What extreme ideas? Say something that could be compared to facts, please.
Like comparing your graph to facts. It's not actually linked to a source document, and the pixellated names of two documents can't be at all easily used to examine the source documents it claims to be derived from. But let's take its word for it. Its "ecological footprint" (whatever that is exactly) is measured per capita, and I already debunked that basis, so your argument is either circular, or you're not even reading what I wrote to argue with. There's more wrong with it beyond no testable sources and debunked fallacious basis, but why should I bother working any harder when you're not?
The psychobabble you get into at the end there doesn't even really make sense either semantically or psychologically. The simple answer is that my debunking per capita pollution is correct, and your flimsy protestations are more a sign of your denial and projection than anything else.
If only Teabaggers like you would stop with the strawman fallacies, like where you accused me of saying "the free market = anarchy". You said that.
Without government action, Chinese industry pollution causing climate change everywhere else isn't going to have any mechanism for compensation. You just cited Friedman in tort cases and taxation, which are government actions in response to complaints, not market actions.
In other words, your actions agree with me, even while you attack me with fallacies. Teabagger inventing enemies who don't exist simply to exert some aggression. Pointless nonsense indeed.
All the time. America's Constitutional democratic republic is organized with feedbacks harnessing competition among those people to do what the people want, both immediately according to the rules and in the long term making the rules.
As Churchill said, democracy sucks, but it's the only thing that's ever worked. The market anarchy you're equating in quality to even American government proved for millennia how much worse its alternative is.
Except pollution isn't created per capita. Most Chinese people don't produce more pollution than their ancestors did a century or a millennium ago, because they're not part of the global economy - they're stuck in the feudal economies of their areas, outside the cities, factories and mines that really pollute. Even without consuming much more than they did before indoor plumbing and the quality of life that they're stuck in. The US, meanwhile, counts nearly every resident in the global economy.
The actual measure is pollution per output. China consumes more energy than the US now, produces much more Greenhouse pollution, and vastly more pollution that isn't Greenhouse emissions. Yet China produces only 1/3 the output of the US. China therefore pollutes a lot more than 6x the amount the US pollutes per output.
Other countries also look better than they really are. China and the US together produce about 1/3 the total global output, much more than other countries do per capita. That output is consumed around the world. Those other people are outsourcing their pollution to the US and China, just as the US has outsourced much of its worst pollution to China.
All of which shows that markets have done nothing but shuffle pollution around to the lowest bidder. Which is why the people create governments to protect ourselves from getting dumped on when it's free.
If only the true costs of carbon pollution were built into the price of causing it, China's repressedly low labor costs couldn't govern the vast amount of pollution it generates.
The Tragedy of the Commons can be protected against by only government, not market, action.
More details on how Alveda King says gay marriage is genocide, and other insane Christian Taliban talk that Martin Luther King would denounce. The woman is obviously a fraud, scamming along on her famous uncle without any merit of her own - the ultimate bigot:
Alveda is dismissive of her aunt [MLK's Civil Rights partner, Coretta Scott King] who died in 2006, saying, "I've got his DNA. She doesn't, she didn't... Therefore I know something about him. I'm made out of the same stuff."
The niece is clearly riding more "the color of her skin" than "the content of her character", spitting on her uncle's legacy.
David Garrow, a civil rights movement historian at the University of Cambridge, said that Martin Luther King Jr. was unambiguously progressive.
"King was not only not a Republican, he was well to the left of the Democratic Party of the 1960s," he said. "One could make a very strong case that King thought of himself as a democratic socialist. It's also well-documented that Dr. King was a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood, and it's well-documented that one of his five or six closest advisers, Bayard Rustin, was gay."
There's also details on how Beck scammed a nonprofit into paying for this travesty event, while Beck keeps all the profits. You Republicans are such suckers, the only surprise is that you have any money left after you sank it all into a decade of Bush/Cheney like a bonfire.
The Democrats of the 60s who wanted to beat Martin Luther King into a pulp became Republicans. They and the ones who joined them are the Republicans of today. Just as the Republicans of the 1860s who abolished slavery are ancient history.
Aveda King is there to explain to Beck's zombie army that abortion is murder, even though it isn't, and is instead a protected civil right.
You Republicans even hate Jews, otherwise why mention John Stewart's non stage name. Some things evidently don't change.
The.fortune at the bottom of the page showing this story say:
It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag.
Slashdot has achieved artificial intelligence. Or it's another part of the same conspiracy hiding the Lincoln Memorial from Beck's zombie army. Or both, since "reality has a well-known liberal bias" (- Stephen Colbert).
Does anyone actually think that Beck is not either 1: totally insane or 2: ripping off MLK's legacy with exactly the kind of people who would have beaten MLK to a pulp in 1963 for trying this the first time, or 3: 1+2?
Indeed, it burns rapidly enough to explode under just STP air pressure, but the force of that explosion and the heat of its fire quickly abates, without transferring as much energy into people and flammable objects (like other fuel inside other tanks) as does a petrofuel fire. Which tends to burn through fuel tanks and explode them, too.
Yes, 2nd degree face burns are "some surface burns", as are "flash burns". I used to work full time at a large NYC area hospital that is the region's burn center (downstate excluding NYC), and I know what burns look like. I know that people with gasoline burns have third degree burns, limbs charred off. Worse, I know that petrofuel fires do burn for "a while", all the while putting smoke in everyone's lungs and mucous membranes, which is what usually kills or overcomes people then killed by the fire. I also know that major petrofuel fires happen all the time, despite well over a century of practice in avoiding and containing them, while this fire is evidently the first major one even though the fuel has been in wide use for some years, and specialized use for longer than that.
Hydrogen does indeed burn incredibly rapidly, which means that most of it burns away from the people near it. The hydrogen rises away from the surface where the people are, and fills empty spaces with relatively low amounts of heat as it burns off. Indeed, it burns rapidly enough to explode under just STP air pressure, but the force of that explosion and the heat of its fire quickly abates, without transferring as much energy into people and flammable objects (like other fuel inside other tanks) as does a petrofuel fire. Which tends to burn through fuel tanks and explode them, too.
As for the Hindenburg, even the airships.net article you pointed me to, which is indeed titled "Hindenburg Paint Did Not Cause the Disaster", also admits
It is possible (though not likely, given the wet and rainy conditions) that the covering was the cause of the initial ignition, but if the Hindenburg had been inflated with helium instead of hydrogen, even a small fire on the outer covering would not have resulted in a major catastrophe.
So what's for sure is that the airships.net author and community doesn't know what caused the fire, and that the covering was entirely possibly the cause of the initial ignition, and not at all ruled out. The obvious agenda of the author is to complain about an airship being filled with hydrogen instead of helium (due to the US embargo of its helium monopoly to the Germans), rather than a definitive debunking of "what caused the disaster", which it cannot and does not offer.
Again, nobody's saying that hydrogen doesn't burn - that's inane, and contradicts using it for fuel. What is at issue is the relative safety of hydrogen vs petrofuel. This incident shows that hydrogen fuel can cause fires and explosions, but by comparison to, say, a gasoline tanker burning and exploding, hydrogen seems a lot safer.
In this fire at the Rochester airport, two people were injured with some surface burns, even though a tankful burned and consumed an entire pressurized container truck. I saw no evidence of any other damage, it didn't burn the nearby containers of jet fuel, no firefighters were injured, no smoke inhalation.
If this had been petrofuel, the damage would probably have been a lot worse. Petrofuel sticks to stuff, doesn't disperse, makes lots of toxic smoke, is toxic in its own right.
Besides, nobody claims that hydrogen doesn't burn. And there's no new evidence, especially here, that the Hindenburg burned because of its hydrogen rather than its documented explosive material skin.
So why do you hate hydrogen? You don't want your own to find out, and turn against you.
I bought a house in the NYC suburbs last year, gutted it, and renovated it to conserve energy. I basically sprayfoamed the walls, floors and roof really thick, use all CFLs, install some really cool smart ventilation devices, and did some other stuff that was a lot more minor like buy the most efficient appliances. I cut my energy use down to something like 1/6th the average in the area per square foot, even though I left the ceilings open into the attic (which lets heat rise away from the lower level where we can feel it). I didn't need any permits or any "experimental beaver" tech. It took some imagination, analysis and choosing between different ways of doing things, but like any engineering project I just had to be careful thinking of how the individual consequences added up to system performance. Ultimately it was a big investment, but it'll pay back in under 5 years. Even at current energy prices, which since they're going to go up will probably be closer to 3 years; after that we'll be netting income equal to what we'd have paid the utility monopolies instead.
I don't know what Scott Adams' problem is, especially in California where there's little weather and the climate is so mild, and green construction industries are everywhere, along with referrals and reviews of them, and plenty of state funding. Maybe he's only as good at actual engineering as he is at being funny, which he hasn't been since a decade ago, when he was a better cartoonist than an engineer.
The 1996 Congress was the height of the Republican era controlling the Congress 1994-2006 and aggressively changing longstanding policies. That's who sold off the US strategic helium reserve and encouraged the world to run out of helium.
How many ways did shortsighted Republicans liquidate America's precious assets that were earned over centuries for the minimum prices to be snapped up by crony corporations and foreign competitors? Is everyone who ever failed math or economics given a referral to join the Republican Party?
The stories about privacy protections always seem to favor personal privacy in Europe, but to favor privacy invasion in the US. How do Europeans get better protection? European government looks a lot more bureaucratic and controlled access than even the US, which I would think would favor industry which has the time and money to ensure privacy can be abused for power and profit. Maybe it's because the protections begin at the state level, which is more accessible than the EU as a whole, while in the US state privacy protections aren't as powerful as Federal protections for invading them, or just a vacuum of protections at the Federal level. Or maybe EU privacy orgs are just more effective, perhaps better funded, than the US ones like EFF. Or maybe we just get the news of only privacy protection from EU, not privacy abuse, while in the US we get the abuse news so we're conditioned to accept it.
Any chance that this HW hack can give Linux programs access to the RSX chip, or even just the extra RAM on the RSX? Or if it can boot Linux on newer/upgraded machines that don't have OtherOS support?
Or are my two pre-upgrade PS3s just going to keep sitting on a shelf doing nothing but play DVDs, forever waiting for a hack to unlock the unique parts of the platform?
I've been waiting over a decade for Java's features to support mobile objects to have an infrastructure that made deploying them worthwhile. Why send the logic around the network, instead of just sending the data to where the processors are? Well, with the vast majority of computing power now distributed among so many users, and mostly idling across the year, it's worth using distributed supercomputing now. Folding@Home was a good start, but the distributed app should be generic enough that any crunching can exploit whatever processing it can get access to.
Now we need a marketplace that can aggregate all that processing to consumers of it, and compensate the people who let the mobile objects run on their devices. The natural operators of that system would be the telcos. But since they never do anything new, they'll be too late to the game to be the ones who do it. So who will?
If I were Larry Ellison, I'd have Oracle do it. And sell more Oracle machines to run the Java infrastructure.
Few of us live in those sparsely populated regions (hence "sparse"), and nearly none of us work on the farms. Those farms are worked by the lowest paid people working in America, largely immigrants, who are largely illegal immigrants. If they had the power to demand more money for any reason, they already would, so clearly they don't, so can't, and won't.
Despite the best efforts of the very same people who want more trains instead of unlimited cars that are killing us, farm workers don't have the power to make our lives more expensive when there are more trains. And besides, it's the people in the densely populated coasts who pay to keep those Red States in the interior alive already.
Cities are not subsidized. Cities subsidize the rural areas, and always have, ever since we paid to invade, colonize and develop them.
Which moron marketer named these tiny magnetic domains "bits"? It's bad enough we already can't tell whether a "megabyte" is binary or decimal. Now we can't tell whether a "bit" is physical or virtual.
Tor doesn't handle high-bandwidth transfers well, like video and torrents. Since everything across the WAN should be encrypted, those exceptions mean Tor isn't the solution.
Slashdot Mirror
What extreme ideas? Say something that could be compared to facts, please.
Like comparing your graph to facts. It's not actually linked to a source document, and the pixellated names of two documents can't be at all easily used to examine the source documents it claims to be derived from. But let's take its word for it. Its "ecological footprint" (whatever that is exactly) is measured per capita, and I already debunked that basis, so your argument is either circular, or you're not even reading what I wrote to argue with. There's more wrong with it beyond no testable sources and debunked fallacious basis, but why should I bother working any harder when you're not?
The psychobabble you get into at the end there doesn't even really make sense either semantically or psychologically. The simple answer is that my debunking per capita pollution is correct, and your flimsy protestations are more a sign of your denial and projection than anything else.
If only Teabaggers like you would stop with the strawman fallacies, like where you accused me of saying "the free market = anarchy". You said that.
Without government action, Chinese industry pollution causing climate change everywhere else isn't going to have any mechanism for compensation. You just cited Friedman in tort cases and taxation, which are government actions in response to complaints, not market actions.
In other words, your actions agree with me, even while you attack me with fallacies. Teabagger inventing enemies who don't exist simply to exert some aggression. Pointless nonsense indeed.
All the time. America's Constitutional democratic republic is organized with feedbacks harnessing competition among those people to do what the people want, both immediately according to the rules and in the long term making the rules.
As Churchill said, democracy sucks, but it's the only thing that's ever worked. The market anarchy you're equating in quality to even American government proved for millennia how much worse its alternative is.
Except pollution isn't created per capita. Most Chinese people don't produce more pollution than their ancestors did a century or a millennium ago, because they're not part of the global economy - they're stuck in the feudal economies of their areas, outside the cities, factories and mines that really pollute. Even without consuming much more than they did before indoor plumbing and the quality of life that they're stuck in. The US, meanwhile, counts nearly every resident in the global economy.
The actual measure is pollution per output. China consumes more energy than the US now, produces much more Greenhouse pollution, and vastly more pollution that isn't Greenhouse emissions. Yet China produces only 1/3 the output of the US. China therefore pollutes a lot more than 6x the amount the US pollutes per output.
Other countries also look better than they really are. China and the US together produce about 1/3 the total global output, much more than other countries do per capita. That output is consumed around the world. Those other people are outsourcing their pollution to the US and China, just as the US has outsourced much of its worst pollution to China.
All of which shows that markets have done nothing but shuffle pollution around to the lowest bidder. Which is why the people create governments to protect ourselves from getting dumped on when it's free.
If only the true costs of carbon pollution were built into the price of causing it, China's repressedly low labor costs couldn't govern the vast amount of pollution it generates.
The Tragedy of the Commons can be protected against by only government, not market, action.
More details on how Alveda King says gay marriage is genocide, and other insane Christian Taliban talk that Martin Luther King would denounce. The woman is obviously a fraud, scamming along on her famous uncle without any merit of her own - the ultimate bigot:
The niece is clearly riding more "the color of her skin" than "the content of her character", spitting on her uncle's legacy.
There's also details on how Beck scammed a nonprofit into paying for this travesty event, while Beck keeps all the profits. You Republicans are such suckers, the only surprise is that you have any money left after you sank it all into a decade of Bush/Cheney like a bonfire.
Now mine says
It's clearly mocking us.
The Democrats of the 60s who wanted to beat Martin Luther King into a pulp became Republicans. They and the ones who joined them are the Republicans of today. Just as the Republicans of the 1860s who abolished slavery are ancient history.
Aveda King is there to explain to Beck's zombie army that abortion is murder, even though it isn't, and is instead a protected civil right.
You Republicans even hate Jews, otherwise why mention John Stewart's non stage name. Some things evidently don't change.
The .fortune at the bottom of the page showing this story say:
Slashdot has achieved artificial intelligence. Or it's another part of the same conspiracy hiding the Lincoln Memorial from Beck's zombie army. Or both, since "reality has a well-known liberal bias" (- Stephen Colbert).
Does anyone actually think that Beck is not either 1: totally insane or 2: ripping off MLK's legacy with exactly the kind of people who would have beaten MLK to a pulp in 1963 for trying this the first time, or 3: 1+2?
Yes, 2nd degree face burns are "some surface burns", as are "flash burns". I used to work full time at a large NYC area hospital that is the region's burn center (downstate excluding NYC), and I know what burns look like. I know that people with gasoline burns have third degree burns, limbs charred off. Worse, I know that petrofuel fires do burn for "a while", all the while putting smoke in everyone's lungs and mucous membranes, which is what usually kills or overcomes people then killed by the fire. I also know that major petrofuel fires happen all the time, despite well over a century of practice in avoiding and containing them, while this fire is evidently the first major one even though the fuel has been in wide use for some years, and specialized use for longer than that.
Hydrogen does indeed burn incredibly rapidly, which means that most of it burns away from the people near it. The hydrogen rises away from the surface where the people are, and fills empty spaces with relatively low amounts of heat as it burns off. Indeed, it burns rapidly enough to explode under just STP air pressure, but the force of that explosion and the heat of its fire quickly abates, without transferring as much energy into people and flammable objects (like other fuel inside other tanks) as does a petrofuel fire. Which tends to burn through fuel tanks and explode them, too.
As for the Hindenburg, even the airships.net article you pointed me to, which is indeed titled "Hindenburg Paint Did Not Cause the Disaster", also admits
So what's for sure is that the airships.net author and community doesn't know what caused the fire, and that the covering was entirely possibly the cause of the initial ignition, and not at all ruled out. The obvious agenda of the author is to complain about an airship being filled with hydrogen instead of helium (due to the US embargo of its helium monopoly to the Germans), rather than a definitive debunking of "what caused the disaster", which it cannot and does not offer.
Again, nobody's saying that hydrogen doesn't burn - that's inane, and contradicts using it for fuel. What is at issue is the relative safety of hydrogen vs petrofuel. This incident shows that hydrogen fuel can cause fires and explosions, but by comparison to, say, a gasoline tanker burning and exploding, hydrogen seems a lot safer.
In this fire at the Rochester airport, two people were injured with some surface burns, even though a tankful burned and consumed an entire pressurized container truck. I saw no evidence of any other damage, it didn't burn the nearby containers of jet fuel, no firefighters were injured, no smoke inhalation.
If this had been petrofuel, the damage would probably have been a lot worse. Petrofuel sticks to stuff, doesn't disperse, makes lots of toxic smoke, is toxic in its own right.
Besides, nobody claims that hydrogen doesn't burn. And there's no new evidence, especially here, that the Hindenburg burned because of its hydrogen rather than its documented explosive material skin.
So why do you hate hydrogen? You don't want your own to find out, and turn against you.
I bought a house in the NYC suburbs last year, gutted it, and renovated it to conserve energy. I basically sprayfoamed the walls, floors and roof really thick, use all CFLs, install some really cool smart ventilation devices, and did some other stuff that was a lot more minor like buy the most efficient appliances. I cut my energy use down to something like 1/6th the average in the area per square foot, even though I left the ceilings open into the attic (which lets heat rise away from the lower level where we can feel it). I didn't need any permits or any "experimental beaver" tech. It took some imagination, analysis and choosing between different ways of doing things, but like any engineering project I just had to be careful thinking of how the individual consequences added up to system performance. Ultimately it was a big investment, but it'll pay back in under 5 years. Even at current energy prices, which since they're going to go up will probably be closer to 3 years; after that we'll be netting income equal to what we'd have paid the utility monopolies instead.
I don't know what Scott Adams' problem is, especially in California where there's little weather and the climate is so mild, and green construction industries are everywhere, along with referrals and reviews of them, and plenty of state funding. Maybe he's only as good at actual engineering as he is at being funny, which he hasn't been since a decade ago, when he was a better cartoonist than an engineer.
The 1996 Congress was the height of the Republican era controlling the Congress 1994-2006 and aggressively changing longstanding policies. That's who sold off the US strategic helium reserve and encouraged the world to run out of helium.
How many ways did shortsighted Republicans liquidate America's precious assets that were earned over centuries for the minimum prices to be snapped up by crony corporations and foreign competitors? Is everyone who ever failed math or economics given a referral to join the Republican Party?
The stories about privacy protections always seem to favor personal privacy in Europe, but to favor privacy invasion in the US. How do Europeans get better protection? European government looks a lot more bureaucratic and controlled access than even the US, which I would think would favor industry which has the time and money to ensure privacy can be abused for power and profit. Maybe it's because the protections begin at the state level, which is more accessible than the EU as a whole, while in the US state privacy protections aren't as powerful as Federal protections for invading them, or just a vacuum of protections at the Federal level. Or maybe EU privacy orgs are just more effective, perhaps better funded, than the US ones like EFF. Or maybe we just get the news of only privacy protection from EU, not privacy abuse, while in the US we get the abuse news so we're conditioned to accept it.
How do Europeans do it? I'm jealous.
Your employee isn't your son. Children have severely curtailed rights under the supervision of their parents.
You are arguing that corporations are parents of workers who are children without rights.
Fox and CNN still have viewers, despite years of nonstop collisions with reality.
There are zombies. They just don't go out into the light of day - where it's hard to see the screen.
Any chance that this HW hack can give Linux programs access to the RSX chip, or even just the extra RAM on the RSX? Or if it can boot Linux on newer/upgraded machines that don't have OtherOS support?
Or are my two pre-upgrade PS3s just going to keep sitting on a shelf doing nothing but play DVDs, forever waiting for a hack to unlock the unique parts of the platform?
I've been waiting over a decade for Java's features to support mobile objects to have an infrastructure that made deploying them worthwhile. Why send the logic around the network, instead of just sending the data to where the processors are? Well, with the vast majority of computing power now distributed among so many users, and mostly idling across the year, it's worth using distributed supercomputing now. Folding@Home was a good start, but the distributed app should be generic enough that any crunching can exploit whatever processing it can get access to.
Now we need a marketplace that can aggregate all that processing to consumers of it, and compensate the people who let the mobile objects run on their devices. The natural operators of that system would be the telcos. But since they never do anything new, they'll be too late to the game to be the ones who do it. So who will?
If I were Larry Ellison, I'd have Oracle do it. And sell more Oracle machines to run the Java infrastructure.
Few of us live in those sparsely populated regions (hence "sparse"), and nearly none of us work on the farms. Those farms are worked by the lowest paid people working in America, largely immigrants, who are largely illegal immigrants. If they had the power to demand more money for any reason, they already would, so clearly they don't, so can't, and won't.
Despite the best efforts of the very same people who want more trains instead of unlimited cars that are killing us, farm workers don't have the power to make our lives more expensive when there are more trains. And besides, it's the people in the densely populated coasts who pay to keep those Red States in the interior alive already.
Cities are not subsidized. Cities subsidize the rural areas, and always have, ever since we paid to invade, colonize and develop them.
How about all the oil, natgas and coal Russia has burned for the past century? That's a huge climate change weapon Russia has blasted at the world.
Global Russian roulette, and the bullet landed in the steppes first.
It's bad enough we already can't tell whether a "megabyte" is binary or decimal. Now we can't tell whether a "bit" is physical or virtual.
Which moron marketer named these tiny magnetic domains "bits"? It's bad enough we already can't tell whether a "megabyte" is binary or decimal. Now we can't tell whether a "bit" is physical or virtual.
Tor doesn't handle high-bandwidth transfers well, like video and torrents. Since everything across the WAN should be encrypted, those exceptions mean Tor isn't the solution.