Didn't Greenville, Kansas in the USA do this recently? I thought I remembered something about their town being destroyed by a tornado, and they took the opportunity to rebuild "green". The name of the town just happened to fit.
Freedom has had nothing to do with how America is governed for a while now.
I know for a fact that people have been saying things much like that for more than 200 years, such attitudes would seem to be a part of human nature. Even though more of us are living longer, happier, peaceful lives than ever before in the history of the world (percentage and total numbers), every step of the way there are those that put out a 'hue-and-cry' that it will all be crumbling at any moment.
I have some rats in a cage. They live very long and peaceful lives too.
May make it hard for a jury to convict and up to 5 year how many rapist and others will have to go free to make room? And who will pay to keep all that many people locked up? When we can't even find room for the drug offenders.
You haven't been paying attention. Jails are corporate run nowadays, we need more people to put in prison so that the prison corporations can make more money, from billing the government (you and I) and free (slave) labour. No rapists will go free. This is how Stalin built a railroad, it works.
This kind of reminds me of an episode of Stargate Atlantis. An off-world government would send people to "jail" for any little crime at all, and at the end, just because they felt like it (and made something up). As it turns out, they needed more bodies for the Wraith to feed on.
Substitude "Wraith" for "Corporations" and this totally fits with your scenario.
Speaking of logarithmic expansion, let's talk about overpopulation. We only have so many natural resources, and renewable resources have a limited renewable rate. You accuse people who don't have children of being selfish? I truly don't understand that logic. Why should anyone be judged on how much responsibility they want to take on? Maybe they're thinking of the greater good of the planet and/or the human population rather than their own limited circle of existence?
As for the urge to procreate being hard-wired... yes, this is true, but we live in a world where survival is not the challenge for most people. Procreation is a survival trait, and unless we have a plague that wipes out 98% of the population, it's not a huge agenda any more for the survival of humans. What should be thought about now is how we can continue sharing this planet without burning it all to hell and turning it into a wasteland. I'm no tree-hugger, but at the rate of our current growth it becomes common sense. And our current numbers only took what, a few hundred years to massively explode?
Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?
Happiness is not the most important aspect to being human. Social integration superceeds it, as does honor and empathy, none of which where considered in a silly over simplified study.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it's not fact. Really, if you wanted to be responsible as a human being, you'd limit your procreation in order to reserve earth's resources.
Self-deception works both ways, including for those child-free individuals who say that they are happier.
Unless there's a biological reason why the child-free couple can't reproduce, it's usually a much more intentionally made decision to be child-free. There were many years the couple probably could have decided to have a kid. It takes a very determined mind not to after having all those years to think about it.
Conversely, you could be having the greatest day ever, then when your kids come home from school and tear each other to pieces and call you whining about it in the middle of the afternoon... well, your day is shot to hell.
I get no such lip from my fish, and they are also enjoyable to watch.
Snarkiness aside, please explain? I've never once heard Rome being described as a terrorist organization. I vaguely recall a terrorist attack being made upon them, ultimately leading to them taking extreme actions (not unlike the USA suddenly forgetting much of the Constitution exists), but I've never heard anything the other way around.
But then again, I guess history may not have been my strongest subject. What is this in reference to exactly?
Replying to my own post, but think of the possibilities! Black market for skin grafts of highly skilled martial artists, pilots, etc. The army trains one person and a graft is given out to large numbers in the military. What a story!
America shelters george w who sent more americans to their death than osama did. if an iraqi strike force came in and struck bush, burial at sea, and all, would anyone have a right to say peep?
Nobody forced anybody to sign up for any branch of the military. They were all consenting adults that knew full well of what they might be getting themselves into. As much as you might not like George W., it's petty and ignorant to compare him to the leader of the largest terrorist organization ever in known history.
Kaspersky Labs concluded that the sophisticated attack could only have been conducted "with nation-state support"[18] and it has been speculated that Israel and the United States may have been involved.
Considering Iran is the one making those claims, and also since Iran pretty much blames everything on the West and Israel, it's pretty bold of you to conclude Stuxnet was created jointly by the USA and Israel from that statement from the Wikipedia article you linked up.
Exactly. When I read, "US nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines", I was wondering WTF these things are doing hooked up to the internet at all. It's like whining about getting splashed at a pool.
Yeah man, Big Pharma and the "Medical Community" are holding me back from the full potential of my alternative medicine practice. They claim my karate chops to the balls aren't a safe and effective way of curing headaches. Everyone that visits me no longer complains of a headache, so what gives!?
I speed regularly and have never been in a car accident. I've had close calls though, but that's because some jackass going 10mph under the limit decided to cut into my lane without looking OR using a blinker right in front of me. I'm not defending my speeding as it is breaking the law, after all, but I'm making a point here about safety. However, where I drive, going 10mph over the speed limit is the regular flow of traffic depending on the time of day. Going slower in these cases is more dangerous as most are having to maneuver around you.
Seriously. There's a difference between speeding and being dangerously aggressive. The ones I watch out for are the dangerously situationally unaware/ignorant. Those bastards are creative moving obstacles.
Yes, but Apple does that whole "go eat shit if you don't use our stuff" arrogant attitude in it's marketing.
Interesting interpretation of "If you don't have an iPhone, you don't have an iPhone." Maybe you are subconsciously convinced that what you use is dog shit. Just saying.
Nay. Mac vs. PC commercials. It's pretty blatant there.
That is, until reality comes up and bitch slaps you in the face. That's no reason to stop trying though. You know what would happen though? The Tea Party. Now, originally intentions were along those lines: represent the people. That was supposed to be the core of it all. But what happened? Crazies signed on, the party got good/bad press, everything got emotional, and now Sarah Palin is a spokesperson. *slaps forehead*
Whether or not you agree with me on what the Tea Party was originally founded on, that isn't the point here. The point is other politicians will hijack that third party and completely ruin it. Then it'll be a mutated husk of what it once was, get elected, and renew the Patriot Act another 4 years. The people be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
If one is caught dead calling oneself anything at all, is one truly dead?
Spoken like someone who's either never lost anyone, or who doesn't love very deeply.
Or they're just able to manage it more efficiently and not whine about it for 10 years.
Didn't Greenville, Kansas in the USA do this recently? I thought I remembered something about their town being destroyed by a tornado, and they took the opportunity to rebuild "green". The name of the town just happened to fit.
Freedom has had nothing to do with how America is governed for a while now.
I know for a fact that people have been saying things much like that for more than 200 years, such attitudes would seem to be a part of human nature. Even though more of us are living longer, happier, peaceful lives than ever before in the history of the world (percentage and total numbers), every step of the way there are those that put out a 'hue-and-cry' that it will all be crumbling at any moment.
I have some rats in a cage. They live very long and peaceful lives too.
May make it hard for a jury to convict and up to 5 year how many rapist and others will have to go free to make room? And who will pay to keep all that many people locked up? When we can't even find room for the drug offenders.
You haven't been paying attention. Jails are corporate run nowadays, we need more people to put in prison so that the prison corporations can make more money, from billing the government (you and I) and free (slave) labour. No rapists will go free. This is how Stalin built a railroad, it works.
This kind of reminds me of an episode of Stargate Atlantis. An off-world government would send people to "jail" for any little crime at all, and at the end, just because they felt like it (and made something up). As it turns out, they needed more bodies for the Wraith to feed on.
Substitude "Wraith" for "Corporations" and this totally fits with your scenario.
Speaking of logarithmic expansion, let's talk about overpopulation. We only have so many natural resources, and renewable resources have a limited renewable rate. You accuse people who don't have children of being selfish? I truly don't understand that logic. Why should anyone be judged on how much responsibility they want to take on? Maybe they're thinking of the greater good of the planet and/or the human population rather than their own limited circle of existence?
As for the urge to procreate being hard-wired... yes, this is true, but we live in a world where survival is not the challenge for most people. Procreation is a survival trait, and unless we have a plague that wipes out 98% of the population, it's not a huge agenda any more for the survival of humans. What should be thought about now is how we can continue sharing this planet without burning it all to hell and turning it into a wasteland. I'm no tree-hugger, but at the rate of our current growth it becomes common sense. And our current numbers only took what, a few hundred years to massively explode?
Data show that having children decreases happiness. They also eat a lot of your time (which could be better spent doing science) and they're extremely expensive (scientists don't get paid that much). Knowing this, why would anyone who respects data have children?
Happiness is not the most important aspect to being human. Social integration superceeds it, as does honor and empathy, none of which where considered in a silly over simplified study.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it's not fact. Really, if you wanted to be responsible as a human being, you'd limit your procreation in order to reserve earth's resources.
Self-deception works both ways, including for those child-free individuals who say that they are happier.
Unless there's a biological reason why the child-free couple can't reproduce, it's usually a much more intentionally made decision to be child-free. There were many years the couple probably could have decided to have a kid. It takes a very determined mind not to after having all those years to think about it.
I wouldn't call that self-deception.
Conversely, you could be having the greatest day ever, then when your kids come home from school and tear each other to pieces and call you whining about it in the middle of the afternoon... well, your day is shot to hell.
I get no such lip from my fish, and they are also enjoyable to watch.
Snarkiness aside, please explain? I've never once heard Rome being described as a terrorist organization. I vaguely recall a terrorist attack being made upon them, ultimately leading to them taking extreme actions (not unlike the USA suddenly forgetting much of the Constitution exists), but I've never heard anything the other way around.
But then again, I guess history may not have been my strongest subject. What is this in reference to exactly?
Replying to my own post, but think of the possibilities! Black market for skin grafts of highly skilled martial artists, pilots, etc. The army trains one person and a graft is given out to large numbers in the military. What a story!
I like the idea more of someone getting a skin-graft and suddenly inheriting mad skillz.
People will only play nice with the bulldog until they find a bigger stick.
America shelters george w who sent more americans to their death than osama did. if an iraqi strike force came in and struck bush, burial at sea, and all, would anyone have a right to say peep?
Nobody forced anybody to sign up for any branch of the military. They were all consenting adults that knew full well of what they might be getting themselves into. As much as you might not like George W., it's petty and ignorant to compare him to the leader of the largest terrorist organization ever in known history.
Kaspersky Labs concluded that the sophisticated attack could only have been conducted "with nation-state support"[18] and it has been speculated that Israel and the United States may have been involved.
Considering Iran is the one making those claims, and also since Iran pretty much blames everything on the West and Israel, it's pretty bold of you to conclude Stuxnet was created jointly by the USA and Israel from that statement from the Wikipedia article you linked up.
Exactly. When I read, "US nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines", I was wondering WTF these things are doing hooked up to the internet at all. It's like whining about getting splashed at a pool.
Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Heart! Captain planet, he's our hero....
FTFY
Off-topic, but the weeping angels were my favorite new baddies introduced in the series reboot by far.
Actually, you could just use the ADB+ update files and schedule regular updates to your own HOSTS file. How do you think your browser plugin does it?
Yeah man, Big Pharma and the "Medical Community" are holding me back from the full potential of my alternative medicine practice. They claim my karate chops to the balls aren't a safe and effective way of curing headaches. Everyone that visits me no longer complains of a headache, so what gives!?
I speed regularly and have never been in a car accident. I've had close calls though, but that's because some jackass going 10mph under the limit decided to cut into my lane without looking OR using a blinker right in front of me. I'm not defending my speeding as it is breaking the law, after all, but I'm making a point here about safety. However, where I drive, going 10mph over the speed limit is the regular flow of traffic depending on the time of day. Going slower in these cases is more dangerous as most are having to maneuver around you.
Seriously. There's a difference between speeding and being dangerously aggressive. The ones I watch out for are the dangerously situationally unaware/ignorant. Those bastards are creative moving obstacles.
Yes, but Apple does that whole "go eat shit if you don't use our stuff" arrogant attitude in it's marketing.
Interesting interpretation of "If you don't have an iPhone, you don't have an iPhone." Maybe you are subconsciously convinced that what you use is dog shit. Just saying.
Nay. Mac vs. PC commercials. It's pretty blatant there.
Wrong. Their cards have data caps, but not their phones. That was how Verizon ran it too. Sprint = truly unlimited data on your phone.
So, I can only assume you think nothing was ever stopped prior to 9/11.
This.
That is, until reality comes up and bitch slaps you in the face. That's no reason to stop trying though. You know what would happen though? The Tea Party. Now, originally intentions were along those lines: represent the people. That was supposed to be the core of it all. But what happened? Crazies signed on, the party got good/bad press, everything got emotional, and now Sarah Palin is a spokesperson. *slaps forehead*
Whether or not you agree with me on what the Tea Party was originally founded on, that isn't the point here. The point is other politicians will hijack that third party and completely ruin it. Then it'll be a mutated husk of what it once was, get elected, and renew the Patriot Act another 4 years. The people be damned.