I am eager for pro-recyclers to give good reasons for recycling, but other than metal recycling
OK... I'll take you up on that.
It doesn't save trees because all paper products in the US come from trees harvested from tree farms where the trees are specifically planted so they can be harvested. Reduce the need for new paper and we reduce the number of trees that are be planted. (There are more trees in the US now than there were before the industrial revolution).
Is paper consumption in the US going up or down? If it goes up, then that means that more tree farms have to be created. Which probably means clear cutting a forest first. Also, if less paper is used then less tree farms would be needed. Net result... more forests.
It doesn't save oil because plastic is made from oil AFTER it has been processed for fuel/lubricants/etc... In other words, if we stopped all plastic manufacturing today, we would have an enormous amount of unused crude oil.
Not true. You can "crack" the heavier molecules (used to make plastic) into lighter ones (used for fuels and such). It is a process which takes energy (so the refineries would rather sell the plastic), but if there was no market for plastic, then the heavier oil molecules would not be wasted.
Second, the article claims that recycling would reduce energy consumption. Well, long story short, it doesn't except for minerals recycling. Because paper and plastic have already been processed, they have to go through a somewhat complex de-processing in order to be used in making new paper/plastic products. It is not a simple process of grind it up, melt it down, make new stuff. There are lots of chemicals that are used at each stage for various purposes and unless those chemicals are purged, it makes the new product inferior.
Do you have a source for that? I agree that recycling is not a simple process. But neither is making it from scratch. I have not seen a reputable study that says that the recycling process actually takes more energy than making it from scratch. I am sure there are some cases where it is true (it is probably not worth it to recycle if you live right next to a refinery), but is the difference in cost so much that it is always the case for all economic conditions?
In addition, clear-cutting has been shown to actually be a benefit to the environment, since it reduces the likelihood of forest fires (nature's form of clear-cutting) and it gives the ground time to recuperate the minerals and nutrients that trees consume.
I have to completely disagree with you here. For one, controlled burns are the best way to control forest fires. This burns out all of the underbrush which does put nutrients back in the soil. But, usually the older trees survive, so there is still something holding the soil in place. But, if you clear cut, then there is nothing to hold the soil in place so you lose a lot of topsoil to erosion (which has most of the nutrients). You are also carting off most of the nutrients that got pulled out of the soil (the trees) and taking them to a paper mill.
...and yet here we have a story about them doing just that and more.. Fining you if you don't do it.
The article does not say that they go through every trash can and pick out the recyclables. And, if it costs $100 per can to do, then that is "prohibitively expensive".
There is no landfill crisis as the GPs P&T video shows.
Really? You are using Penn Teller as a primary source? In the big cities, landfill space is becoming an issue. You can always take it further out to dump it, but that is more expensive. So, in some places that makes recycling cost effective.
This is complete bullshit, just because an area is used for landfill doesn't mean it becomes an arid wasteland that it useless for the next 100 years. You can still use it, build on it, just like any other land.
No. You can make it into a park, but you cannot build any significant buildings on it. The garbage shrinks as it decomposes, so over time any building on it would have its foundations undermined.
If it were popular the article wouldn't be about people being fined for not doing it.
Oh, come on. That is one of the worst arguments I have heard in a while. What percent of people have to approve of something to be "popular"? Does that mean 100% of people approve? 80%? How about over 50%? At 80% (which I would consider to be pretty popular) that still leaves 1 in 5 people that would have to be motivated by other means to get them to participate.
Your city or county government is responsible (usually) for negotiating contracts with the waste management company that they use. If you feel like they are treating you unfairly, then you should contact your representative and make your displeasure known. Some places you have to pay extra, some places you don't. It depends on the economics of the place you live.
If it doesn't at least break even it is consuming more resources than it saves and is "the right thing to do" only with respect to political correctness.
Please explain your statement. How can you tell the amount of resources used based upon cost? I would think that recycling centers would be more industrialized and manpower intensive than landfills. So, you would employ more people and have more capital equipment. This would be good for the economy because you would employ more people directly as well as the parts and maintenance for the capital equipment. So, it seems to me that from a government's (economic) standpoint, it would be worthwhile before it was break-even in cost.
I do not want to live next to a place that either burns or buries trash. Most people feel the same way (NIMBY). So, most large cities now have to transport the trash out of the city. The bigger the city, the more trash there is and the further they have to transport it. That costs money, so in a lot of cases it is cheaper to recycle.
That is my point. The progressives know that they will not be able to get a carbon tax passed. Its almost guaranteed that the conservatives would filibuster anything that has "tax" in the name. So, they have to compromise. Which in this case amounts to an enormous bribe to the conservatives constituency (the financial sector). So everyone wins. The environmentalists get to make some progress toward making life on this planet sustainable. And the Republicans get rich.
Yeah... Flatscreen TVs were trendy. I am sure people will stop using them any day now. Or Ipods. Or smartphones. Or cell phones. Or laptops.
Maybe its possible that people bought them to be trendy when they were expensive and new (like most revolutionary products), but now people buy them because they are a worthwhile product.
But, no. I am sure you are right. Cell phones will go out of style any day now. I am sure that in 5 years we will all be using landlines again.
You get the electricity by building more power plants (coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar). Or you charge them in off peak time for current power plants.
A lot of environmentalists are in favor of a direct carbon tax. Conservatives, though, prefer cap-and-trade for two reasons. Number One, they oppose all new taxes on principle. Number Two, cap-and-trade will require the trading of carbon credits, so the financial sector will make tons of money if it happens.
Do you have a link to that legislation? I tried looking it up, but all the links I see talk about the "DISCLOSE Act" which supposedly would have banned political advertising from foreign based firms, but from what I can tell, it was defeated.
If "free speech" is banned for corporations, there's nothing preventing the people forming said corporation from just donating the same amount of money (or paying for propaganda, or whatever) individually. They can even organize and pool money together to make it more efficient (so long as they don't for a new legal entity - that is, a corporation).
Thank you. That almost exactly mirrors my feelings. But, I wrould have no problem with a group of American citizens forming a legal entity to advocate for them. It would probably a sort of non-profit (which I think might technically be a corporation). But they should have to be able to trace all their funding to individual American citizens who support them.
I don't have a problem with citizens pooling their money. But, if it is to try to influence a particular American election, then I believe that all of the money should be traceable back to individual American citizens. No corporations. No foreign governments. Its hard to say what sort of activism should be allowed from an organization such as the EFF. At what point it would cross the line from spreading ideas to influencing government elections. But I am willing to accept limitations on the EFF (whom I support) if it would prevent meddling in elections by corporations who have their bottom lines and not the public interest at heart.
You make a good point. And I think that citizens should be able to pool their money. But, if an organization is going to try to influence an election, then it should have to be able to trace all of its capital to donations from American citizens. Not corporate profits. Not foreign governments. Basically, the restaurant should not be able to run any ads, but a group of citizens in support of the restaurant should. Same for a union or the AARP. As their due-paying members are not all American citizens, then I would like for them to be required to have a political division that is funded by American citizens and does all of the political advertising for the group.
The ruling didn't change campaign contribution laws. It was about 3rd parties buying political advertising during a campaign. And yes, an individual can buy political airtime too, if they have enough money. If they don't have enough money, they can form or join a group.
Buying airtime to promote a candidate is a contribution, regardless of whether or not the government considers it so. I do not believe corporations should be influencing elections. A corporation is not a person, they should not have the rights of a person. And being as they are not a person, they are not a citizen of the US and should therefore not have a financial influence in elections. Just as I feel foreign countries should not have a financial influence in elections.
I disagree. I don't think liberal activism is more or less dangerous than conservative activism. But, if you are a conservative, then you always feel that liberals are more dangerous, and vica versa. But, I would argue that the Supreme Court is, in general, more beneficial to conservatives than to liberals (and I mean that by the true definition, not in terms of Republican and Democrat). This is shown by your statement, because the court could not create a law to allocate government money for incumbents. It can only strike down laws. So, its main power is in preventing change, not causing it (though there are many important exceptions). I think it just balances out with activism being just as harmful from both sides. So, the important thing is to have a balanced court so that the decisions are forced to stay moderate. And, since the current court has 5 activist conservative judges, my original point still stands.
But this isn't the "Freedom of Speech" you are talking about. It is "Freedom to Spend Money Buying Politicians". There are limits on the amount of money an individual citizen can spend on a politician's campaign. There, now, are none on corporations. And, news organizations are totally irrelevant to the conversation, since they are required to give equal air time to political opponents. I do not know the rules on labor unions, but I see no reason they should need to give money to politicians. I actually think it would be best if they don't. They could do just as well organizing their membership into giving individually. I feel the same way about all the other clubs you mentioned. If the current laws are different, then I would fully support their change.
I do not think ANYONE should donate to an American political campaign, besides American citizens. British controlled BP shouldn't. Iranian controlled banks and mosques shouldn't. They can do all they want to mobilize the American citizens they are associated with to give up to their legal limit, but corporations should not be part of our politics.
Don't bother answering - it's pretty clear already, how you want it.
Though I have not seen anything to think that she would be an "activist judge", I kinda hope that she will be. The court already has 5 conservative activist judges ("freedom of speech" for corporations - WTF?). She will need to do a lot to even keep the court moderate.
I disagree. As the parent said, the job of the stock market is to marry capital to seekers of capital. A retirement account is a collection of capital that you want to make money on. If you can afford the risk of the stock market (you have enough time for variations in the stock market to even out) then it is the best place to put your money because you will get the highest return. But, those people "nearing retirement age in 2008 and 2009" that "watched their retirement plans go out the window" were stupid. If you are about to retire, you should have a large percentage of your money in bonds. Because, you can't afford the risk of the stock market. That shows that their retirement accounts were mismanaged, not that the stock market for some reason should not be used when saving for your retirement.
There are none... that is the point. You can keep your "Sanctity of marriage" all you want, but the Church should not be deciding who gets the State's benefits. You separate them and the problem is solved.
I was responding more to posting comments on Slashdot. But, it can apply to WoW. If a "WoW player" does not fit into the image that the company is trying to project and the fact that you are a WoW player is publicly available knowledge, then I can see how an employer could see it as a liability. You don't may not want your clients to think your employees are nerds who live in their mom's basement, whether or not that is actually the case. And you can't really help what your clients' biases are. If they are paying you money, then you have to conform.
I disagree. There are some employers who just suck, but others who value discretion. If I can do a google search and find weird stuff about you, then so can a client. If you are going to be in a job where you interact with customers, then I don't want the customers concentrating on your personal life instead of the value that the company can offer. Discretion is valued. And it is not a huge leap to think that if you aren't discreet in your personal life, then you also will not be in your professional life.
The problem is that you will never have enough proof. 100 years of data isn't sufficient? What is sufficient? 100 thousand? 100 million? 100 billion? You accuse me of trying to manipulate the rules of the debate. You are manipulating the rules so that you can't lose. The problem is that it is very easy to find holes in the evidence. As you say, we do not know all the answers. The Earth is very complex. I do not claim that the current models of how the Earth is responding to the influx of CO2 are "correct". I will only claim that they are more correct than yours. That is how science works.
Gravity is only a theory. I can prove to you that the current theory of gravity is "wrong". But, it is the accepted theory because there are no explanations that explain it provably "better".
If real scientists used your version of science, we would still be living in caves. Progress would never be made. But, that is the point, isn't it.
Also, why do you claim the "burden of proof" is on me? Because it is not the answer you want? Why is your position superior? Why do you feel you should have the RIGHT to remain blissfully ignorant until someone works hard and long enough to convince you that you are wrong? I want to argue facts. I want to have a debate that looks at actual facts and not what "people smarter than me" tell me to think. I want to have a fair debate where both sides work to prove themselves correct. But, you refuse that debate.
I would ask what I could tell you, what facts I could show you that would convince you that Global Warming exists, but I already know the answer. You have made your mind up already without looking at any facts. You want the world to procrastinate. You are happy with your current life and do not care what type of world you leave to your children and grandchildren. You will keep on saying "I am not convinced yet, lets wait 20 more years" until you are dead.
A debate is a two sided conversation. I encourage people to try to convince me I am wrong, because I do not know everything. I will listen to what you say and judge your facts. This is a perfect opportunity for you to "convert" me to your side. But, you are not interested in doing that. This is because, as much as you may lie to yourself, you do not believe in your position (that Global Warming does not exist).
If ever you want to start trying to actually think for yourself, look me up. I am always willing to exchange ideas with people. But, until then, it is a waste of my time trying to talk to someone who willfully remain ignorant.
Because other people read these posts and can decide if your answer has merit. What do you think is "appreciable"? Why you avoiding answering the question?
Don't be surprised when you act like a fervent fanatic that people take your claims with a grain of salt, no matter how immanent or obvious the evidence may be.
That is exactly the problem, and why "deniers" get mocked, insulted, and ridiculed. If you are presented evidence and you don't agree with the conclusions from it, then refute the evidence or the conclusions with evidence and conclusions of your own.
That fact is that you are making claims about a very dynamic system; one that is way too complex to know anything about one way or the other. For every scientist you can produce who makes this claim I'm sure I can produce one who advises maybe we should take a longer look at the "evidence", study in this particular discipline that has occurred for only the last 20 years, AT MOST.
You really think the Earth is too complicated to know "anything" about. Under that argument, it doesn't matter how old the discipline is, we will NEVER know ANYTHING so we might as well just keep doing what we want regardless how much evidence we have. If you don't realize now how idiotic your argument is, then you will never figure it out. Just keep on listening to FOX News and let them tell you what to think. It will be a lot easier for you (and might help get rid of that headache that you have).
To claim the earth is 1) getting hotter and 2) because of any particular reason, is brazen and smacks of agenda. Here's a clue; you're not the first person (organization?) to make a dire prediction regarding the earth. People have been making this very claim, with varying causes, for thousands of years. Forgive us if your sense of urgency doesn't appear to be shared by the rest of us.
You claim the earth is not getting hotter? Prove it. Cite some evidence. I will be happy to show you where it is incorrect and give you evidence that contradicts it. And, how can it not be because of "any particular reason". Be it solar cycle, earth climatic cycle, just "God hates us", or a mixture of many different reasons, there has to be a reason. Also, how do dire predictions of the past invalidate any predictions now? By your logic, because there were many predictions that we would have had nuclear wars already, it cannot happen in the future. Who cares if Iran gets the bomb. It would be impossible for them to start a nuclear war, because people who predicted it in the past were already proven wrong.
I would be happy to have a debate with you on the issue of Global Warming. But I will not waste my time unless you are willing to find a position you believe in. You are like the Republicans in the Senate who just say "You're doing it wrong" while refusing to say "This is how you should be doing it". If you believe my theory is wrong, find a theory of your own to explain the evidence. The current ones tend to be "Earth is still coming out of an Ice Age", "The sun is getting hotter", or "The Earth isn't actually warming". Which one do you believe (or is there another one that you prefer)?
And any time anything is said about Android, Apple fanboi's will latch onto and exaggerate it so that their precious Apple looks better.
For one, this really has no bearing on the Android OS. Why are you saying that this "proves" that Android is controlled or restricted? You are probably used to using the iPhone where Apple has COMPLETE CONTROL over which applications you can install (unless you jailbreak, but that might actually be illegal by the DMCA). With an Android phone, you can install whatever applications you want. Google can't stop you. They do have control over the Android Marketplace (which is what this article is about). But since I do not have to use the Android Marketplace to get the apps I want, they can do whatever they want with it. And since there are alternatives, it does not reflect badly on the whole OS when it does get a bit restrictive.
Apple is controlled and restrictive in general. I would personally never buy an iPhone because I like to have freedom to do what I want with my hardware. Most people don't need that, and the iPhone is an excellent choice for them. That is why the iPhone is so popular. But, the people who like having control of their hardware are very vocal in their reasons. So, they generally use Android instead (because you actually do have all of the control you want. If you want any further control, you can always dive into the source and change it yourself). But, when you try to say that Apple is just as open as Android you prove that you are just arguing from emotions and not from facts. It makes your whole argument sound kinda foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
I am eager for pro-recyclers to give good reasons for recycling, but other than metal recycling
OK... I'll take you up on that.
It doesn't save trees because all paper products in the US come from trees harvested from tree farms where the trees are specifically planted so they can be harvested. Reduce the need for new paper and we reduce the number of trees that are be planted. (There are more trees in the US now than there were before the industrial revolution).
Is paper consumption in the US going up or down? If it goes up, then that means that more tree farms have to be created. Which probably means clear cutting a forest first. Also, if less paper is used then less tree farms would be needed. Net result... more forests.
It doesn't save oil because plastic is made from oil AFTER it has been processed for fuel/lubricants/etc... In other words, if we stopped all plastic manufacturing today, we would have an enormous amount of unused crude oil.
Not true. You can "crack" the heavier molecules (used to make plastic) into lighter ones (used for fuels and such). It is a process which takes energy (so the refineries would rather sell the plastic), but if there was no market for plastic, then the heavier oil molecules would not be wasted.
Second, the article claims that recycling would reduce energy consumption. Well, long story short, it doesn't except for minerals recycling. Because paper and plastic have already been processed, they have to go through a somewhat complex de-processing in order to be used in making new paper/plastic products. It is not a simple process of grind it up, melt it down, make new stuff. There are lots of chemicals that are used at each stage for various purposes and unless those chemicals are purged, it makes the new product inferior.
Do you have a source for that? I agree that recycling is not a simple process. But neither is making it from scratch. I have not seen a reputable study that says that the recycling process actually takes more energy than making it from scratch. I am sure there are some cases where it is true (it is probably not worth it to recycle if you live right next to a refinery), but is the difference in cost so much that it is always the case for all economic conditions?
In addition, clear-cutting has been shown to actually be a benefit to the environment, since it reduces the likelihood of forest fires (nature's form of clear-cutting) and it gives the ground time to recuperate the minerals and nutrients that trees consume.
I have to completely disagree with you here. For one, controlled burns are the best way to control forest fires. This burns out all of the underbrush which does put nutrients back in the soil. But, usually the older trees survive, so there is still something holding the soil in place. But, if you clear cut, then there is nothing to hold the soil in place so you lose a lot of topsoil to erosion (which has most of the nutrients). You are also carting off most of the nutrients that got pulled out of the soil (the trees) and taking them to a paper mill.
The article does not say that they go through every trash can and pick out the recyclables. And, if it costs $100 per can to do, then that is "prohibitively expensive".
There is no landfill crisis as the GPs P&T video shows.
Really? You are using Penn Teller as a primary source? In the big cities, landfill space is becoming an issue. You can always take it further out to dump it, but that is more expensive. So, in some places that makes recycling cost effective.
This is complete bullshit, just because an area is used for landfill doesn't mean it becomes an arid wasteland that it useless for the next 100 years. You can still use it, build on it, just like any other land.
No. You can make it into a park, but you cannot build any significant buildings on it. The garbage shrinks as it decomposes, so over time any building on it would have its foundations undermined.
If it were popular the article wouldn't be about people being fined for not doing it.
Oh, come on. That is one of the worst arguments I have heard in a while. What percent of people have to approve of something to be "popular"? Does that mean 100% of people approve? 80%? How about over 50%? At 80% (which I would consider to be pretty popular) that still leaves 1 in 5 people that would have to be motivated by other means to get them to participate.
Your city or county government is responsible (usually) for negotiating contracts with the waste management company that they use. If you feel like they are treating you unfairly, then you should contact your representative and make your displeasure known. Some places you have to pay extra, some places you don't. It depends on the economics of the place you live.
If it doesn't at least break even it is consuming more resources than it saves and is "the right thing to do" only with respect to political correctness.
Please explain your statement. How can you tell the amount of resources used based upon cost? I would think that recycling centers would be more industrialized and manpower intensive than landfills. So, you would employ more people and have more capital equipment. This would be good for the economy because you would employ more people directly as well as the parts and maintenance for the capital equipment. So, it seems to me that from a government's (economic) standpoint, it would be worthwhile before it was break-even in cost.
I do not want to live next to a place that either burns or buries trash. Most people feel the same way (NIMBY). So, most large cities now have to transport the trash out of the city. The bigger the city, the more trash there is and the further they have to transport it. That costs money, so in a lot of cases it is cheaper to recycle.
That is my point. The progressives know that they will not be able to get a carbon tax passed. Its almost guaranteed that the conservatives would filibuster anything that has "tax" in the name. So, they have to compromise. Which in this case amounts to an enormous bribe to the conservatives constituency (the financial sector). So everyone wins. The environmentalists get to make some progress toward making life on this planet sustainable. And the Republicans get rich.
Yeah... Flatscreen TVs were trendy. I am sure people will stop using them any day now. Or Ipods. Or smartphones. Or cell phones. Or laptops.
Maybe its possible that people bought them to be trendy when they were expensive and new (like most revolutionary products), but now people buy them because they are a worthwhile product.
But, no. I am sure you are right. Cell phones will go out of style any day now. I am sure that in 5 years we will all be using landlines again.
You get the electricity by building more power plants (coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar). Or you charge them in off peak time for current power plants.
A lot of environmentalists are in favor of a direct carbon tax. Conservatives, though, prefer cap-and-trade for two reasons. Number One, they oppose all new taxes on principle. Number Two, cap-and-trade will require the trading of carbon credits, so the financial sector will make tons of money if it happens.
Do you have a link to that legislation? I tried looking it up, but all the links I see talk about the "DISCLOSE Act" which supposedly would have banned political advertising from foreign based firms, but from what I can tell, it was defeated.
Thanks
If "free speech" is banned for corporations, there's nothing preventing the people forming said corporation from just donating the same amount of money (or paying for propaganda, or whatever) individually. They can even organize and pool money together to make it more efficient (so long as they don't for a new legal entity - that is, a corporation).
Thank you. That almost exactly mirrors my feelings. But, I wrould have no problem with a group of American citizens forming a legal entity to advocate for them. It would probably a sort of non-profit (which I think might technically be a corporation). But they should have to be able to trace all their funding to individual American citizens who support them.
I don't have a problem with citizens pooling their money. But, if it is to try to influence a particular American election, then I believe that all of the money should be traceable back to individual American citizens. No corporations. No foreign governments. Its hard to say what sort of activism should be allowed from an organization such as the EFF. At what point it would cross the line from spreading ideas to influencing government elections. But I am willing to accept limitations on the EFF (whom I support) if it would prevent meddling in elections by corporations who have their bottom lines and not the public interest at heart.
You make a good point. And I think that citizens should be able to pool their money. But, if an organization is going to try to influence an election, then it should have to be able to trace all of its capital to donations from American citizens. Not corporate profits. Not foreign governments. Basically, the restaurant should not be able to run any ads, but a group of citizens in support of the restaurant should. Same for a union or the AARP. As their due-paying members are not all American citizens, then I would like for them to be required to have a political division that is funded by American citizens and does all of the political advertising for the group.
The ruling didn't change campaign contribution laws. It was about 3rd parties buying political advertising during a campaign. And yes, an individual can buy political airtime too, if they have enough money. If they don't have enough money, they can form or join a group.
Buying airtime to promote a candidate is a contribution, regardless of whether or not the government considers it so. I do not believe corporations should be influencing elections. A corporation is not a person, they should not have the rights of a person. And being as they are not a person, they are not a citizen of the US and should therefore not have a financial influence in elections. Just as I feel foreign countries should not have a financial influence in elections.
Not since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine Not that the Fairness Doctrine was a good idea in the first place.
Ahh... that explains Fox "News".
If labor unions had to ask their members before performing an action, I don't think they'd get anything done.
Most labor unions serve themselves as much as they serve their members. Requiring a little more involvement of their members could be good for them.
I disagree. I don't think liberal activism is more or less dangerous than conservative activism. But, if you are a conservative, then you always feel that liberals are more dangerous, and vica versa. But, I would argue that the Supreme Court is, in general, more beneficial to conservatives than to liberals (and I mean that by the true definition, not in terms of Republican and Democrat). This is shown by your statement, because the court could not create a law to allocate government money for incumbents. It can only strike down laws. So, its main power is in preventing change, not causing it (though there are many important exceptions). I think it just balances out with activism being just as harmful from both sides. So, the important thing is to have a balanced court so that the decisions are forced to stay moderate. And, since the current court has 5 activist conservative judges, my original point still stands.
But this isn't the "Freedom of Speech" you are talking about. It is "Freedom to Spend Money Buying Politicians". There are limits on the amount of money an individual citizen can spend on a politician's campaign. There, now, are none on corporations. And, news organizations are totally irrelevant to the conversation, since they are required to give equal air time to political opponents. I do not know the rules on labor unions, but I see no reason they should need to give money to politicians. I actually think it would be best if they don't. They could do just as well organizing their membership into giving individually. I feel the same way about all the other clubs you mentioned. If the current laws are different, then I would fully support their change.
I do not think ANYONE should donate to an American political campaign, besides American citizens. British controlled BP shouldn't. Iranian controlled banks and mosques shouldn't. They can do all they want to mobilize the American citizens they are associated with to give up to their legal limit, but corporations should not be part of our politics.
Don't bother answering - it's pretty clear already, how you want it.
Is that the answer you were expecting?
Though I have not seen anything to think that she would be an "activist judge", I kinda hope that she will be. The court already has 5 conservative activist judges ("freedom of speech" for corporations - WTF?). She will need to do a lot to even keep the court moderate.
I disagree. As the parent said, the job of the stock market is to marry capital to seekers of capital. A retirement account is a collection of capital that you want to make money on. If you can afford the risk of the stock market (you have enough time for variations in the stock market to even out) then it is the best place to put your money because you will get the highest return. But, those people "nearing retirement age in 2008 and 2009" that "watched their retirement plans go out the window" were stupid. If you are about to retire, you should have a large percentage of your money in bonds. Because, you can't afford the risk of the stock market. That shows that their retirement accounts were mismanaged, not that the stock market for some reason should not be used when saving for your retirement.
There are none... that is the point. You can keep your "Sanctity of marriage" all you want, but the Church should not be deciding who gets the State's benefits. You separate them and the problem is solved.
I was responding more to posting comments on Slashdot. But, it can apply to WoW. If a "WoW player" does not fit into the image that the company is trying to project and the fact that you are a WoW player is publicly available knowledge, then I can see how an employer could see it as a liability. You don't may not want your clients to think your employees are nerds who live in their mom's basement, whether or not that is actually the case. And you can't really help what your clients' biases are. If they are paying you money, then you have to conform.
I disagree. There are some employers who just suck, but others who value discretion. If I can do a google search and find weird stuff about you, then so can a client. If you are going to be in a job where you interact with customers, then I don't want the customers concentrating on your personal life instead of the value that the company can offer. Discretion is valued. And it is not a huge leap to think that if you aren't discreet in your personal life, then you also will not be in your professional life.
The problem is that you will never have enough proof. 100 years of data isn't sufficient? What is sufficient? 100 thousand? 100 million? 100 billion? You accuse me of trying to manipulate the rules of the debate. You are manipulating the rules so that you can't lose. The problem is that it is very easy to find holes in the evidence. As you say, we do not know all the answers. The Earth is very complex. I do not claim that the current models of how the Earth is responding to the influx of CO2 are "correct". I will only claim that they are more correct than yours. That is how science works.
Gravity is only a theory. I can prove to you that the current theory of gravity is "wrong". But, it is the accepted theory because there are no explanations that explain it provably "better".
If real scientists used your version of science, we would still be living in caves. Progress would never be made. But, that is the point, isn't it.
Also, why do you claim the "burden of proof" is on me? Because it is not the answer you want? Why is your position superior? Why do you feel you should have the RIGHT to remain blissfully ignorant until someone works hard and long enough to convince you that you are wrong? I want to argue facts. I want to have a debate that looks at actual facts and not what "people smarter than me" tell me to think. I want to have a fair debate where both sides work to prove themselves correct. But, you refuse that debate.
I would ask what I could tell you, what facts I could show you that would convince you that Global Warming exists, but I already know the answer. You have made your mind up already without looking at any facts. You want the world to procrastinate. You are happy with your current life and do not care what type of world you leave to your children and grandchildren. You will keep on saying "I am not convinced yet, lets wait 20 more years" until you are dead.
A debate is a two sided conversation. I encourage people to try to convince me I am wrong, because I do not know everything. I will listen to what you say and judge your facts. This is a perfect opportunity for you to "convert" me to your side. But, you are not interested in doing that. This is because, as much as you may lie to yourself, you do not believe in your position (that Global Warming does not exist).
If ever you want to start trying to actually think for yourself, look me up. I am always willing to exchange ideas with people. But, until then, it is a waste of my time trying to talk to someone who willfully remain ignorant.
Because other people read these posts and can decide if your answer has merit. What do you think is "appreciable"? Why you avoiding answering the question?
Don't be surprised when you act like a fervent fanatic that people take your claims with a grain of salt, no matter how immanent or obvious the evidence may be.
That is exactly the problem, and why "deniers" get mocked, insulted, and ridiculed. If you are presented evidence and you don't agree with the conclusions from it, then refute the evidence or the conclusions with evidence and conclusions of your own.
That fact is that you are making claims about a very dynamic system; one that is way too complex to know anything about one way or the other. For every scientist you can produce who makes this claim I'm sure I can produce one who advises maybe we should take a longer look at the "evidence", study in this particular discipline that has occurred for only the last 20 years, AT MOST.
You really think the Earth is too complicated to know "anything" about. Under that argument, it doesn't matter how old the discipline is, we will NEVER know ANYTHING so we might as well just keep doing what we want regardless how much evidence we have. If you don't realize now how idiotic your argument is, then you will never figure it out. Just keep on listening to FOX News and let them tell you what to think. It will be a lot easier for you (and might help get rid of that headache that you have).
To claim the earth is 1) getting hotter and 2) because of any particular reason, is brazen and smacks of agenda. Here's a clue; you're not the first person (organization?) to make a dire prediction regarding the earth. People have been making this very claim, with varying causes, for thousands of years. Forgive us if your sense of urgency doesn't appear to be shared by the rest of us.
You claim the earth is not getting hotter? Prove it. Cite some evidence. I will be happy to show you where it is incorrect and give you evidence that contradicts it. And, how can it not be because of "any particular reason". Be it solar cycle, earth climatic cycle, just "God hates us", or a mixture of many different reasons, there has to be a reason. Also, how do dire predictions of the past invalidate any predictions now? By your logic, because there were many predictions that we would have had nuclear wars already, it cannot happen in the future. Who cares if Iran gets the bomb. It would be impossible for them to start a nuclear war, because people who predicted it in the past were already proven wrong.
I would be happy to have a debate with you on the issue of Global Warming. But I will not waste my time unless you are willing to find a position you believe in. You are like the Republicans in the Senate who just say "You're doing it wrong" while refusing to say "This is how you should be doing it". If you believe my theory is wrong, find a theory of your own to explain the evidence. The current ones tend to be "Earth is still coming out of an Ice Age", "The sun is getting hotter", or "The Earth isn't actually warming". Which one do you believe (or is there another one that you prefer)?
And any time anything is said about Android, Apple fanboi's will latch onto and exaggerate it so that their precious Apple looks better.
For one, this really has no bearing on the Android OS. Why are you saying that this "proves" that Android is controlled or restricted? You are probably used to using the iPhone where Apple has COMPLETE CONTROL over which applications you can install (unless you jailbreak, but that might actually be illegal by the DMCA). With an Android phone, you can install whatever applications you want. Google can't stop you. They do have control over the Android Marketplace (which is what this article is about). But since I do not have to use the Android Marketplace to get the apps I want, they can do whatever they want with it. And since there are alternatives, it does not reflect badly on the whole OS when it does get a bit restrictive.
Apple is controlled and restrictive in general. I would personally never buy an iPhone because I like to have freedom to do what I want with my hardware. Most people don't need that, and the iPhone is an excellent choice for them. That is why the iPhone is so popular. But, the people who like having control of their hardware are very vocal in their reasons. So, they generally use Android instead (because you actually do have all of the control you want. If you want any further control, you can always dive into the source and change it yourself). But, when you try to say that Apple is just as open as Android you prove that you are just arguing from emotions and not from facts. It makes your whole argument sound kinda foolish.