but that is all under the presumption that honest and open discourse should be dis-encouraged because someone not used to that is gonna get their panties in a bunch.
what you're saying is that there is no point in trying to reconcile the consequences of something which ruffled the feathers of someone who should never have let their feathers be rustled in the first place.
so you are defending people who are indoctrinated in the system of bullshit, to argue that the system of bullshit should stay in place, because at least we have 60+ years of reacting to said bullshit?
"Hey, i know you don't want to cut off your arm for that broken fingernail, but this is what we've done for years. look at the plus side: at least we know how to cauterize your arm where we chop it off just above your elbow!"
So you're saying that the way this needs to go down is.. we ignore the little birdie that is the service we want.. that was based on the poorly designed framework and business model... and if the correct changes in turn mean the demise of that service which relied on the 'generosity' of the infrastructure owners, then so be it.
Why can't we solve the problem a different way: get the private companies OUT of the business of owning the infrastructure. How about they just maintain it, and the people own it. Take out the middle man and you (have a better chance to) get rid of the boogyman complex.
Your 2nd sentence pretty much is why my mind was made up. Well, substitute dad for parents. I'd have preferred to have my head well enough on my shoulders to have made that choice and move out on my own. Part of why I didn't was because of that psychosis which I thought, naively, was normal. I guess in the end it's all come out in the wash (I certainly can't have regret for things i can't do, i.e. time travel). At the same time, however, I think I'd have a larger sense of accomplishment with respect to my past, had I been able to move onto a more mature environment when I was ready, which I believe I was.
not to sound insensitive, but if dealing with the stress (etc) of school caused medical problems, then why not.. uhm.. quit for a small time? after all, you have the choice, because you're going so much younger...
but that's interesting. because going to college when I was 18 netted the same result for me. introduction of stress, anxiety, panic attacks, depression, addiction, etc. If i were able to attend college at 16, and it was too much for me, I would've used those 2 years, or maybe even one, to get a job, save up money, and have yet another leg up on my peers.
Seems to me these are innately human, not maturity, -related side effects of life. I'm sorry for your wife's ailments, but this rationale is purely personal, and one person's shortcomings should not affect another's potential.
on the flip side -- there are many students who are simply not challenged by their schools and teachers, and for 2 years until they graduate high school, they lose their potential, drive, maturity. Then when they get to college, they are in a culture shock just the same.
bottom line is: what's the harm in being stuck in a situation that could be too much to handle? you have 2 years' advantage on every other one of your new peers. you have the advantage
don't have the time to dissect what you're saying (hopefully i will because i like thoughtful discourse, however.. )
You make a good point about CO2 as a natural process. And this has been my single-most important point with every person i argue, over the effects of human civilization on the planet/ecosystem. I think wikipedia pretty much sums it up, but i'll continue.
The planet has EVOLVED into what it is now. I hope you don't question that, otherwise the discussion is over.
Now that being the case, there are natural systems for accounting for natural occurrences. A Coal-burning power plant is NOT a natural occurrence. Sure, to the earth & on the surface of things it might look and feel like a naturally-occurring forest fire. OK, but now we have far more coal plants than could be a simple forest fire, burning 24/7 (AND burning more than we need btw). On top of a constantly-burning forest fire, we are systematically removing or crippling the natural processes which would help recover from such fires. Every time we clear-cut trees to put in a parking lot or whatever, we're not just removing CO2 sequestration from the ecosystem: there are many more systems which are affected. Remember, the earth has evolved to this point: trees didn't just spring up -- they are part of a larger system, and are simply not just for turning CO2 into O2. And the more CO2 we have in the atmosphere, the more acidic the oceans, which btw are the largest ecosystem on the planet, and are responsible for 30-50% of the CO2 sequestration via phytoplankton that live there. While phytoplankton have helped slow the rate at which we pollute and warm the globe with our CO2, they too are stressed, and are not keeping things at levels that they should.
My time is up -- at the root of all things, I don't really need any more proof that we cause negative damage through the addition of unnatural processes than the fact that we have no natural (or hell, even unnatural man-made) processes that go full-cycle to keep things in balance. Go look up how many millions of years it took the natural processes of the earth to create the resources we've figured out how to use (very inefficiently) in order to power your daily commute. Tell me how the mass-expenditure of these resources by billions of humans on a daily basis does not effect our ecosystem. I'll wait.
We could all stand right next to one another yapping back and forth (like states) or we could stick our heads in the sand and act like there is no problem, or we can stop being egotistical, self-serving doofuses and try to find solutions.
I propose legislation which demands that any new business has to be completely full-circle technology. I mean this is the aim for carbon offsetting (which is kind of bullshit - ever hear of the cheating offsetting parody?) and cap and trade -- to make businesses responsible for the effects of their business on the environment.
Can you show me where the Constitution says that the government's job is to provide a means by which the wealth of the non-rich gets redistributed to the rich so they can exert their monetary control? I can't seem to find it in there anywhere.
I'm going to go out on a limb here but, I'm assuming you're not rich (if you were you wouldn't be trying to have your voice heard for free on the internet) like the people who's ideas for a "rich America" you approve of. But, you support these policies because you think that one day you will be rich and (as a result) powerful. You won't be. If everyone was, your policies you are holding so dear, would be changed, or wouldn't even exist. Regardless of how you end up, these policies don't work to benefit the everyday person, they work to benefit the rich who already have power. The rich who have power don't want everyone to have money and power -- that limits their money and power. It's really not hard to cut through the bullcrap, but you get so caught up in thinking your so righteous and have some prerogative because you're an inherited-mentality-republican/conservative, that your nose only smells green (as in money).
I stopped thinking you had any sense when you said CO2 isn't a pollutant. You must not understand the term pollutant, or you must not understand the chemical properties of CO2, or you must not understand ecology, or all of the above.
The reason Chris Dodd or Barney Frank make laws that affect your life is because you live in a country which has a Congress, Judicial, and Executive Branch. Texas doesn't go to war with Iraq does it? Damn those other states for voting to goto War to 'protect' me or my property.
Arguably, investing in clean energy technology IS protecting you and your property, because without our dependency on foreign oil and the social ramifications our greed inflicts on those cultures we have no right dictating, we arguably wouldn't have such backlash.
if infrastructure and existing investment were infinitely available, you might have a point. There will always have to be monopolies with ubiquitous service industries until we can re-tool our infrastructure to be a dumb pipe that services the flow of electrons from one place to another, and everyone has the capability to harness that dumb pipe for their own needs through registration/licensing/etc.
You know, something for the people, by the people...
Only problem? It has to be public. Which means you have to be taxed for it. This would be what people call big government. But they don't really know what they mean when they say it, nor how it applies to simple monopolized technologies we take for granted, yet never cease complaining about, because the corporations' sole intent is making a buck off us.
Didn't you get the memo? We've been pushed legislation and we've been indoctrinated with policy that makes it more important to back corporations in this day in age, with respect to business not individuals.
What the government CAN do is setup standards to be revised every 3-5 years, fostering individual freedom/business, which would require citizens who want specific ubiquitous services to buy-into/participage a co-op to fund the ordeal. This would keep costs lower than a big corporation operating in multiple markets ever could. Eventually we can have infrastructure which does not take billions or trillions of dollars to overhaul, and the process of overhaul is built-into the system of standards and just another function of the ubiquitous service.
We really shouldn't be fooled by the surprising lack of growth when it comes to the true investments corporations should be doing to ween us off of monopolized technologies -- They wouldn't be in business anymore...On the flip side -- we wouldn't be throwing money down the drain or into pockets of disingenuous individuals...
Slashdot Mirror
if your reports don't tell you WHY, HOW, and only provides WHAT, then why isn't employee email fair game?
except you're telling an American. The superiors of American diplomats report to the people. At least they should. And THAT is the point.
but that is all under the presumption that honest and open discourse should be dis-encouraged because someone not used to that is gonna get their panties in a bunch.
what you're saying is that there is no point in trying to reconcile the consequences of something which ruffled the feathers of someone who should never have let their feathers be rustled in the first place.
so you are defending people who are indoctrinated in the system of bullshit, to argue that the system of bullshit should stay in place, because at least we have 60+ years of reacting to said bullshit?
"Hey, i know you don't want to cut off your arm for that broken fingernail, but this is what we've done for years. look at the plus side: at least we know how to cauterize your arm where we chop it off just above your elbow!"
So you're saying that the way this needs to go down is .. we ignore the little birdie that is the service we want .. that was based on the poorly designed framework and business model ... and if the correct changes in turn mean the demise of that service which relied on the 'generosity' of the infrastructure owners, then so be it.
Why can't we solve the problem a different way: get the private companies OUT of the business of owning the infrastructure. How about they just maintain it, and the people own it. Take out the middle man and you (have a better chance to) get rid of the boogyman complex.
*psychopathic behavior
Your 2nd sentence pretty much is why my mind was made up. Well, substitute dad for parents. I'd have preferred to have my head well enough on my shoulders to have made that choice and move out on my own. Part of why I didn't was because of that psychosis which I thought, naively, was normal. I guess in the end it's all come out in the wash (I certainly can't have regret for things i can't do, i.e. time travel). At the same time, however, I think I'd have a larger sense of accomplishment with respect to my past, had I been able to move onto a more mature environment when I was ready, which I believe I was.
not to sound insensitive, but if dealing with the stress (etc) of school caused medical problems, then why not .. uhm .. quit for a small time? after all, you have the choice, because you're going so much younger...
but that's interesting. because going to college when I was 18 netted the same result for me. introduction of stress, anxiety, panic attacks, depression, addiction, etc. If i were able to attend college at 16, and it was too much for me, I would've used those 2 years, or maybe even one, to get a job, save up money, and have yet another leg up on my peers.
Seems to me these are innately human, not maturity, -related side effects of life. I'm sorry for your wife's ailments, but this rationale is purely personal, and one person's shortcomings should not affect another's potential.
on the flip side -- there are many students who are simply not challenged by their schools and teachers, and for 2 years until they graduate high school, they lose their potential, drive, maturity. Then when they get to college, they are in a culture shock just the same.
bottom line is: what's the harm in being stuck in a situation that could be too much to handle? you have 2 years' advantage on every other one of your new peers. you have the advantage
don't have the time to dissect what you're saying (hopefully i will because i like thoughtful discourse, however .. )
You make a good point about CO2 as a natural process. And this has been my single-most important point with every person i argue, over the effects of human civilization on the planet/ecosystem. I think wikipedia pretty much sums it up, but i'll continue.
The planet has EVOLVED into what it is now. I hope you don't question that, otherwise the discussion is over.
Now that being the case, there are natural systems for accounting for natural occurrences. A Coal-burning power plant is NOT a natural occurrence. Sure, to the earth & on the surface of things it might look and feel like a naturally-occurring forest fire. OK, but now we have far more coal plants than could be a simple forest fire, burning 24/7 (AND burning more than we need btw). On top of a constantly-burning forest fire, we are systematically removing or crippling the natural processes which would help recover from such fires. Every time we clear-cut trees to put in a parking lot or whatever, we're not just removing CO2 sequestration from the ecosystem: there are many more systems which are affected. Remember, the earth has evolved to this point: trees didn't just spring up -- they are part of a larger system, and are simply not just for turning CO2 into O2. And the more CO2 we have in the atmosphere, the more acidic the oceans, which btw are the largest ecosystem on the planet, and are responsible for 30-50% of the CO2 sequestration via phytoplankton that live there. While phytoplankton have helped slow the rate at which we pollute and warm the globe with our CO2, they too are stressed, and are not keeping things at levels that they should.
My time is up -- at the root of all things, I don't really need any more proof that we cause negative damage through the addition of unnatural processes than the fact that we have no natural (or hell, even unnatural man-made) processes that go full-cycle to keep things in balance. Go look up how many millions of years it took the natural processes of the earth to create the resources we've figured out how to use (very inefficiently) in order to power your daily commute. Tell me how the mass-expenditure of these resources by billions of humans on a daily basis does not effect our ecosystem. I'll wait.
We could all stand right next to one another yapping back and forth (like states) or we could stick our heads in the sand and act like there is no problem, or we can stop being egotistical, self-serving doofuses and try to find solutions.
I propose legislation which demands that any new business has to be completely full-circle technology. I mean this is the aim for carbon offsetting (which is kind of bullshit - ever hear of the cheating offsetting parody?) and cap and trade -- to make businesses responsible for the effects of their business on the environment.
Can you show me where the Constitution says that the government's job is to provide a means by which the wealth of the non-rich gets redistributed to the rich so they can exert their monetary control? I can't seem to find it in there anywhere.
I'm going to go out on a limb here but, I'm assuming you're not rich (if you were you wouldn't be trying to have your voice heard for free on the internet) like the people who's ideas for a "rich America" you approve of. But, you support these policies because you think that one day you will be rich and (as a result) powerful. You won't be. If everyone was, your policies you are holding so dear, would be changed, or wouldn't even exist. Regardless of how you end up, these policies don't work to benefit the everyday person, they work to benefit the rich who already have power. The rich who have power don't want everyone to have money and power -- that limits their money and power. It's really not hard to cut through the bullcrap, but you get so caught up in thinking your so righteous and have some prerogative because you're an inherited-mentality-republican/conservative, that your nose only smells green (as in money).
I stopped thinking you had any sense when you said CO2 isn't a pollutant. You must not understand the term pollutant, or you must not understand the chemical properties of CO2, or you must not understand ecology, or all of the above.
The reason Chris Dodd or Barney Frank make laws that affect your life is because you live in a country which has a Congress, Judicial, and Executive Branch. Texas doesn't go to war with Iraq does it? Damn those other states for voting to goto War to 'protect' me or my property.
Arguably, investing in clean energy technology IS protecting you and your property, because without our dependency on foreign oil and the social ramifications our greed inflicts on those cultures we have no right dictating, we arguably wouldn't have such backlash.
if infrastructure and existing investment were infinitely available, you might have a point. There will always have to be monopolies with ubiquitous service industries until we can re-tool our infrastructure to be a dumb pipe that services the flow of electrons from one place to another, and everyone has the capability to harness that dumb pipe for their own needs through registration/licensing/etc.
...
You know, something for the people, by the people
Only problem? It has to be public. Which means you have to be taxed for it. This would be what people call big government. But they don't really know what they mean when they say it, nor how it applies to simple monopolized technologies we take for granted, yet never cease complaining about, because the corporations' sole intent is making a buck off us.
Didn't you get the memo? We've been pushed legislation and we've been indoctrinated with policy that makes it more important to back corporations in this day in age, with respect to business not individuals.
What the government CAN do is setup standards to be revised every 3-5 years, fostering individual freedom/business, which would require citizens who want specific ubiquitous services to buy-into/participage a co-op to fund the ordeal. This would keep costs lower than a big corporation operating in multiple markets ever could. Eventually we can have infrastructure which does not take billions or trillions of dollars to overhaul, and the process of overhaul is built-into the system of standards and just another function of the ubiquitous service.
We really shouldn't be fooled by the surprising lack of growth when it comes to the true investments corporations should be doing to ween us off of monopolized technologies -- They wouldn't be in business anymore...On the flip side -- we wouldn't be throwing money down the drain or into pockets of disingenuous individuals...