My mom passed away in 2010, she was 65 and she was completely comfortable with the computers and the Internet. My stepmom is 68, she and my dad are always on Facebook. My mother in law is 67, and she uses Facebook, barely. She needs a lot of help with computers.
No he didn't, he said that the Chinese never felt the need to contradict progressive ideas. Meaning, they had no political reasons to deny global warming. In America, we are so polarized that each side will deny anything the other side says, in a knee-jerk fashion. China, as a dictatorship, doesn't have that problem.
It was a true statement of fact. If we had managed to dominate in this market, it would have brought jobs to the US. We didn't care enough to achieve dominance in this market, therefore, another country ate our lunch and we may not see the jobs flowing to our country, but going to the market leader, China, instead. Try taking off your partisan blinders before reading, it helps with comprehension.
Your comment makes little sense, gurps_npc is not making anything black and white. If anything, their explanation is pretty nuanced, and far from ignorance.
Where's your proof of this? Convenient how it's a nice round number like 500 million. I'm sure some damn fine math went into making that "500 million."
In high CO2 environments plants produce more vegetative growth, sure. But less nutrients. So you have to eat more calories to get all your vitamins and minerals. How's that been working out so far?
Perhaps I was unclear. It's a bullshit argument that eventual technological innovation can reduce present day harms. I mean, that should be self evident. The idea that some CEO is thinking of some future innovation curtailing his monopoly power, and deciding not to do something heinous lest it speed the day, is ludicrous. CEOs don't care about five years from now. Are we at least clear what we are arguing about now?
That's what I was thinking and yeah, it would likely totally demolish Yellowstone, which is a shame but as you say, much better than losing the continent. The nightmare scenario would be that it doesn't stop the eruption, leading to radioactive volcanic ash blanketing most of North America.
History teaches us that people do change. There are two modes of human behavior, the feast mode and the famine mode. Through most of our time on this planet, we have not been violent dickheads. We're stuck in the famine mode, the scarcity mindset. But as technological change has increased material wealth, we are gradually unlearning our counterproductive and harmful famine mindset. You can tell from all the social progress we are making. Society is becoming less violent overall. Crime is going down. Warfare is no longer seen as a noble endeavor. Torture is seen as the abomination it is, rather than a fun thing to take the kids to watch. Child abuse is declining. Honestly, things are looking pretty bright and I see our future as one of peace and cooperation on a scale never before seen.
AT&T was highly regulated, reducing some of their monopoly powers. I never claimed technological change doesn't happen, or that it does not, in the long run, destroy natural monopolies. It does, but that's not the point. The point is that while they exist, they cause harm, and that harm can be reduced by wither public ownership, or regulation. I prefer the idea of running natural monopolies as cooperatives, but that's just me.
I was of course engaging in hyperbole regarding my debates with libertarians on this issue. It can't really have been more than a dozen times. My point is, I've never heard a compelling argument that natural monopolies are a safe thing to let run unregulated as a for-profit entity. The profit motive coupled with the power of a monopoly always leads to abuse.
Yeah, I doubt all the nukes in the world would add up to a fart in a hurricane compared to a supervolcano. I think the idea with nukes is to break up the rock strata and let the magma burble out more slowly, rather than in one cataclysmic eruption.
I think the statement is indicative of what sort of people we are dealing with here. As if we didn't already know what sort of people sell $27,000 cables. Now they've hired some sort of carnival barker as their COO? What a shitshow.
Well, okay then. Sounds like the only real difference we might have is that I tend to identify as "anarchist" while you've chosen to go with "libertarian," which is really nothing more than rebranded anarcho-capitalism (at least here in America. In other countries, there is no real difference and libertarianism covers the full spectrum of anarchist thought.) I like the term anarchism because it gets to the heart of the matter: an archos, or "against hierarchy." In America, libertarianism as been co-opted by people like the Koch brothers, who firmly believe in hierarchy.
But he is doing what he is told, and I honestly can't see any difference between his agenda and the Republican agenda. So enlighten me, HOW is he different from other Republicans?
So human nature is immutable, and what is currently true about the species will always be true? We're too lazy for direct democracy, and always will be, even with networked computers?
I've looked at history, and the harm done by monopolies is never offset by the benefits. Technological change doesn't happen quickly enough to mitigate the effects of shitty, overbearing monopolies. I've been over this a million times with libertarians and they haven't managed to change my mind, even with arguments that weren't just off the cuff, half assed attempts.
Far lefty here. We know the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. I held my nose and voted for Hillary because the alternative was unthinkable. Many democrats, I don't even have to hold my nose to vote for them. It's only the corporate third way triangulating party insiders we hate.
Let's actually list the things Trump and Republicans agree on: 1. Tighter immigration control 2. Less regulation on corporations 3. Lower taxes for the wealthy 4. Screw the environment (in case 2 didn't make that clear enough) 5. Screw the LGBT community 6. Pander to religious fundamentalists 7. More military spending 8. Screw minorities 9. Keep as many people from voting as possible 10. Repeal Obamacare and make sure poor people can't get healthcare
As far as I can tell, that is the entirety of the Republican party platform. How is he not a Republican? What are the actual differences? I'm curious. Because the Republican party is bending over pretty far to ingratiate themselves with Trump, even when he insults them to their faces, and meanwhile Trump is trying to do everything they ask him to do. They are one and the same.
Slashdot Mirror
My mom passed away in 2010, she was 65 and she was completely comfortable with the computers and the Internet. My stepmom is 68, she and my dad are always on Facebook. My mother in law is 67, and she uses Facebook, barely. She needs a lot of help with computers.
If moms don't have Internet, who the fuck is Facebook for?
It shows them fitting prop guards and then, oddly, flying around without them on.
No he didn't, he said that the Chinese never felt the need to contradict progressive ideas. Meaning, they had no political reasons to deny global warming. In America, we are so polarized that each side will deny anything the other side says, in a knee-jerk fashion. China, as a dictatorship, doesn't have that problem.
Also, nice sig line.
It was a true statement of fact. If we had managed to dominate in this market, it would have brought jobs to the US. We didn't care enough to achieve dominance in this market, therefore, another country ate our lunch and we may not see the jobs flowing to our country, but going to the market leader, China, instead. Try taking off your partisan blinders before reading, it helps with comprehension.
Your comment makes little sense, gurps_npc is not making anything black and white. If anything, their explanation is pretty nuanced, and far from ignorance.
Where's your proof of this? Convenient how it's a nice round number like 500 million. I'm sure some damn fine math went into making that "500 million."
In high CO2 environments plants produce more vegetative growth, sure. But less nutrients. So you have to eat more calories to get all your vitamins and minerals. How's that been working out so far?
The Blessed H-Bomb of St. Ronnie the Feeble Minded.
Yup. At the Mountains of Madness was one of my favorite Lovecraft stories.
Perhaps I was unclear. It's a bullshit argument that eventual technological innovation can reduce present day harms. I mean, that should be self evident. The idea that some CEO is thinking of some future innovation curtailing his monopoly power, and deciding not to do something heinous lest it speed the day, is ludicrous. CEOs don't care about five years from now. Are we at least clear what we are arguing about now?
That's what I was thinking and yeah, it would likely totally demolish Yellowstone, which is a shame but as you say, much better than losing the continent. The nightmare scenario would be that it doesn't stop the eruption, leading to radioactive volcanic ash blanketing most of North America.
History teaches us that people do change. There are two modes of human behavior, the feast mode and the famine mode. Through most of our time on this planet, we have not been violent dickheads. We're stuck in the famine mode, the scarcity mindset. But as technological change has increased material wealth, we are gradually unlearning our counterproductive and harmful famine mindset. You can tell from all the social progress we are making. Society is becoming less violent overall. Crime is going down. Warfare is no longer seen as a noble endeavor. Torture is seen as the abomination it is, rather than a fun thing to take the kids to watch. Child abuse is declining. Honestly, things are looking pretty bright and I see our future as one of peace and cooperation on a scale never before seen.
AT&T was highly regulated, reducing some of their monopoly powers. I never claimed technological change doesn't happen, or that it does not, in the long run, destroy natural monopolies. It does, but that's not the point. The point is that while they exist, they cause harm, and that harm can be reduced by wither public ownership, or regulation. I prefer the idea of running natural monopolies as cooperatives, but that's just me.
I was of course engaging in hyperbole regarding my debates with libertarians on this issue. It can't really have been more than a dozen times. My point is, I've never heard a compelling argument that natural monopolies are a safe thing to let run unregulated as a for-profit entity. The profit motive coupled with the power of a monopoly always leads to abuse.
Yeah, I doubt all the nukes in the world would add up to a fart in a hurricane compared to a supervolcano. I think the idea with nukes is to break up the rock strata and let the magma burble out more slowly, rather than in one cataclysmic eruption.
I think the statement is indicative of what sort of people we are dealing with here. As if we didn't already know what sort of people sell $27,000 cables. Now they've hired some sort of carnival barker as their COO? What a shitshow.
Nuclear weapons. The American way involves unholy amounts of firepower.
Well, okay then. Sounds like the only real difference we might have is that I tend to identify as "anarchist" while you've chosen to go with "libertarian," which is really nothing more than rebranded anarcho-capitalism (at least here in America. In other countries, there is no real difference and libertarianism covers the full spectrum of anarchist thought.) I like the term anarchism because it gets to the heart of the matter: an archos, or "against hierarchy." In America, libertarianism as been co-opted by people like the Koch brothers, who firmly believe in hierarchy.
But he is doing what he is told, and I honestly can't see any difference between his agenda and the Republican agenda. So enlighten me, HOW is he different from other Republicans?
So human nature is immutable, and what is currently true about the species will always be true? We're too lazy for direct democracy, and always will be, even with networked computers?
I've looked at history, and the harm done by monopolies is never offset by the benefits. Technological change doesn't happen quickly enough to mitigate the effects of shitty, overbearing monopolies. I've been over this a million times with libertarians and they haven't managed to change my mind, even with arguments that weren't just off the cuff, half assed attempts.
Says the person who also claims to have voted green party. Well? Which is it? Are you against "communism" or not?
Far lefty here. We know the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. I held my nose and voted for Hillary because the alternative was unthinkable. Many democrats, I don't even have to hold my nose to vote for them. It's only the corporate third way triangulating party insiders we hate.
Let's actually list the things Trump and Republicans agree on:
1. Tighter immigration control
2. Less regulation on corporations
3. Lower taxes for the wealthy
4. Screw the environment (in case 2 didn't make that clear enough)
5. Screw the LGBT community
6. Pander to religious fundamentalists
7. More military spending
8. Screw minorities
9. Keep as many people from voting as possible
10. Repeal Obamacare and make sure poor people can't get healthcare
As far as I can tell, that is the entirety of the Republican party platform. How is he not a Republican? What are the actual differences? I'm curious. Because the Republican party is bending over pretty far to ingratiate themselves with Trump, even when he insults them to their faces, and meanwhile Trump is trying to do everything they ask him to do. They are one and the same.
Well, we can still call Trump a cheeto faced shit gibbon, so we've got that going for us, which is nice.