But... if he's a good catholic then he'd agree with the scientists that evolution is a fact and a theory, that it's happening, and has happened. Just with some mystical "humans have souls because GOD" bits tacked on the end.
A good scientist doesn't have to debate. They just present the facts.
It's probably because of how people get their information. Ron Paul has certainly not been treated nicely by the established political circles, and the thing they do now is to simply throw vague criticism rather then detailed counter-points. It's certainly easier to do, and there's less risk you'll be called out on a lie. And the media reports as such.
But as for some specifics about why people don't like him, here you go.
He wants to abolish the IRS. He's not a fan of income tax. He wants a simple tax system that doesn't require an organization like the IRS to run. Unfortunately, reality isn't that simple. The tax code could certainly be better. But this would either instantly kill most non-profits, or make for massive loopholes. Sudden massive change to a system this engrained is dangerous.
He claims "state rights" in a lot of areas where it's a euphemism for "conservatives couldn't win on a federal level, so let's try again on a state level".
He called global warming a hoax. While it's probably not as dire as the wingnuts claim it is, it most certainly isn't a hoax and has some long-term consequences.
He wants to pull out of (and effectively kill off) the UN and NATO. So GOODBYE international discussion. I guess we can go back to fighting over petty disputes instead of bickering about them. And I'd like to comment about how everything is now uni-laterally decided, but Bush kind of already put that into effect.
He's an idealist. He's got a really good foundation of how things ought to be. And he has really good arguments for *most* of his platform. Unfortunately, we live nowhere near a perfect utopia. In his view, if we set the rules to be how they would perform ideally, the nation would change itself to match, and life would be good. But WAY before that happens, the masses would starve to death in the dark. And before we let that happen, we would see where his plan is going and stop it. Specifically, congress wouldn't let him do the vast majority of the things he wants to do. See how well Obama's health insurance plan is going?
So if Ron Paul got into office, the net effect would be a complete lack of action. Congress wouldn't craft/pass the laws he wants. He wouldn't pass bad laws. So nothing happens. No budget is passed. The two branches play chicken and knowing how hard headed everyone is, they'd probably crash heads and the entire system would come to a screeching halt. Which is close enough to what Ron Paul wants that he'd call it a net win.
Sorry, but I don't want to vote for throwing away my government.
What? ESTABLISHED...... INDIE..... developers. I'm sorry, but those are somewhat at odds. Sure, there are people out there that made an indie game and are now pretty well known. Some have used their success to form companies, hire people, and become publishers. I wouldn't say they're "indie" anymore. By and far, "indie" means that no one knows you and you're cash strapped. It means you are independent of the establishment, the publishers, the corporate machine. If you only plan on helping "established" indie developers, you might as well donate some money to those poor hungry souls over at EA.
But even though Brian Fargo is funding Wasteland 2 through Kickstarter, and avoiding the big-name publishers, I wouldn't label him as Indie. I mean, the guy FOUNDED one of those big-name publishers.
Whoa there. The point is that you're overestimating the importance of creationism. Claiming that all Christians know about creationism because it's tenet of the religion is circular logic.
Creationism is important in Europe.
Because there are a lot of Christians in Europe.
Because creationism is important to European Christians.
Now, you're arguing not about "the Creationism stupidity", but about the concept all by itself. Sure, most of Europe has probably heard of the concept that god created everything. But "the Creationism stupidity", the cultural struggle between the Discovery Institute, fundamentalists, conservatives and the scientifically minded liberal-leaning groups isn't really an issue over in Europe.
Sorry kiddo, most of the people you can reach on a phone are not specifically being paid to be smart. They deal with the unwashed masses and by and far only have to do what the 3-ring binder in front of them tells them to do. Anyone that has more braincells to rub together can usually get better work. Especially when dealing with large ISP business like Mediacom or Comcast. They will hire the lowest common denominator that can deal with 80% of the traffic.
If it's above their head, go over their head and try to talk to a manager or engineer or someone with a stuffed penguin.
What? How doesn't it scale? We have a FUCK TON of coal. So does Russia and China. Rather convenient like that actually. We mine it, liquify it, refine it, and it acts just like oil. What part of that "doesn't scale"? Have you noticed all those coal trains crossing the nation? Do you know how much refining it takes to turn crude into gasoline? But we pay for it, so they scale up production.
Now, yes, you are correct that we will dearly miss oil. Coal liquification is more expensive. And that's going to bring about a bit of change. But it puts a ceiling on how expensive it's going to be to get from point A to point B. So we won't have masses of people dying out in the streets. This article, and YOUR POSTS, are just self-diluted fear-mongering. Stop that.
if you need 80% of your switchgrass ethanol to keep up switchgrass production
Source that 80% number or you're just talking out of your ass.
My god man, reacting to issues and shifting to alternatives is what's going on. I mean, if you want to have a downright retarded model, if I continue my current trend, I'll die by next Sunday due to dehydration. But, just a guess, I think I'm going to have dinner tonight. Possibly with a glass of water. Because that's what I always do. I get thirsty, I go get a drink. Likewise, back in 04-06, when oil prices were really scary, people started to invest in alternatives. When oil runs out, we'll get something else. It won't be as good, but we're not just going to roll over and die.
Listen, I know you asked "...if we go on like this?", but that's a horribly broken model that doesn't tell us anything.
you didn't mention one single viable substitute for oil
Something wrong with coal liquefaction that I'm not aware of? Did you miss that?
If you have to use switchgrass ethanol to produce switchgrass ethanol then - well, maybe try to do the math some day.
Yeah, there's a net gain in the end. What? Did you REALLY think that it took more energy to produce than we got out? Now, it's not that economical right now, and we are probably never going to have ALL of our oil needs replaced by ethanol, there's simply not enough capacity. Honestly I see it as a better alternative to farm welfare and a way to level out erratic prices.
Sorry for being an asshole. It's just too hard to care about the poor little feelings of doomsayers.
Right, eventually China will start buying American goods and our the working class will make a comeback while they develop a middle class. We'll lose the ability to buy electronics, shampoo bottles, 90% of Walmart goods at such dirt-cheap prices.
Things will indeed change. But not necessarily fast, and not necessarily for the worse.
As for an absolute increase in resource usage, MY GOODNESS, we'll need a lot more people to produce all those goods! There's an issue with sustainability and environmental impact, which we'll hopefully overcome.
what should they have assumed instead if what they wanted to do is predict what would happen if we go on like this? Eh?
Well, they could do their freaking JOB and model a shift to predictable alternatives. So if say, oil for example, skyrockets in price, they would model an economic shift to electric, hydrogen, air-pressure, or even flywheel energy for transportation. And an increase in public transit. And a rise in housing prices closer to city cores. And a rise in required grid power. And a demand for rare-earth elements. And so on and so on. But that's a lot of work, and it's so much easier to extrapolate a single resource's demand.
There is at the moment no viable substitute for oil
Wut? Well first off sonny, there are a lot of different substitutes, but none of them are as cheap as oil used to be. We can liquify coal. We can turn switch grass into ethanol. Electricity is a pretty good alternative energy. We can scoot around on battery packs. It's storable density is a bit of an issue but it's getting better all the time.
(Or we can, oh, I don't know, WALK PLACES.)
It is simply not realistically possible to replace all internal combustion cars with battery-powered ones.
Given what time frame? And why does it have to be ALL cars? How long did it take to replace carburetors with fuel injection? How long did it take cars to replace horses? Why don't you think we have a similar time frame? The nutjobs in the article and their 2030 date? Please, the end-of-the-world types are a constant drone. Always have been and always will be.
I do not think it is impossible to solve the problems humanity is facing. I just think humanity will not do it.
That's because you're old, cynical, grumpy, and have watched too much fox news.
other factors external to the business that result in minor profits for the next three years and the stock returns to its previous low levels
When Rome is burning, it's externalities. When it's growing, it's entirely due to the CEO's guidance.
If, after two years, the stock has returned to it's previous state, then the CEO's amazing work wasn't all that amazing.
If they complain about it not being fair, the response is the same as the one they gave during the bust years.
"Well there are externalities"
This wasn't the best example for you to pick, please try again.
Just out of curiosity, how much money did these CEOs take on their way out?
I mean, they got paid for doing a job of course. And even if they do a bad job of it, they (arguably) deserve a paycheck. But bonuses, severance pay, and perks are hard to justify when letting people go because the business if failing.
Stock options are actually a pretty good idea. If they drive the company into the ground, those aren't worth much.
With the rising costs of "quality" CEO material, were these guys worth the investment?
Well not so much of late. And OH LOOK inflation rates have been hopping around a bit. (Just slide back that start date for a good view) They were pretty level in the 90's. Had some problems in the 70's and 80's. 60's were good.
Of course, all of that is NOTHING compared to the chaotic pre-50's era when the USA wasn't a super power. It's good to be on top.
But it's not like you can set the inflation rate and magically make for a stable economy. It's more like an indicator of the economy. This gets scary when this gets boiled down to things like the FED's interest rate, because the big guy in charge admitting that shit sucks doesn't help the situation any.
Which isn't necessarily bad. I mean, it's bad for certain groups that would prefer to simply sit on their money, and hand it off to their kids or something. And runaway inflation is bad for almost everybody. But a constant low inflation encourages people to do something with their money.
And consistancy is good. This cycle thing makes people go bust. A constant state, being orderly, having a predictable future lets people make plans and take the long view. Averaging out the boom and bust years is one of the jobs of government.
Well, the straight answer if I assume a libertarian stance for a moment, would be that there's a percentage of employers and hiring managers that are bigots of some sort. There are miscommunications, mistakes, and con-men. Which means that for a given industry that employs people, say power generation, you're going to have an average cost throughout the years for lost lawsuits, hiring lawyers, diversity training, and all that jazz. Then there's the FUD aspect which could potentially keep bad employees working even though a better worker is one firing away.
That's the idea anyway. I'd say these laws help overcome social issues like racism and ageism which lets a large portion of society be more productive. And that outweighs the cost of up-keeping and dealing with these laws/regulations.
mmmmm, you're treating the political parties as a single entity. A party isn't going to have a unified view on a subject that's distasteful but in-line with their views. A percentage of every party are douches.
Same for both sides.
Where the two sides differ is that the GOP didn't come out in unified outrage and preach respect for women in the above cases.
Statistically, portions of both parties hate women. The trend is greater with conservatives, probably due to their stance on some issues with women's rights. Abortion rights, women's pay in the workplace, affirmative action, etc.
And by no stretch of the imagination can you make Rush Limbaugh "look downright benign". The guy's a shock jock. It's his job to make people angry.
I really don't think he's trying to establish a religion with this sort of thinking. But that doesn't stop some people. Of course you need a rather broad definition of religion which incapsulates most -isms if you want to lump secular humanism in with all the other religions. As much as I agree with him about how history probably played out and the fundamental nature of morals, I'm more religious about Linux than this philosophical stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked Armagetron. Pretty close to what the original source depicted.
But... if he's a good catholic then he'd agree with the scientists that evolution is a fact and a theory, that it's happening, and has happened. Just with some mystical "humans have souls because GOD" bits tacked on the end.
A good scientist doesn't have to debate. They just present the facts.
It's probably because of how people get their information. Ron Paul has certainly not been treated nicely by the established political circles, and the thing they do now is to simply throw vague criticism rather then detailed counter-points. It's certainly easier to do, and there's less risk you'll be called out on a lie. And the media reports as such.
But as for some specifics about why people don't like him, here you go.
He wants to abolish the IRS. He's not a fan of income tax. He wants a simple tax system that doesn't require an organization like the IRS to run. Unfortunately, reality isn't that simple. The tax code could certainly be better. But this would either instantly kill most non-profits, or make for massive loopholes. Sudden massive change to a system this engrained is dangerous.
He claims "state rights" in a lot of areas where it's a euphemism for "conservatives couldn't win on a federal level, so let's try again on a state level".
He called global warming a hoax. While it's probably not as dire as the wingnuts claim it is, it most certainly isn't a hoax and has some long-term consequences.
He wants to pull out of (and effectively kill off) the UN and NATO. So GOODBYE international discussion. I guess we can go back to fighting over petty disputes instead of bickering about them. And I'd like to comment about how everything is now uni-laterally decided, but Bush kind of already put that into effect.
He's an idealist. He's got a really good foundation of how things ought to be. And he has really good arguments for *most* of his platform. Unfortunately, we live nowhere near a perfect utopia. In his view, if we set the rules to be how they would perform ideally, the nation would change itself to match, and life would be good. But WAY before that happens, the masses would starve to death in the dark. And before we let that happen, we would see where his plan is going and stop it. Specifically, congress wouldn't let him do the vast majority of the things he wants to do. See how well Obama's health insurance plan is going?
So if Ron Paul got into office, the net effect would be a complete lack of action. Congress wouldn't craft/pass the laws he wants. He wouldn't pass bad laws. So nothing happens. No budget is passed. The two branches play chicken and knowing how hard headed everyone is, they'd probably crash heads and the entire system would come to a screeching halt. Which is close enough to what Ron Paul wants that he'd call it a net win.
Sorry, but I don't want to vote for throwing away my government.
Fund established indie developers.
What?
ESTABLISHED...... INDIE..... developers. I'm sorry, but those are somewhat at odds. Sure, there are people out there that made an indie game and are now pretty well known. Some have used their success to form companies, hire people, and become publishers. I wouldn't say they're "indie" anymore. By and far, "indie" means that no one knows you and you're cash strapped. It means you are independent of the establishment, the publishers, the corporate machine. If you only plan on helping "established" indie developers, you might as well donate some money to those poor hungry souls over at EA.
But even though Brian Fargo is funding Wasteland 2 through Kickstarter, and avoiding the big-name publishers, I wouldn't label him as Indie. I mean, the guy FOUNDED one of those big-name publishers.
A lawyer thinks you have a reason to sue. Amazing.
"Proud to be an American..."
Whoa there. The point is that you're overestimating the importance of creationism. Claiming that all Christians know about creationism because it's tenet of the religion is circular logic. Creationism is important in Europe.
Because there are a lot of Christians in Europe.
Because creationism is important to European Christians.
Now, you're arguing not about "the Creationism stupidity", but about the concept all by itself. Sure, most of Europe has probably heard of the concept that god created everything. But "the Creationism stupidity", the cultural struggle between the Discovery Institute, fundamentalists, conservatives and the scientifically minded liberal-leaning groups isn't really an issue over in Europe.
a guy being paid to NOT be an idiot
Sorry kiddo, most of the people you can reach on a phone are not specifically being paid to be smart. They deal with the unwashed masses and by and far only have to do what the 3-ring binder in front of them tells them to do. Anyone that has more braincells to rub together can usually get better work. Especially when dealing with large ISP business like Mediacom or Comcast. They will hire the lowest common denominator that can deal with 80% of the traffic.
If it's above their head, go over their head and try to talk to a manager or engineer or someone with a stuffed penguin.
What? How doesn't it scale? We have a FUCK TON of coal. So does Russia and China. Rather convenient like that actually. We mine it, liquify it, refine it, and it acts just like oil. What part of that "doesn't scale"? Have you noticed all those coal trains crossing the nation? Do you know how much refining it takes to turn crude into gasoline? But we pay for it, so they scale up production.
Now, yes, you are correct that we will dearly miss oil. Coal liquification is more expensive. And that's going to bring about a bit of change. But it puts a ceiling on how expensive it's going to be to get from point A to point B. So we won't have masses of people dying out in the streets. This article, and YOUR POSTS, are just self-diluted fear-mongering. Stop that.
if you need 80% of your switchgrass ethanol to keep up switchgrass production
Source that 80% number or you're just talking out of your ass.
Come on Slashdot, get over your pre-teen rebellion phase and put the mod points where they're due.
Soooo... problem solved, right?
I am sorry to hear that logic is not for you
My god man, reacting to issues and shifting to alternatives is what's going on. I mean, if you want to have a downright retarded model, if I continue my current trend, I'll die by next Sunday due to dehydration. But, just a guess, I think I'm going to have dinner tonight. Possibly with a glass of water. Because that's what I always do. I get thirsty, I go get a drink. Likewise, back in 04-06, when oil prices were really scary, people started to invest in alternatives. When oil runs out, we'll get something else. It won't be as good, but we're not just going to roll over and die.
Listen, I know you asked "...if we go on like this?", but that's a horribly broken model that doesn't tell us anything.
you didn't mention one single viable substitute for oil
Something wrong with coal liquefaction that I'm not aware of? Did you miss that?
If you have to use switchgrass ethanol to produce switchgrass ethanol then - well, maybe try to do the math some day.
Yeah, there's a net gain in the end. What? Did you REALLY think that it took more energy to produce than we got out? Now, it's not that economical right now, and we are probably never going to have ALL of our oil needs replaced by ethanol, there's simply not enough capacity. Honestly I see it as a better alternative to farm welfare and a way to level out erratic prices.
Sorry for being an asshole. It's just too hard to care about the poor little feelings of doomsayers.
Right, eventually China will start buying American goods and our the working class will make a comeback while they develop a middle class. We'll lose the ability to buy electronics, shampoo bottles, 90% of Walmart goods at such dirt-cheap prices.
Things will indeed change. But not necessarily fast, and not necessarily for the worse.
As for an absolute increase in resource usage, MY GOODNESS, we'll need a lot more people to produce all those goods! There's an issue with sustainability and environmental impact, which we'll hopefully overcome.
what should they have assumed instead if what they wanted to do is predict what would happen if we go on like this? Eh?
Well, they could do their freaking JOB and model a shift to predictable alternatives. So if say, oil for example, skyrockets in price, they would model an economic shift to electric, hydrogen, air-pressure, or even flywheel energy for transportation. And an increase in public transit. And a rise in housing prices closer to city cores. And a rise in required grid power. And a demand for rare-earth elements. And so on and so on. But that's a lot of work, and it's so much easier to extrapolate a single resource's demand.
There is at the moment no viable substitute for oil
Wut? Well first off sonny, there are a lot of different substitutes, but none of them are as cheap as oil used to be. We can liquify coal. We can turn switch grass into ethanol. Electricity is a pretty good alternative energy. We can scoot around on battery packs. It's storable density is a bit of an issue but it's getting better all the time.
(Or we can, oh, I don't know, WALK PLACES.)
It is simply not realistically possible to replace all internal combustion cars with battery-powered ones.
Given what time frame? And why does it have to be ALL cars? How long did it take to replace carburetors with fuel injection? How long did it take cars to replace horses? Why don't you think we have a similar time frame? The nutjobs in the article and their 2030 date? Please, the end-of-the-world types are a constant drone. Always have been and always will be.
I do not think it is impossible to solve the problems humanity is facing. I just think humanity will not do it.
That's because you're old, cynical, grumpy, and have watched too much fox news.
Well Linux has gained a lot of traction since the 90's.
Those windows licenses don't come cheap.
You win a golf clap.
other factors external to the business that result in minor profits for the next three years and the stock returns to its previous low levels
When Rome is burning, it's externalities. When it's growing, it's entirely due to the CEO's guidance. If, after two years, the stock has returned to it's previous state, then the CEO's amazing work wasn't all that amazing.
If they complain about it not being fair, the response is the same as the one they gave during the bust years.
"Well there are externalities"
This wasn't the best example for you to pick, please try again.
Just out of curiosity, how much money did these CEOs take on their way out?
I mean, they got paid for doing a job of course. And even if they do a bad job of it, they (arguably) deserve a paycheck. But bonuses, severance pay, and perks are hard to justify when letting people go because the business if failing.
Stock options are actually a pretty good idea. If they drive the company into the ground, those aren't worth much.
With the rising costs of "quality" CEO material, were these guys worth the investment?
Well not so much of late. And OH LOOK inflation rates have been hopping around a bit. (Just slide back that start date for a good view) They were pretty level in the 90's. Had some problems in the 70's and 80's. 60's were good.
Of course, all of that is NOTHING compared to the chaotic pre-50's era when the USA wasn't a super power. It's good to be on top.
But it's not like you can set the inflation rate and magically make for a stable economy. It's more like an indicator of the economy. This gets scary when this gets boiled down to things like the FED's interest rate, because the big guy in charge admitting that shit sucks doesn't help the situation any.
What we have instead is constant inflation.
Which isn't necessarily bad. I mean, it's bad for certain groups that would prefer to simply sit on their money, and hand it off to their kids or something. And runaway inflation is bad for almost everybody. But a constant low inflation encourages people to do something with their money.
And consistancy is good. This cycle thing makes people go bust. A constant state, being orderly, having a predictable future lets people make plans and take the long view. Averaging out the boom and bust years is one of the jobs of government.
Well, the straight answer if I assume a libertarian stance for a moment, would be that there's a percentage of employers and hiring managers that are bigots of some sort. There are miscommunications, mistakes, and con-men. Which means that for a given industry that employs people, say power generation, you're going to have an average cost throughout the years for lost lawsuits, hiring lawyers, diversity training, and all that jazz. Then there's the FUD aspect which could potentially keep bad employees working even though a better worker is one firing away.
That's the idea anyway. I'd say these laws help overcome social issues like racism and ageism which lets a large portion of society be more productive. And that outweighs the cost of up-keeping and dealing with these laws/regulations.
mmmmm, you're treating the political parties as a single entity. A party isn't going to have a unified view on a subject that's distasteful but in-line with their views. A percentage of every party are douches.
Same for both sides.
Where the two sides differ is that the GOP didn't come out in unified outrage and preach respect for women in the above cases.
Statistically, portions of both parties hate women. The trend is greater with conservatives, probably due to their stance on some issues with women's rights. Abortion rights, women's pay in the workplace, affirmative action, etc.
And by no stretch of the imagination can you make Rush Limbaugh "look downright benign". The guy's a shock jock. It's his job to make people angry.
I really don't think he's trying to establish a religion with this sort of thinking. But that doesn't stop some people. Of course you need a rather broad definition of religion which incapsulates most -isms if you want to lump secular humanism in with all the other religions. As much as I agree with him about how history probably played out and the fundamental nature of morals, I'm more religious about Linux than this philosophical stuff.
All my groups consist entirely of geeks...
"The more you know"
Also, I'm getting a kick out of this as I grew up with a speech impediment in Omaha, NE smack dab in the middle of that.