No stupid debates, simply spell out what they represent, what they want to do, etc.
Dude, debates are good. In a lot of countries the ruling party is scared of debates and thus tries to avoid them. Simply spelling out your policies does not help. A good example is the South African president. He will say (without flinching) that he will root out crime and corruption.
You really need opposition parties to shed some light on that.
I'd also like to see campaign contributions banned. There should be a pool of money provided by the government specifically for campaigning. That money is then equally distributed amongst all the candidates. Fundraising events can still be held but the money should go into the pot and not directly to that candidate.
That is completely wrong and only serves to keep the status quo. A good example is countries in which the government doles out money based on the number of votes in the parliament. This only serves to keep the ruling party in power and is a major disadvantage to new parties.
Rather make campaign contributions illegal from any company, prominent businessman or trade union that does business/works for with the government.
The biggest problem isn't falling asleep. The advantage of computers are that they do not smuggle drugs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1147076/South-African-Airways-crew-arrested-drug-smuggling--SECOND-weeks.html).
Computer pilots also do not get frisky with computer stewardesses in mid flight (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511677/Probe-launched-air-stewardess-performs-topless-mid-air-striptease-captain.html).
Hmm... I think that you should not underestimate the effect of different network types. The USA was the first country to popularise cell phones but its early networks were much worse than GSM. In many countries there are still operators with GSM networks that offer low cost cell phones.
Another thing is population density - the USA is fairly big and has a lower population density. Also, since the USA it would be fairly difficult for one operator to cover the whole country.
Nowhere did I state that education was hereditary. But there is a lot of evidence that intelligence is hereditary. Do yourself a favour and at least read the WP article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Intelligence may be hereditary, but that's not concentrated in any particular group.
Intelligence is more concentrated in the university educated group. This is unfortunately a simple fact of nature.
There are other effects besides intelligence that are also hereditary. A good example is the affinity to become alcoholic (http://www.disability-resource.com/medical-health/alcoholism/alcoholism-is-it-hereditary-.php).
Another example is violent crime â" children born to violent criminals are also likely to be more violent themselves.
So we wait.... Educated people in general are able to plan their future and also not overstress the resources at their disposal. Sure, with my income it is most likely possible to have ten children or so, if you all give them just enough to live on. Is that really what you want to do to your children?
I am pretty sure that parents with both university degrees will be able to take care for children. While they may not always be that well off (and sometimes have to resort to eating fish fingers in a microwave), I doubt that you will see extremely high levels of poverty. Today people are more interested in getting expensive vehicles and status symbols than caring for their children.
Having educated parents doesn't guarantee that the children will be educated. You can give try to give them a healthy interest in science, maths, arts, literature and whatever you can come up with. It may or may not work.
It has been shown that intelligence (whether measured through IQ or g-loaded tests) are highly hereditary. While not all children will always go to university, at least a high percentage of them will have the potential.
Unfortunately potential does not mean a degree. You have to do a lot of work to get a degree. A lot of privileged kids nowadays are not willing to do that. But that is a social issue â" not an intelligence one. With the story you tell, I get the impression that both your siblings had the potential to go to college/university â" but they lacked the ambition and drive to do so.
Of course, my family is not the rule. An uncle of mine has six kids (neither parent had a University degree, but both had done superior studies) and all of their kids have either superior studies or University degrees.
This happens a lot. My dad only had a 3 year diploma (but not a degree) and that is why their children are highly focussed on studying (to make up his shortcomings). Just because a person doesnâ(TM)t have a degree does not make them unintelligent. It is unfortunate that most middle class kids have the potential but not the drive.
Modern population growth is preposterous. Unsustainable doesn't even begin to describe it.
There is no 1st world country with an unsustainable population growth. The problem is mainly the population growth in 3rd world countries and in the lower classes. It is ironic for me that the persons who should actually get children (well off college educated people) are the ones that are the least likely to get children.
We need educated people in the future to solve our problems. Yet it seems that most educated societies are almost experiencing a population implosion.
Less than 10 years after lines at the gas pump people were buying vehicles the size of a Bangladesh apartment.
"Big Oil" did not create a market for SUVs. Stupid Americans want big SUVs and that is why they exist. The DoE or Big Oil can not magically change public opinion and desires. In any case, due to high labour costs, Big 3 US automakers can not produce smaller cars and still make a profit.
The ironic thing is that the Orcad PSPICE used is usually version 9 which is ancient (and has difficulties running on Vista). This is the most recent free version as far as I know.
There is a lot of room for a good and simple OSS SPICE program with a good frontend.
What are you gonna do? Line them up and shoot them? Because the choice is that, give them jobs, or just cut them checks, which is happening more and more often.
You ignore the fact that there are plenty of types of jobs for people doing manual labour. As someone once said: âoeYou cannot outsource turning a screw or plumbingâ. In a certain sense a lot of people in manual labour jobs are more job secure than IT guys.
The government has already been trying to sweep it under the rug by throwing non violent drug offenders into hell holes for years at a time (and if you lived like the dirt poor in MS or AR do, you'd probably do drugs too BTW)
You know that there are millions of poor people not doing drugs? The drug culture in the USA is mostly cultural. It is also fuelled by the gangster culture. This is a valid phenomenon â" but it is in no way related to unemployment caused by free trade.
And finally the "free trade" to the third world often comes with toxins causing higher birth defects, rates of cancer, and huge chunks of land so toxic that it is worthless.
And you are ignoring the majority of products which are of a fairly high quality. Not so long ago, US beef was filled with mad cow. So you should not be the first to judge.
The ONLY ones who really gain in those situations are huge multinationals who get dirt cheap labor and products while not actually having to give a fuck about the workers or the environment.
The living standard in China for example increased dramatically (and I mean dramatically) in the last 30 years. All caused by export led growth. Sever countries which are now first world also followed the same developmental pattern (Japan (aka âoeJapCrapâ), Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore).
They do NOT play by our rules, so why should we allow them into our markets?
The current problem with free trade is that America is the judge, jury and executioner. The USA for example subsidised farm goods and still flooded 3rd world markets with subsidised agricultural goods. The USA acted like the 300 pound bully getting its way each time. This is the first stage in history when the USA canâ(TM)t exactly act as it wants to.
supporting fair trade and buying local wherever possible. Unlike many conservatives, I'd rather support the UAW and General Motors than a foreign company...
So, you are all for protectionism? The USA benefited a lot from exports â" if other countries did the same the USA would not be as rich. It is sad that poor countries (i.e. those with a labour advantage) benefits more from free trade than from all the aid that they are given. The idea of unfairly protecting low end US manufacturing jobs (by taking money from more productive sectors of the economy) slows down the USAâ(TM)s economy. Fair trade is the second stupidest thing I have seen (it lags behind subsidised farming).
Nothing raises peopleâ(TM)s quality of life in 3rd world countries as much as export jobs (e.g. manufacturing). Fair trade (or any other euphemism for protectionism) is inherently selfish, economically stupid and anti-poor.
Isn't the lack of volcanic eruptions then a cause for global warming? Couldn't global warming thus be solved by making volcanos erupt? (e.g. with nuclear weapons).
Free trade isn't exactly an idea from the left. Most leftists do not like free trade and accompanying things that much (e.g. Naomi Klein, Micheal Moore). Leftists promote a crackpot idea called "fair trade" instead of "free trade".
I am more scared of the FUD that Global Climate Change is happening and is as catastrophic. A lot of the global warming propaganda (e.g. Gore's movie) contains a lot of FUD and statements that are just not true. (E.g. saying a 7 meter ocean level rise will occur without mentioning that it will take a millennium).
Maybe global warming occurs - but it has become too much a pet project for washed out liberals. We can have a win-win situation. The liberals stop moaning when we put up carbon neutral nuclear power plants and we act as if we care about global warming FUD.
It was inevitable given the inequality and injustice of the previous system,
When does the buck stop? The Apartheid government arose exactly because they felt that the previous English government (+war) oppressed them (âoeeeu van onregâ). 15 years have passed. Why arenâ(TM)t South African leaders hold to the same standards as other world leaders?
The Apartheid government had a smaller police force that reduced crime (among everyone) in South Africa. They did this while fighting an ANC insurgency and protecting South Africaâ(TM)s borders.
The Apartheid police force may have been bad â" but at least they were efficient. The police force grew drastically (and more than tripled in size the past 15 years). Why has crime tripled since the early 80ies? More people die each day today due to violence than any day at the height of Apartheid.
PS: Maybe it is whole scale corruption and graft by the ANC government that is responsible for South Africaâ(TM)s current situation? (and not some system which ended in 1994) Maybe if they used money on education instead of buying arms in the corrupt arms deal things would have been better?
Switch to Al Jazeera at this moment and you will see a pretty telling picture. Joburg municipal workers are on strike and they really make a mess when they strike (vandalism, etcâ¦). There are also âoeservice deliveryâ strikes (although none in Joburg as far as I know). There is no doubt that the inner cities decayed a lot in the last 5 to 10 years (of both Joburg and Pretoria â" the decay in Pretoria at least bottomed out).
This country has a lot of problems â" unfortunately a lot of foreign people are not willing to accept that (and still cling to the âoerainbow nationâ fallacy). Problems locally also do not get handled because any criticism against the government or the ANC is seen as racism. This coupled with a criminal for president really removes the confidence in the future of South Africa from any rational person.
You are correct, except for the fact that federal funding could still be used for embryonic stem cell research if it was one of the presidential lines. It is sad to see that the policy is so completely misrepresented.
I prefer to look at it another way: Why not ban federal funding (tax dollars) for that part of stem cell research that 50% of the population finds wrong?
If you ever tried to access the internet over a farm line you would know that it is a fuckup. I had extreme difficulty and we lived just 20 kilometers from town.
Cattle-TB is bullshit. It is not that dangerous. Most cattle (at least milk cows) are tested for TB. If milk is pasteurized cattle-TB is simply not a problem.
Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century.
You are partly right. Global warming is a doomsday cult. Youâ(TM)ve got the doomsday prophecy (global warming and water levels thatâ(TM)s going to rise 6 meters) that promises complete destruction. Youâ(TM)ve got the humble prophet that was injusticed (Al Gore). The prophet advocates for an action that would provide salvation (reducing CO2).
Religion is human nature. With the decline of organised religion the masses search for a new one.
Slashdot Mirror
20 years ago, the Conservative mantra was "buy 'made in America'", now it's "outsource, baby. outsource".
You know that free trade is a two way street? 20 years ago there was also higher tariffs so foreigners (like me) didn't buy so much American products.
But you can go back to isolationism and buy $2000 shirts that were made in the USA.
Maybe he lacks eloquence - but what he said is 100% correct.
No stupid debates, simply spell out what they represent, what they want to do, etc.
Dude, debates are good. In a lot of countries the ruling party is scared of debates and thus tries to avoid them. Simply spelling out your policies does not help. A good example is the South African president. He will say (without flinching) that he will root out crime and corruption.
You really need opposition parties to shed some light on that.
I'd also like to see campaign contributions banned. There should be a pool of money provided by the government specifically for campaigning. That money is then equally distributed amongst all the candidates. Fundraising events can still be held but the money should go into the pot and not directly to that candidate.
That is completely wrong and only serves to keep the status quo. A good example is countries in which the government doles out money based on the number of votes in the parliament. This only serves to keep the ruling party in power and is a major disadvantage to new parties.
Rather make campaign contributions illegal from any company, prominent businessman or trade union that does business/works for with the government.
It may not be all private but the semi-private for-profit commercial launchers launched quite a few successful satellites (and done it cheap too).
The biggest problem isn't falling asleep. The advantage of computers are that they do not smuggle drugs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1147076/South-African-Airways-crew-arrested-drug-smuggling--SECOND-weeks.html).
Computer pilots also do not get frisky with computer stewardesses in mid flight (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511677/Probe-launched-air-stewardess-performs-topless-mid-air-striptease-captain.html).
Hmm... I think that you should not underestimate the effect of different network types. The USA was the first country to popularise cell phones but its early networks were much worse than GSM. In many countries there are still operators with GSM networks that offer low cost cell phones.
Another thing is population density - the USA is fairly big and has a lower population density. Also, since the USA it would be fairly difficult for one operator to cover the whole country.
Nowhere did I state that education was hereditary. But there is a lot of evidence that intelligence is hereditary. Do yourself a favour and at least read the WP article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Intelligence may be hereditary, but that's not concentrated in any particular group.
Intelligence is more concentrated in the university educated group. This is unfortunately a simple fact of nature.
There are other effects besides intelligence that are also hereditary. A good example is the affinity to become alcoholic (http://www.disability-resource.com/medical-health/alcoholism/alcoholism-is-it-hereditary-.php). Another example is violent crime â" children born to violent criminals are also likely to be more violent themselves.
So we wait.... Educated people in general are able to plan their future and also not overstress the resources at their disposal. Sure, with my income it is most likely possible to have ten children or so, if you all give them just enough to live on. Is that really what you want to do to your children?
I am pretty sure that parents with both university degrees will be able to take care for children. While they may not always be that well off (and sometimes have to resort to eating fish fingers in a microwave), I doubt that you will see extremely high levels of poverty. Today people are more interested in getting expensive vehicles and status symbols than caring for their children.
Having educated parents doesn't guarantee that the children will be educated. You can give try to give them a healthy interest in science, maths, arts, literature and whatever you can come up with. It may or may not work.
It has been shown that intelligence (whether measured through IQ or g-loaded tests) are highly hereditary. While not all children will always go to university, at least a high percentage of them will have the potential.
Unfortunately potential does not mean a degree. You have to do a lot of work to get a degree. A lot of privileged kids nowadays are not willing to do that. But that is a social issue â" not an intelligence one. With the story you tell, I get the impression that both your siblings had the potential to go to college/university â" but they lacked the ambition and drive to do so.
Of course, my family is not the rule. An uncle of mine has six kids (neither parent had a University degree, but both had done superior studies) and all of their kids have either superior studies or University degrees.
This happens a lot. My dad only had a 3 year diploma (but not a degree) and that is why their children are highly focussed on studying (to make up his shortcomings). Just because a person doesnâ(TM)t have a degree does not make them unintelligent. It is unfortunate that most middle class kids have the potential but not the drive.
Modern population growth is preposterous. Unsustainable doesn't even begin to describe it.
There is no 1st world country with an unsustainable population growth. The problem is mainly the population growth in 3rd world countries and in the lower classes. It is ironic for me that the persons who should actually get children (well off college educated people) are the ones that are the least likely to get children.
We need educated people in the future to solve our problems. Yet it seems that most educated societies are almost experiencing a population implosion.
Less than 10 years after lines at the gas pump people were buying vehicles the size of a Bangladesh apartment.
"Big Oil" did not create a market for SUVs. Stupid Americans want big SUVs and that is why they exist. The DoE or Big Oil can not magically change public opinion and desires. In any case, due to high labour costs, Big 3 US automakers can not produce smaller cars and still make a profit.
The ironic thing is that the Orcad PSPICE used is usually version 9 which is ancient (and has difficulties running on Vista). This is the most recent free version as far as I know.
There is a lot of room for a good and simple OSS SPICE program with a good frontend.
What are you gonna do? Line them up and shoot them? Because the choice is that, give them jobs, or just cut them checks, which is happening more and more often.
You ignore the fact that there are plenty of types of jobs for people doing manual labour. As someone once said: âoeYou cannot outsource turning a screw or plumbingâ. In a certain sense a lot of people in manual labour jobs are more job secure than IT guys.
The government has already been trying to sweep it under the rug by throwing non violent drug offenders into hell holes for years at a time (and if you lived like the dirt poor in MS or AR do, you'd probably do drugs too BTW)
You know that there are millions of poor people not doing drugs? The drug culture in the USA is mostly cultural. It is also fuelled by the gangster culture. This is a valid phenomenon â" but it is in no way related to unemployment caused by free trade.
And finally the "free trade" to the third world often comes with toxins causing higher birth defects, rates of cancer, and huge chunks of land so toxic that it is worthless.
And you are ignoring the majority of products which are of a fairly high quality. Not so long ago, US beef was filled with mad cow. So you should not be the first to judge.
The ONLY ones who really gain in those situations are huge multinationals who get dirt cheap labor and products while not actually having to give a fuck about the workers or the environment.
The living standard in China for example increased dramatically (and I mean dramatically) in the last 30 years. All caused by export led growth. Sever countries which are now first world also followed the same developmental pattern (Japan (aka âoeJapCrapâ), Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore).
They do NOT play by our rules, so why should we allow them into our markets?
The current problem with free trade is that America is the judge, jury and executioner. The USA for example subsidised farm goods and still flooded 3rd world markets with subsidised agricultural goods. The USA acted like the 300 pound bully getting its way each time. This is the first stage in history when the USA canâ(TM)t exactly act as it wants to.
All in all, free trade is good for everyone.
supporting fair trade and buying local wherever possible. Unlike many conservatives, I'd rather support the UAW and General Motors than a foreign company...
So, you are all for protectionism? The USA benefited a lot from exports â" if other countries did the same the USA would not be as rich. It is sad that poor countries (i.e. those with a labour advantage) benefits more from free trade than from all the aid that they are given. The idea of unfairly protecting low end US manufacturing jobs (by taking money from more productive sectors of the economy) slows down the USAâ(TM)s economy. Fair trade is the second stupidest thing I have seen (it lags behind subsidised farming).
Nothing raises peopleâ(TM)s quality of life in 3rd world countries as much as export jobs (e.g. manufacturing). Fair trade (or any other euphemism for protectionism) is inherently selfish, economically stupid and anti-poor.
What about Twinsun's oddysey/Little Big Adventure? Surely that is one of the best (and most enjoyable) adventure games?
Isn't the lack of volcanic eruptions then a cause for global warming? Couldn't global warming thus be solved by making volcanos erupt? (e.g. with nuclear weapons).
Free trade isn't exactly an idea from the left. Most leftists do not like free trade and accompanying things that much (e.g. Naomi Klein, Micheal Moore). Leftists promote a crackpot idea called "fair trade" instead of "free trade".
I am more scared of the FUD that Global Climate Change is happening and is as catastrophic. A lot of the global warming propaganda (e.g. Gore's movie) contains a lot of FUD and statements that are just not true. (E.g. saying a 7 meter ocean level rise will occur without mentioning that it will take a millennium).
Maybe global warming occurs - but it has become too much a pet project for washed out liberals. We can have a win-win situation. The liberals stop moaning when we put up carbon neutral nuclear power plants and we act as if we care about global warming FUD.
It was inevitable given the inequality and injustice of the previous system,
When does the buck stop? The Apartheid government arose exactly because they felt that the previous English government (+war) oppressed them (âoeeeu van onregâ). 15 years have passed. Why arenâ(TM)t South African leaders hold to the same standards as other world leaders?
The Apartheid government had a smaller police force that reduced crime (among everyone) in South Africa. They did this while fighting an ANC insurgency and protecting South Africaâ(TM)s borders.
The Apartheid police force may have been bad â" but at least they were efficient. The police force grew drastically (and more than tripled in size the past 15 years). Why has crime tripled since the early 80ies? More people die each day today due to violence than any day at the height of Apartheid.
PS: Maybe it is whole scale corruption and graft by the ANC government that is responsible for South Africaâ(TM)s current situation? (and not some system which ended in 1994) Maybe if they used money on education instead of buying arms in the corrupt arms deal things would have been better?
Switch to Al Jazeera at this moment and you will see a pretty telling picture. Joburg municipal workers are on strike and they really make a mess when they strike (vandalism, etcâ¦). There are also âoeservice deliveryâ strikes (although none in Joburg as far as I know). There is no doubt that the inner cities decayed a lot in the last 5 to 10 years (of both Joburg and Pretoria â" the decay in Pretoria at least bottomed out).
You can get the statistics for the past few years at the SAPSâ(TM) site: http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/crimestats/2008/crime_stats.htm You should however bear in mind that statistics tampering has become widespread in the past few years.
This country has a lot of problems â" unfortunately a lot of foreign people are not willing to accept that (and still cling to the âoerainbow nationâ fallacy). Problems locally also do not get handled because any criticism against the government or the ANC is seen as racism. This coupled with a criminal for president really removes the confidence in the future of South Africa from any rational person.
You are correct, except for the fact that federal funding could still be used for embryonic stem cell research if it was one of the presidential lines. It is sad to see that the policy is so completely misrepresented.
I prefer to look at it another way: Why not ban federal funding (tax dollars) for that part of stem cell research that 50% of the population finds wrong?
If you ever tried to access the internet over a farm line you would know that it is a fuckup. I had extreme difficulty and we lived just 20 kilometers from town.
Cattle-TB is bullshit. It is not that dangerous. Most cattle (at least milk cows) are tested for TB. If milk is pasteurized cattle-TB is simply not a problem.
Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century.
You are partly right. Global warming is a doomsday cult. Youâ(TM)ve got the doomsday prophecy (global warming and water levels thatâ(TM)s going to rise 6 meters) that promises complete destruction. Youâ(TM)ve got the humble prophet that was injusticed (Al Gore). The prophet advocates for an action that would provide salvation (reducing CO2).
Religion is human nature. With the decline of organised religion the masses search for a new one.
And sourcewatch.org in turn is just a front for the Center of Media and Democracy (CMD) which serves as a sham independent organisation run by a leftist environmental activist. http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/12