"Passing legislation creates MORE controls, not less. Wrong direction."
I'm sure your local energy MONOPOLY is very happy with your opinion. Regulation is the ONLY answer in an industry where a monopoly exists.
In my part of the world, small energy producers have all the right to sell power as they see fit back to the big producers, at a regulated rate. That's the price big monopolies have to pay to keep their monopoly. If your country doesn't have the guts to stand up to your energy monopolies, I guess that's your political problem. You'll pay dearly for it in the end.
And yes, we agree, China and India are going to drag down the developed western world's standard of living whether we like it or not. We better be prepared to soften that blow.
Legislation has a lot to do with it. Pass legislation forcing utilities to buy back electricity from the small producer at the exact same rate they sell it. It's already been done in many places. Legislation for tax rebates on solar systems helps too.
Now, about PG&E setting the price for your electricity. They do not. Their price is in line with world energy prices. If the world price of energy quadruples, there is not much to stop PG&E from quadrupling their price too. Why do you think gasoline at your local pump goes up and down in price because of stuff happening in the middle east? We are slaves to world energy prices.
Now as far as the great depression goes, you right. We would need 3 earths worth of resources if China and India get the same standard of living as we have. They are catching up to us quickly, if you hadn't noticed. So that means, there's no choice for the US other than a drop in the standard of living. Look around you, it has already started.
Imagine if there isn't any legislation, and PG&E gets to quadruple it's prices, and refuse to buy electricity from small producers, in the middle of a depression. Nobody would be able to afford electricity. This is already happening in some eastern European countries. If you think the USA is immune to this, you are mistaken.
We do not break even now. Assuming peak oil sends energy prices to double or triple price, break even will be much easier, not because solar gets cheaper, but because energe costs more. The Alberta Tar Sands couldn't break even until the price of crude went up, and the technology matured. I assume PG&E is your energy supplier. Legislation changes are trivial if you live in a democracy, and the majority want the change. If you don't live in a democracy where this is possible, your job is obviously cut out for you.
What you will see is a much lower stadard of living for everyone across the board, which will force these changes, along with technological changes such as thin film solar, which would mean pennies per watt, providing you have the room. I think market forces will make it inevitable.
"Now you said that you are willing to accept that a person claiming to be a Christian is one. Do you accept other claims without verifying them?"
Normally I don't accept claims without verifying them, but seeing as Christianity is mostly a matter of opinion and personal belief, I don't think it's my place as a non-christian to say "No you're not" to someone who says they are.
And really, I don't care enough to call a Christian on any non-Christian opinions. Most Christians don't believe in polygamy anymore, that's non-christian. Most Christians don't believe in slavery, and I don't call them on that. (Keep in mind, both Jesus and Paul encourage slaves to be obiedient, so it's hardly an old testament thing.) I don't call Christians who refuse to proslytize(sp). (I happen to like those Christians who refuse to follow that belief.) Considering how many sects your religion has, I've given up trying to keep the interpretations straight. If someone says they are a Christian, chances are there's bound to be a sect that will agree with them.
So please, don't try to explain what is and is not a Christian to someone who DOES NOT CARE.
I have no idea even of what you are trying to inform me of. My conversations go something like this...
Christian: I'm a christian. Me: Okay.
I would be fine if we just left it at that, but...
Christian: I believe that God created everything as-is, there was no evolution. Darwin was a quack. You must convert to my religion or you will burn in my religion's hell. Science must revise all it's findings to conform with our holy book. Me: You're nuts. Christian: (My brain filters the worst of it.) bla bla bla bla burn in hell bla bla bla genesis bla bla bla just believe bla bla bla bible is infallible bla bla bla god created us all so we must serve him bla bla bla bible says I must push this on you bla bla bla accept jesus into your heart whatever that means bla bla bla science is evil bla bla bla....
STOP!
At that point I just cut them off, insist we should agree to disagree, and then I make a point to avoid that person from then on. Your christian rantings have also taken me to this point, so let's just agree to disagree.
I define Christian as someone who identifies themselves as a christian to me. Just about everyone who does so, also identifies themselves as an ID'er. I'm glad for you that you're a bit smarter than that, but your kind are definately in the minority in my parts (Edmonton, Canada.)
Where I live they certainly are. Most Christians I meet refute Darwin, astronomy and geology. I'm even forced to work with one. It isn't pleasant I tell you.
Lots of dumb christians completely reject scientific principles in favour of their holy book. I find it pretty hard to take when my "peers" will look me right in the eye and try to discredit my post-secondary astronomy education, saying that the universe is only several thousand years old. If ID people have their way, Geology would not exist. Forget about Biology. You have to realize that there is a large percentage of christians who are unwittingly pushing towards another dark age.
Creationism and ID states that the universe is only several thousand years old. Our observations of the universe clearly show objects millions and billions of years old. That's all that is needed to refute ID.
How much more inflammatory can one get? The article should read "Scientists debate the details of how evolution happens." Talk about being deliberately inflammatory.
WOW that's 500 gigs per second. I wonder if they process it on the fly and delete it, or if it's stored somehow. I doubt they use serial ATA. How do you even search or make meaningful information out of a data set that large?
Of course, no celebrity is over-sensitive about how they appear to the news. I would care, but only out of principle that my privacy must be respected.
If I had just "made it" as a star, or more likely as some rich guy in the public eye, I would be very angry if my tech support guy told a newspaper about his experience. Especially if it made me look dumb. Doesn't his company have a privacy policy? I'm pretty sure the privacy policy (if it existed) was violated for the purpose of writing a "fluff" news story. If I were a manager, there is NO WAY I would let an employee talk about all the famous people they have served without prior permission to do so. Just imagine the consequences if that was permitted.
Personally I think the article was made up. That's because I'm generally a cynical bastard, and it's also a fact that sometimes there are slow news days.
So let me get this straight... You think the entire world should live like you do? With papers and ID everywhere? And everything being monitored? This is good? Is that what you are saying?
Something doesn't have to be wrong, for the need for secrecy to exist.
Suppose someone has an embarassing (though legal) secret? The person listening could easily blackmail the individual. Or worse yet, what if it's a business conversation, and someone listening could easily profit? You don't think the US listens to other countries business communications, and passes the info to US corporations? Or other countries would spy on the US? Interesting...
I'm convinced you're either a troll, or just incredibly stupid. Since your an American, both could be true. Considering you're a soldier, you shouldn't be metaphorically wiping your ass with the constitution.:P
Regardless of all his other conflicting emotions about the bomb, I'm certain that he was glad he helped create it for the allies, instead of waiting, and letting Japan or Germany discover it first.
Nazis with nukes? Japanese with nukes? Anyone?
Imagine for a moment if Iran had been the first to discover them?
Re-creating an IDE controller and a boot bios extension costs more money. They realized they could use existing controllers and save money. Smart move. I imagine there might be a pro one that doesn't do this.
"Except they weren't proud of their culture, they were proud of the American culture they are adopting. How many of these people are devout Orthodox, listen to traditional music, wear appropriate clothing, and spurn Western influences? Not very many."
I've been there. They only align themselves with the USA out of expediency, they are truly proud of themselves regardless of which official language they speak. Ukraine is a very forward thinking country, so naturally they admire the achievments of other forward thinking nations.
Here's what they adopted: A very strong desire for true democracy! That's it. The rest they have had for a long time.
I think you were speaking completely out of your ass.
I wonder how many people 40 and older just wouldn't understand a world where it's free to copy music for non-commercial use.
Would people stop making music? Never! Would artists starve or be deprived of money? Not if they're willing to perform live. Wouldn't it change the face of music? No superstars will still have huge concerts. Would music cease to be distributed? No, that's what we have the internet for. Would it harm our economy by destroying the music industry? No, the loss of the music distribution industry would be offset by the money people save by not paying $20 per CD. In fact it would be a net economic gain, as music execs would have to get real jobs, and stop leeching off their monopoly.
I can't wait for society to change our covenant. I fear that it's so entrenched though, that I won't see it in my lifetime, and I'm only 30. I've tried explaining this to old farts who never download music, but anyone who's grown up with vinyl LP's just doesn't understand. Here in Canada we have an election going on, and I'm absolutely positive that none of the candidates have even the remotest clue.
Slashdot Mirror
"Passing legislation creates MORE controls, not less. Wrong direction."
I'm sure your local energy MONOPOLY is very happy with your opinion. Regulation is the ONLY answer in an industry where a monopoly exists.
In my part of the world, small energy producers have all the right to sell power as they see fit back to the big producers, at a regulated rate. That's the price big monopolies have to pay to keep their monopoly. If your country doesn't have the guts to stand up to your energy monopolies, I guess that's your political problem. You'll pay dearly for it in the end.
And yes, we agree, China and India are going to drag down the developed western world's standard of living whether we like it or not. We better be prepared to soften that blow.
Legislation has a lot to do with it. Pass legislation forcing utilities to buy back electricity from the small producer at the exact same rate they sell it. It's already been done in many places. Legislation for tax rebates on solar systems helps too.
Now, about PG&E setting the price for your electricity. They do not. Their price is in line with world energy prices. If the world price of energy quadruples, there is not much to stop PG&E from quadrupling their price too. Why do you think gasoline at your local pump goes up and down in price because of stuff happening in the middle east? We are slaves to world energy prices.
Now as far as the great depression goes, you right. We would need 3 earths worth of resources if China and India get the same standard of living as we have. They are catching up to us quickly, if you hadn't noticed. So that means, there's no choice for the US other than a drop in the standard of living. Look around you, it has already started.
Imagine if there isn't any legislation, and PG&E gets to quadruple it's prices, and refuse to buy electricity from small producers, in the middle of a depression. Nobody would be able to afford electricity. This is already happening in some eastern European countries. If you think the USA is immune to this, you are mistaken.
We do not break even now. Assuming peak oil sends energy prices to double or triple price, break even will be much easier, not because solar gets cheaper, but because energe costs more. The Alberta Tar Sands couldn't break even until the price of crude went up, and the technology matured. I assume PG&E is your energy supplier. Legislation changes are trivial if you live in a democracy, and the majority want the change. If you don't live in a democracy where this is possible, your job is obviously cut out for you.
What you will see is a much lower stadard of living for everyone across the board, which will force these changes, along with technological changes such as thin film solar, which would mean pennies per watt, providing you have the room. I think market forces will make it inevitable.
My mom would call it calming her nerves by taking a nice drive away from the kids.
Let's see...
Automobile addiction, or just modern life?
Telephone addiction, or just modern life?
Newspaper addiction, or just modern life?
Machine addiction, or just modern life?
Agriculture addiction, or just modern life?
Clothes addiction, or just modern life?
Fire addiction, or just modern life?
Pointy stick addiction, or just modern life?
Hmmmm...
"Now you said that you are willing to accept that a person claiming to be a Christian is one. Do you accept other claims without verifying them?"
Normally I don't accept claims without verifying them, but seeing as Christianity is mostly a matter of opinion and personal belief, I don't think it's my place as a non-christian to say "No you're not" to someone who says they are.
And really, I don't care enough to call a Christian on any non-Christian opinions. Most Christians don't believe in polygamy anymore, that's non-christian. Most Christians don't believe in slavery, and I don't call them on that. (Keep in mind, both Jesus and Paul encourage slaves to be obiedient, so it's hardly an old testament thing.) I don't call Christians who refuse to proslytize(sp). (I happen to like those Christians who refuse to follow that belief.) Considering how many sects your religion has, I've given up trying to keep the interpretations straight. If someone says they are a Christian, chances are there's bound to be a sect that will agree with them.
So please, don't try to explain what is and is not a Christian to someone who DOES NOT CARE.
I have no idea even of what you are trying to inform me of. My conversations go something like this...
Christian: I'm a christian.
Me: Okay.
I would be fine if we just left it at that, but...
Christian: I believe that God created everything as-is, there was no evolution. Darwin was a quack. You must convert to my religion or you will burn in my religion's hell. Science must revise all it's findings to conform with our holy book.
Me: You're nuts.
Christian: (My brain filters the worst of it.) bla bla bla bla burn in hell bla bla bla genesis bla bla bla just believe bla bla bla bible is infallible bla bla bla god created us all so we must serve him bla bla bla bible says I must push this on you bla bla bla accept jesus into your heart whatever that means bla bla bla science is evil bla bla bla....
STOP!
At that point I just cut them off, insist we should agree to disagree, and then I make a point to avoid that person from then on. Your christian rantings have also taken me to this point, so let's just agree to disagree.
I define Christian as someone who identifies themselves as a christian to me. Just about everyone who does so, also identifies themselves as an ID'er. I'm glad for you that you're a bit smarter than that, but your kind are definately in the minority in my parts (Edmonton, Canada.)
If your country sucks so bad, why don't you move?
Where I live they certainly are. Most Christians I meet refute Darwin, astronomy and geology. I'm even forced to work with one. It isn't pleasant I tell you.
Lots of dumb christians completely reject scientific principles in favour of their holy book. I find it pretty hard to take when my "peers" will look me right in the eye and try to discredit my post-secondary astronomy education, saying that the universe is only several thousand years old. If ID people have their way, Geology would not exist. Forget about Biology. You have to realize that there is a large percentage of christians who are unwittingly pushing towards another dark age.
Creationism and ID states that the universe is only several thousand years old. Our observations of the universe clearly show objects millions and billions of years old. That's all that is needed to refute ID.
How much more inflammatory can one get? The article should read "Scientists debate the details of how evolution happens." Talk about being deliberately inflammatory.
WOW that's 500 gigs per second. I wonder if they process it on the fly and delete it, or if it's stored somehow. I doubt they use serial ATA. How do you even search or make meaningful information out of a data set that large?
Now I think "dark" can only mean relative radio silence.
Of course, no celebrity is over-sensitive about how they appear to the news. I would care, but only out of principle that my privacy must be respected.
If I had just "made it" as a star, or more likely as some rich guy in the public eye, I would be very angry if my tech support guy told a newspaper about his experience. Especially if it made me look dumb. Doesn't his company have a privacy policy? I'm pretty sure the privacy policy (if it existed) was violated for the purpose of writing a "fluff" news story. If I were a manager, there is NO WAY I would let an employee talk about all the famous people they have served without prior permission to do so. Just imagine the consequences if that was permitted.
Personally I think the article was made up. That's because I'm generally a cynical bastard, and it's also a fact that sometimes there are slow news days.
So let me get this straight... You think the entire world should live like you do? With papers and ID everywhere? And everything being monitored? This is good? Is that what you are saying?
Bill?
..
Is that you?
Something doesn't have to be wrong, for the need for secrecy to exist.
:P
Suppose someone has an embarassing (though legal) secret? The person listening could easily blackmail the individual. Or worse yet, what if it's a business conversation, and someone listening could easily profit? You don't think the US listens to other countries business communications, and passes the info to US corporations? Or other countries would spy on the US? Interesting...
I'm convinced you're either a troll, or just incredibly stupid. Since your an American, both could be true. Considering you're a soldier, you shouldn't be metaphorically wiping your ass with the constitution.
Regardless of all his other conflicting emotions about the bomb, I'm certain that he was glad he helped create it for the allies, instead of waiting, and letting Japan or Germany discover it first.
Nazis with nukes? Japanese with nukes? Anyone?
Imagine for a moment if Iran had been the first to discover them?
Re-creating an IDE controller and a boot bios extension costs more money. They realized they could use existing controllers and save money. Smart move. I imagine there might be a pro one that doesn't do this.
"Except they weren't proud of their culture, they were proud of the American culture they are adopting. How many of these people are devout Orthodox, listen to traditional music, wear appropriate clothing, and spurn Western influences? Not very many."
I've been there. They only align themselves with the USA out of expediency, they are truly proud of themselves regardless of which official language they speak. Ukraine is a very forward thinking country, so naturally they admire the achievments of other forward thinking nations.
Here's what they adopted: A very strong desire for true democracy! That's it. The rest they have had for a long time.
I think you were speaking completely out of your ass.
I wonder how many people 40 and older just wouldn't understand a world where it's free to copy music for non-commercial use.
Would people stop making music? Never!
Would artists starve or be deprived of money? Not if they're willing to perform live.
Wouldn't it change the face of music? No superstars will still have huge concerts.
Would music cease to be distributed? No, that's what we have the internet for.
Would it harm our economy by destroying the music industry? No, the loss of the music distribution industry would be offset by the money people save by not paying $20 per CD. In fact it would be a net economic gain, as music execs would have to get real jobs, and stop leeching off their monopoly.
I can't wait for society to change our covenant. I fear that it's so entrenched though, that I won't see it in my lifetime, and I'm only 30. I've tried explaining this to old farts who never download music, but anyone who's grown up with vinyl LP's just doesn't understand. Here in Canada we have an election going on, and I'm absolutely positive that none of the candidates have even the remotest clue.
That's my opinion.
Bork!
So what you're saying is, that district attourneys refuse to prosecute Sony?