotely resembling "it's harder for some than others" which is totally accurate and reasonable. He said fat people can't control their weight by exerting control over their diets. He is wrong, and so completely, utterly, undeniably wrong that his statement is nonsensical.
"The world is "obviously" flat and the sun "obviously" revolves around the Earth."
So your assertion then is that fat people ARE ALL attempting to deal with their weigh through diet and exercise and failing?
Clarify your statement if I described it inaccurately, because as you posted it, it's pretty fucking retarded and useless.
And wrong.
"Interestingly, if you biopsy the fat tissue of a fat person who has dieted and exercised down to a "normal weight", it looks like the biopsy of a famine victim."
"Bell Labs, but back in the 70s and early 80s, at least, Bell Labs was a part of AT&T."
NO IT WASN'T
"Also in 1984, a divestiture agreement with the American Federal government forced the break-up of AT&T: Bellcore (now Telcordia Technologies) was split off from Bell Laboratories to provide the same R&D functions for the newly created local exchange carriers. AT&T also was limited to using the Bell trademark only in association with Bell Laboratories. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., was then renamed AT&T Bell Laboratories, Inc., and became a wholly owned company of the new AT&T Technologies unit"
You are wrong. Bell Labs was a separate entity until 1984. Not "in the 70's and early 80's".
We're done, you're just repeating the same factually incorrect assertion without bothering to look up WTF you're discussing.
It pains me to see someone modded up while providing nothing to the discussion other than the same old retarded screed.
Can you explain how you've come to the conclusion that drilling in Alaska is "guaranteed" to screw it up, or are you just making shit up?
Answer: making shit up. Not you, nor anyone else can predict what the outcome of drilling in Alaska wold be, so both sides shooting off their idiot mouths with unsubstantiated predictions is ridiculous. One side is claiming it won't make a difference in price while ignoring the psychological aspect of increased supply, while the other side is lying about how much space will be used and what the worst case scenario for a disaster would be. Facts are conspicuously absent and have been replace with pure unadulterated speculation, obviously biased speculation at that.
You have no way of knowing what would happen, and you sound like an asshole when you pretend you do.
"In 1925 Western Electric Research Laboratories and part of the engineering department of AT&T were consolidated to form Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. as a separate entity."
Aside from that, however, in normal conversation, when one says "phone company", one does not mean "research laboratory" and vice versa. I realize slashdotters have an overwhelming need for pedantically analyzing everything in hopes of finding some inconsistency to point out in order to prove their intelligence. In this case however, it would be difficult for an intelligent person to claim that when one says "phone company" one means "research laboratory".
Slashdot Mirror
"And I don't see why I should have to take on the onerous task of defending myself "
I laughed at this. Yes, why should you take any personal responsibility at all right?
It's funny, some people like to be self-reliant to some degree, but many of us are happy to foist the unpleasantries of life on those can do them for us.
Strangely, you think that your personal safety, YOUR LIFE, which by any measure is your most valuable possession, is not important enough for you to take an active role in safeguarding.
Since we're talking specifically about YOUR life however, I may, this one time, be inclined to agree.
As an aside, I notice you ran and hod after firing off a snarky remark in reply to my claim of taxation at gunpoint. Was that because my reply completely proved you wrong or because being intelligent and informed is also something you are happy to let someone else do for you?
Because it's not hard to see you didn't.
Listen, I didn't mention taxation, so bringing it up as a response to my question is not really useful.
So, please answer the question I asked, and please try to do so without straying off into things I'm not at all interested in hearing your opinion restated on.
"Your bitch is about why *you* should pay for someone else. Well, get over it."
Is that your answer, "get over it" followed by a ridiculous statement you couldn't possibly know to be true, and is nonsensical on its face?
No asshole I WON'T get over it. What now?
"Not tyrannical, not at all"
Great argument, totally convincing...
"There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation."
I agree, and when I'm doing my part, why should I have to do MORE for someone who does LESS?
Oh I shouldn't, thanks.
"Nobody has ever taken money off me at gunpoint to pay for healthcare. "
When you don't pay your taxes, who shows up to take your ass to jail?
Hint: It's not the Tooth Fairy, the ice cream man, or UPS.
They do take it at gunpoint, you just aren't lucid enough to think that deeply on the subject.
"1. Tax CO2, like coal
2. coal more expensive than nuclear
3. pass expense on to consumers"
Fixed your post to make it accurate. Argue with history if you don't like it.
Nothing you said in any way addresses my point, it only further enlightens us to the fact that you're incapable of discussing this intelligently.
In other words, all those clever assumptions you make don't occur in reality, all the "get it?? not yet?" and "Still don't get it?"
are douchy, childish, and dead wrong. Don't like it? Well don't complain to me, go talk to the rest of the world. They're the ones that have shown you're wrong for the entirety of human history.
"Drilling there will change things, and not for the better. Period."
That is a prediction, which you claimed could not be made.
So, were you lying then or now?
"And on a personal note, quit being such a nit-picky douchebag."
Quit lying and I won't have to continue proving you wrong, which you obviously interpret as being a "nit-picky douchebage". It says a lot about you that insisting on honesty is being a "nit-picky douchebag".
"I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization."
Well, I believe that when I go to work, make a living, and adhere to certain societal norms that result in my ability to take of my health care needs being met, taking money from me at gunpoint against my will to meet the needs of people who fail to take care of their own health care needs is tyrannical.
"it doesn't take too much brainpower to see what he was talking about."
While I agree, it takes less brainpower to realize his point is fairly silly, and dismiss it.
"Yes, statistics prove that brandishings and the possible arming of people stops of crime."
FYP.
Regardless, owning a gun is my right. I really couldn't give a fuck what your opinion about that is, and no amount of after the fact whinging, name calling (gun nuts?) or fake assertions by you can change that in any way.
I look forward to putting some rounds downrange. Any chance you could send me a picture?
"I've seen too many idiots with anecdotal evidence to think it's worth one whit ;)."
FYP
"Do you REALLY need me to define this mysterious word "some" for you? You know, less than all?"
No actually, I need you to answer the question I asked not make one up to answer.
Reread what you're obviously not smart enough to understand and get back when you realize what I asked isn't what you answered.
That will give you a chance to find a better excuse than "you were a meanie" as your reason for not providing a source (just try the truth, you were lying and making shit up, that will work better).
"The article was in a dead tree journal from the '80s. Had you not come off as a braying ass in your post I might feel more helpful in looking back through the stacks."
Of course, it's my fault you have no source.
No guy, you were lying and you just needed an excuse, no matter how retarded.
Better than you as evidenced by your post.
No it doesn't you stupid lying fuck.
It starts out with THIS
"In 1925 Western Electric Research Laboratories and part of the engineering department of AT&T were consolidated to form Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. as a separate entity."
THAT sentence is RIGHT BEFORE the one you posted. Not only are you wrong, you're a lying twat, who intentionally avoided the sentence I posted in order to pretend you weren't a fucking moron.
Look up what "separate entity" means and then die from AIDS.
"Of course I can't predict."
I agree, so why did you guarantee that drillinq in Alaska will screw it up?
"'Pray for sunshine, plan for rain.' Ever hear of that one?"
Sure, what does planning for the worst case have to do with you GUARANTEEING that drilling in Alaska will screw it up?
"All drilling in Alaska is guaranteed to do is to screw up Alaska."
YOU said that, then claimed you weren't making a prediction. Do you know what a prediction is, or are you just dishonest?
"You're obviously not an engineer."
And you're obviously not honest.
"Err... yes. "Pay to pollute" => pollution costs money => you can make a bigger profit by passing along the costs, in the form of increased cost to the consumer => Profit! Economics 101, hello?"
Welcome to reality, my version above actually happens. Your version seems to be a drug induced fantasy, culminating in the humorous (because you're ignorant of economics) jibe "Economics 101, hello?".
Companies, when forced between spending money on lowering costs through reducing pollution, or simply charging customers more, are going to choose lowering costs through reducing pollution? REALLY?
Lay off the crack, buddy.
"If you impose a carbon tax , however, forcing companies that emit a lot of CO2 to pay for it, then that will make electricity generation from coal more expensive, and thus hopefully cause electric utility companies to build nuclear power plants, wind turbines, and solar panels, instead."
Please explain why you think the companies won't simply pass the cost on like they always do?
That is inevitably the problem with taxing producers, they simply raise their cost and the consumers get screwed. Do you really want to rely on your hope, and the possibility that eventually people will get pissed enough to force the energy producers into building more power plants/wind turbines/solar panels?
Taxing them isn't the answer, at least not for changing behavior.
Was saying.
"that's what I think he was saying."
Why not just read what he actually said?
""If fat people could control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets (i.e., will power), they would""
That in no way says anything even remotely resembling "it's harder for some than others" which is totally accurate and reasonable. He said fat people can't control their weight by exerting control over their diets. He is wrong, and so completely, utterly, undeniably wrong that his statement is nonsensical.
"The world is "obviously" flat and the sun "obviously" revolves around the Earth."
So your assertion then is that fat people ARE ALL attempting to deal with their weigh through diet and exercise and failing?
Clarify your statement if I described it inaccurately, because as you posted it, it's pretty fucking retarded and useless.
And wrong.
"Interestingly, if you biopsy the fat tissue of a fat person who has dieted and exercised down to a "normal weight", it looks like the biopsy of a famine victim."
Please provide a source, or admit you're a liar.
It's always interesting to see who descends to insults when their point gets murdered.
Says a lot about your character that you go there so quickly.
To use your point, however, in principle you could stop lying but choose not to.
"Bell Labs, but back in the 70s and early 80s, at least, Bell Labs was a part of AT&T."
NO IT WASN'T
"Also in 1984, a divestiture agreement with the American Federal government forced the break-up of AT&T: Bellcore (now Telcordia Technologies) was split off from Bell Laboratories to provide the same R&D functions for the newly created local exchange carriers. AT&T also was limited to using the Bell trademark only in association with Bell Laboratories. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., was then renamed AT&T Bell Laboratories, Inc., and became a wholly owned company of the new AT&T Technologies unit"
You are wrong. Bell Labs was a separate entity until 1984. Not "in the 70's and early 80's".
We're done, you're just repeating the same factually incorrect assertion without bothering to look up WTF you're discussing.
It pains me to see someone modded up while providing nothing to the discussion other than the same old retarded screed.
Can you explain how you've come to the conclusion that drilling in Alaska is "guaranteed" to screw it up, or are you just making shit up?
Answer: making shit up. Not you, nor anyone else can predict what the outcome of drilling in Alaska wold be, so both sides shooting off their idiot mouths with unsubstantiated predictions is ridiculous. One side is claiming it won't make a difference in price while ignoring the psychological aspect of increased supply, while the other side is lying about how much space will be used and what the worst case scenario for a disaster would be. Facts are conspicuously absent and have been replace with pure unadulterated speculation, obviously biased speculation at that.
You have no way of knowing what would happen, and you sound like an asshole when you pretend you do.
"In 1925 Western Electric Research Laboratories and part of the engineering department of AT&T were consolidated to form Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. as a separate entity."
Aside from that, however, in normal conversation, when one says "phone company", one does not mean "research laboratory" and vice versa. I realize slashdotters have an overwhelming need for pedantically analyzing everything in hopes of finding some inconsistency to point out in order to prove their intelligence. In this case however, it would be difficult for an intelligent person to claim that when one says "phone company" one means "research laboratory".
And I agree with everything you said.
That should be a sig "ad hominem is not Latin for 'that's mean'".
As an aside, I take great offense at your obvious ad hominem attack :P
"Thighs, mostly, and momentum, dumbass. I, too, have mobility issues (compartment syndrome, post necrotic right leg, no extensors on right leg, etc)."
So what you're saying is if you were a horse, you'd be put down. Too bad you're not a horse then...
"and walking several miles used to result in a squishy sound from a right sneaker full of blood"
You're lying for effect and it's as disgusting as your crippled body.
"What do you know, eh?"
How to walk normally. Eat it.
"Live and learn, or, continue to live and take up space"
Funny coming from your useless crippled ass. Maybe you should have figured out how to walk without causing a "SNEAKER FULL OF BLOOD".
"Clueless toad."
At least you signed your post.