I think what he was trying to say is that, prior to the existence of on-line services, the word "subscription" was usually taken to mean that you are buying multiple issues of a periodical in advance. You always used to get ownership of whatever it is you were subscribing for.
He's not wrong... but the reality is that the definition of the word has broadened to include limited-use services, such as XM radio, Rhapsody, and NetFlix.
That only determines where the best players come from.
The Americans losing (not likely, with that line-up, but possible) would not disprove my point that the best US major league team, which is likely to be made up of players from all over the globe, is probably the best team in the world for any given year.
2. On the roof of my house in Minnesota, I'm lucky if I can keep my TV antenna intact for more than a couple years. How long would solar panels last up there?
If your roof angle matches the angle needed, the panels should be bolted to the roof. Now your system has roughly the same aerodynamics. (as is in my instal on a normal (not steep)sloped roof)Also if wind is an issue, you should consider a small wind turbine too.
First of all, my roof angle does not match. Secondly, wind is not my concern.
Sleet, ice, and heavy snow is my concern.
Multiply $50 x 12 x life of your home. (lets say 40 years to be conservative)
I'm a bachelor living in a small-ish suburban home. The odds are extremely slim that I'm going to live in this house for 40 years. Let's run your numbers again, but for 10 years (being optimistic about how long the panels hold up to Minnesota winters.)
$50 x 12 x 10 = $6000.
At least I'm lucky enough to live in a nice neighborhood. I have friends who wouldn't want to put a $20 garden gnome outside their house, let alone a $3000 easy-to-damage solar array.
Now, since I don't have $3000 just lying around, I'm going to BORROW that $3000 which you conservatively estimated to be the cost of solar panels (ignoring the cost of installation, since I am neither a carpenter nor an electrician). I don't want to take out a lien on my house, so we are talking credit cards or personal loans here.
What's 12% interest on $3000 over ten years?
and though I live in Rainy Western Washington, I still get a very signifigant savings.
"Savings"??? You mean it doesn't cover 100% of that $50 a month we were talking about? Okay, time to do the math again.
Let's say it gives you a 50% savings.
$25 x 12 x 10 = $3000.
Shit. Now it looks like it saves less than it costs.
Back to Econ 101.
On the bright side, you're consuming less from the grid. This is a Good Thing.
As long as US teams continue to pay the top talent more than the teams in Japan and elsewhere, that will probably "hold to be true."
On the other hand, baseball's popularity is in steep decline in the US (momentarilly bolstered by the famous "home run race" a few years ago, but then sent back into the tank when both of those players, along with Barry Bonds, their closest rival, have been tied to cheating... either via chemical enhancements or corked bats), while in Japan they still love it (and spend tons of money on their favorite teams.)
I could see a day, sometime in the future, when washed-up Japan-league players come to the US, while the superstars all go to Japan.
Look , I personally use about 2.2 KWH, which means, that 3 x 1kw solar panels would give me 100% free power. and the power company would get ZERO, except excess.8kw i dont use.
So spend $3000 per HOUSE, which is what , 30000000000 dollars, 30billion.
Three questions:
1. Since this is such a great deal, I assume you have already done so, yes?
2. On the roof of my house in Minnesota, I'm lucky if I can keep my TV antenna intact for more than a couple years. How long would solar panels last up there?
3. Wouldn't you also need to spend a few grand on a battery big enough to get you through nights (and cloudy days)?
4. While my Mac, my home entertainment system, my fridge, and my lights all consume energy, it pales in comparison with the energy consumption of my car, and the natural gas used to heat my home in the winter. Why would I want to buy a $3000+ system which only saves me about $50 a month?
Show me a state other than South Dakota which has enough wind to meet the power needs of its population.
(Note: South Dakota is very windy, has few people, and is only using wind for part of their power needs... and even there, people are bitching about all the windmills which are now scattered all over their landscape.)
Scrubbers and CO2 injectors make coal burning less dirty (I stop short of ever calling it "clean"), but you still gotta rape the environment to get it out of the ground in any useful quantity.
Also, the reason why coal is so popular as an electrical fuel is because it's so cheap.
Make it "not that much more expensive than solar" (when solar is one of the most expensive methods per watt), and it suddenly has zero advantages over other systems (apart from lining the pockets of coal mine investors and coal mining labor union bosses, that is.)
I'm sneering at the laughable idea that conservation efforts can prevent us from needing to expand power-generation by leaps and bounds over the next 50 years.
If you are in the camp which believes that burning fossil fuels is hurting our environment right now, then you need to wake up to the fact that, unless we turn to renewable power in a big way (and nuclear power in an even bigger way), we're going to end up burning exponentially more dead dinosaurs in the near future.
Remembering to turn the hallway light off when you go to bed is a good idea, but it's not going to change the reality of the situation.
Most objections to nuclear power are driven by the coal industry, who stands to be the biggest loser if the US and UK move towards more nuclear power.
Anybody else who objects is simply echoing the fears which were fed to them by coal lobbyists.
Nuclear power is both safer and cleaner than coal. Anybody who rejects nuclear in favor of coal plants out of "environmental" concerns is either badly informed or deliberately lying.
Also, anybody who says we can avoid the need of nuclear power by just riding bikes, using a more efficient furnace, and holding hands while singing "Kum Ba Ya" is simply not looking at the real numbers of what our future power needs are, even after you account for a radical scaling back of elective consumption.
Statements from the second Clinton administration to the exact same effect would seem to indicate that the Clinton White House was also part of this "neocon" cabal.
The fact is that it looked a hell of a lot like Saddam probably had WMD's, and he DEFINITELY was hiding shit from inspectors, and he DEFINITELY failed to comply with UN orders. Furthermore we might never know for sure that he didn't have them at the time, because we will never know for sure what those converted commercial jets were carrying to Syria during the 9-month ramp-up to the war.
As for all this silly "if he had them why didn't he use them???" ranting: Poison gas is very effective at wiping out Kurdish villiages, but it's pretty damn useless against a tank charge by gas-mask equipped US troops. Nobody has ever invented a WMD that can stop an invading army. By their nature, they are not very handy when you are defending your own land.
Just out of curiosity, can you give more details? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know how that is taken out of context.
A couple verses earlier (Lev 19:19):
Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
If you are married and condemn gays as breaking God's law, go home and tell your wife that you intend to hold to this rule just as rigidly. G'head, I dare ya. If fact, tell her so WHILE she's having that period. Let her know that you are cutting her off because she's "unclean." I would love to be a fly on the wall when she reacts to such news.
While some of these laws (such as those against having sex with your immediate family) are pretty much common-sense good ideas, they served the specific purpose of setting the Jews apart from the people who lived on the land before them. Symbolic purity was an essential part of life in Israel. Leviticus is simply packed with instructions to always wear tassles on your clothes, never cut your earlocks, etc.
The very next chapter (Lev 20) begins with the 10 commandments, and immediately follows it up with:
Keep my decrees. 'Do not mate different kinds of animals. 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
So if you folow a strict legalistic interpretation of Judaic Law as if it applies to Christians, then geneticists, farmers who use crop rotation (which would be pretty much all of them), and those who wear cotton/polyester blends are every bit as sinful as homosexuals and crossdressers are in the eyes of God.
If you hold to the dogma that all unmarried sex, including masturbation, is sin, and furthermore hold to the dogma that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, then you could make the case that homosexuality is ungodly, because it's unmarried sexual activity.
But hold on... There's not a single page anywhere in the Bible which forbids you from spanking the monkey. Go ahead. Look for it. Take your time. There was one guy who was struck down for "spilling his seed", but that was a guy who was specifically commanded to have children in order to continue his bloodline, and didn't want to do so just yet, so he pulled out, figuring he would get more sex if he didn't get the woman pregnant right away.
Since nothing gays do with each other could ever possibly lead to procreation, are they really even having sex, as Hebrew law defines it? Sure, they are committing "Sodomy" and a whole lot of other things which require euphemisms when speaking in polite company, but is it actual sex if they are just getting each others' rocks off?
Former President Clinton would obviously say no.
So what we have here is an issue of dogma upon which reasonable Christian believers can disagree. One group or the other is completely wrong, so it's a lucky thing for them that both groups believe in a religion where they can afford to be wrong sometimes.
Yet again you are quoting out of context. Acts 21:25 is not an instruction for all Gentiles, but rather a local ruling made by a body of Jews regarding a small group of Gentiles in Jerusalem which Paul was ministering to. The ruling was made to appease critics who were saying that Paul was turning Jews away from traditional law. Allow me to rewind to 21:21 (using the New International Version translation) and put it in context:
21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
Note that the line "As for the Gentile believers," does not come from a passage of universal law or spiritual instruction, but rather from a passage which is quoting the instruction of one group of believers to Paul (and said passage makes no judgement about whether their instruciton was the wisest course of action... in fact, following their instructions later results in a lot of trouble for Paul), and only pertains to a specific group of recent non-Jewish converts which they became aware of and were generally happy about, but also alarmed over.
Good. Then be a man and PAY for it. Yup. Rather than borrow that cash, ASK for taxes to be raised to pay for what you think is fine, pay for it.
Go on. Show us your tax returns where you took all the money you made and gave it to the Government to pay for what you consider is a good idea.
Anything less shows you are a moral coward.
I'm already paying for debt left over from WW II and Korea, both good ideas, and Viet Nam (perhaps not a good idea, but it seemed needed at the time), and I don't mind, because the world is a better place as a result of our involvement.
Likewise, I've got no problem with your snot-nosed kid helping carry the cost of the current war when he grows up. Sorry, I just don't.
The question remains though whether members of the US's administration wanted to go to war with Iraq and magically found evidence to support that.
Seeing as the WMD evidence that got trotted out was mostly info the CIA got from the intel services of allied countries, I think you are giving the hawks like Wolfowitz waaaaay to much credit for mad puppet-master skillz if you're going to insist that they manufactured it.
It is valid if you want to say that they chose which evidence to believe based upon what they wanted to hear, but I would come back and say it's just as likely that they chose based on Saddam's history as a WMD user, and a disposition of wanting to err on the side of caution.
Going to war when there are no WMD stockpiles is bad. Not doing so when there are is worse. They looked at the evidence and said "there might be" and made the call. Personally, I'm glad Saddam was overthrown regardless of the status of his WMD programs at that particular moment, but if you feel otherwise I could see why you would judge the call they made in a much harsher light than I do.
They've been out for a while now. For somebody who sounds so certain about themselves, it doesn't appear you are making much of an effort to stay informed.
these will be as accurate as Colin powells presentation of satellite photos at the UN and all the other fake evidence
Those photos were real photos. Whether they drew the right conclusions from them is open to debate, but Colin Powell didn't present fake evidence. That would be Dan Rather.
Do US Marines get paid for their service? Does their service include fighting in wars? If so, then they are soldiers, because that's what the word soldier originally means: one who gets paid to fight.
Also, isn't it kind of silly to call somebody in the US Navy a "sailor"? When was the last time the US went to war in a sailboat? Would a typical Navy man even know how to work a sail?
Anyway, here's my opinionn of how it should go:
If you are in the ARMY you are a "HERO" If you are in the NAVY you are a "HERO" If you are in the MARINES you are a "HERO" If you are in the AIR FORCE you are a "HERO"
Hats off to all of our fighting men and women, regardless of job title.
I think he's confusing the Superbowl with baseball's "World Series."
However, there are Canadian teams in American Major League Baseball, and most of the best players from around the world play in our league, so the winner of the World Series typically is likely the be the world's best baseball team.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he was trying to say is that, prior to the existence of on-line services, the word "subscription" was usually taken to mean that you are buying multiple issues of a periodical in advance. You always used to get ownership of whatever it is you were subscribing for.
He's not wrong... but the reality is that the definition of the word has broadened to include limited-use services, such as XM radio, Rhapsody, and NetFlix.
That only determines where the best players come from.
The Americans losing (not likely, with that line-up, but possible) would not disprove my point that the best US major league team, which is likely to be made up of players from all over the globe, is probably the best team in the world for any given year.
2. On the roof of my house in Minnesota, I'm lucky if I can keep my TV antenna intact for more than a couple years. How long would solar panels last up there?
If your roof angle matches the angle needed, the panels should be bolted to the roof. Now your system has roughly the same aerodynamics. (as is in my instal on a normal (not steep)sloped roof)Also if wind is an issue, you should consider a small wind turbine too.
First of all, my roof angle does not match. Secondly, wind is not my concern.
Sleet, ice, and heavy snow is my concern.
Multiply $50 x 12 x life of your home. (lets say 40 years to be conservative)
I'm a bachelor living in a small-ish suburban home. The odds are extremely slim that I'm going to live in this house for 40 years. Let's run your numbers again, but for 10 years (being optimistic about how long the panels hold up to Minnesota winters.)
$50 x 12 x 10 = $6000.
At least I'm lucky enough to live in a nice neighborhood. I have friends who wouldn't want to put a $20 garden gnome outside their house, let alone a $3000 easy-to-damage solar array.
Now, since I don't have $3000 just lying around, I'm going to BORROW that $3000 which you conservatively estimated to be the cost of solar panels (ignoring the cost of installation, since I am neither a carpenter nor an electrician). I don't want to take out a lien on my house, so we are talking credit cards or personal loans here.
What's 12% interest on $3000 over ten years?
and though I live in Rainy Western Washington, I still get a very signifigant savings.
"Savings"??? You mean it doesn't cover 100% of that $50 a month we were talking about? Okay, time to do the math again.
Let's say it gives you a 50% savings.
$25 x 12 x 10 = $3000.
Shit. Now it looks like it saves less than it costs.
Back to Econ 101.
On the bright side, you're consuming less from the grid. This is a Good Thing.
As long as US teams continue to pay the top talent more than the teams in Japan and elsewhere, that will probably "hold to be true."
On the other hand, baseball's popularity is in steep decline in the US (momentarilly bolstered by the famous "home run race" a few years ago, but then sent back into the tank when both of those players, along with Barry Bonds, their closest rival, have been tied to cheating... either via chemical enhancements or corked bats), while in Japan they still love it (and spend tons of money on their favorite teams.)
I could see a day, sometime in the future, when washed-up Japan-league players come to the US, while the superstars all go to Japan.
Four! Four questions!
Wait, I'll start again.
*leaves the room*
*bursts in*
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!
Look , I personally use about 2.2 KWH, which means, that 3 x 1kw solar panels would give me 100% free power. .8kw i dont use.
and the power company would get ZERO, except excess
So spend $3000 per HOUSE, which is what , 30000000000 dollars, 30billion.
Three questions:
1. Since this is such a great deal, I assume you have already done so, yes?
2. On the roof of my house in Minnesota, I'm lucky if I can keep my TV antenna intact for more than a couple years. How long would solar panels last up there?
3. Wouldn't you also need to spend a few grand on a battery big enough to get you through nights (and cloudy days)?
4. While my Mac, my home entertainment system, my fridge, and my lights all consume energy, it pales in comparison with the energy consumption of my car, and the natural gas used to heat my home in the winter. Why would I want to buy a $3000+ system which only saves me about $50 a month?
Show me a wind farm that produces emissions
Show me a state other than South Dakota which has enough wind to meet the power needs of its population.
(Note: South Dakota is very windy, has few people, and is only using wind for part of their power needs... and even there, people are bitching about all the windmills which are now scattered all over their landscape.)
Scrubbers and CO2 injectors make coal burning less dirty (I stop short of ever calling it "clean"), but you still gotta rape the environment to get it out of the ground in any useful quantity.
Also, the reason why coal is so popular as an electrical fuel is because it's so cheap.
Make it "not that much more expensive than solar" (when solar is one of the most expensive methods per watt), and it suddenly has zero advantages over other systems (apart from lining the pockets of coal mine investors and coal mining labor union bosses, that is.)
OK, but why sneer at methods of conservation?
I'm doing no such thing.
I'm sneering at the laughable idea that conservation efforts can prevent us from needing to expand power-generation by leaps and bounds over the next 50 years.
If you are in the camp which believes that burning fossil fuels is hurting our environment right now, then you need to wake up to the fact that, unless we turn to renewable power in a big way (and nuclear power in an even bigger way), we're going to end up burning exponentially more dead dinosaurs in the near future.
Remembering to turn the hallway light off when you go to bed is a good idea, but it's not going to change the reality of the situation.
If only I hadn't used all my points yesterday, I'd mod you up so fast you wouldn't know what had hit you.
Why?
Because he thinks nuclear energy comes from fossil fuels!?
Because he thinks a few nuclear waste sites represent a greater threat to future generations than unspent uranium lying around in unused ICBMs!?
Because he's worried that solar energy will cook us to death!?
Oh... I get it. You mean you would mod him up "+1, Funny."
For some reason, I heard that in my head as read by John C. McGinley from Scrubs.
I'm actually going to take that as a compliment, Brittany.
Follow the money.
Most objections to nuclear power are driven by the coal industry, who stands to be the biggest loser if the US and UK move towards more nuclear power.
Anybody else who objects is simply echoing the fears which were fed to them by coal lobbyists.
Nuclear power is both safer and cleaner than coal. Anybody who rejects nuclear in favor of coal plants out of "environmental" concerns is either badly informed or deliberately lying.
Also, anybody who says we can avoid the need of nuclear power by just riding bikes, using a more efficient furnace, and holding hands while singing "Kum Ba Ya" is simply not looking at the real numbers of what our future power needs are, even after you account for a radical scaling back of elective consumption.
Huh. I just realized that, within the same thread, I spoke up in favor of both the invasion of Iraq and religious tollerance of gays.
:)
Fred Phelps must consider me the most evil man alive.
That makes me feel all warm and happy inside.
Yeah, I saw that episode of "Frontline" too.
Statements from the second Clinton administration to the exact same effect would seem to indicate that the Clinton White House was also part of this "neocon" cabal.
The fact is that it looked a hell of a lot like Saddam probably had WMD's, and he DEFINITELY was hiding shit from inspectors, and he DEFINITELY failed to comply with UN orders. Furthermore we might never know for sure that he didn't have them at the time, because we will never know for sure what those converted commercial jets were carrying to Syria during the 9-month ramp-up to the war.
As for all this silly "if he had them why didn't he use them???" ranting: Poison gas is very effective at wiping out Kurdish villiages, but it's pretty damn useless against a tank charge by gas-mask equipped US troops. Nobody has ever invented a WMD that can stop an invading army. By their nature, they are not very handy when you are defending your own land.
A couple verses earlier (Lev 19:19):
If you are married and condemn gays as breaking God's law, go home and tell your wife that you intend to hold to this rule just as rigidly. G'head, I dare ya. If fact, tell her so WHILE she's having that period. Let her know that you are cutting her off because she's "unclean." I would love to be a fly on the wall when she reacts to such news.
While some of these laws (such as those against having sex with your immediate family) are pretty much common-sense good ideas, they served the specific purpose of setting the Jews apart from the people who lived on the land before them. Symbolic purity was an essential part of life in Israel. Leviticus is simply packed with instructions to always wear tassles on your clothes, never cut your earlocks, etc.
The very next chapter (Lev 20) begins with the 10 commandments, and immediately follows it up with:
So if you folow a strict legalistic interpretation of Judaic Law as if it applies to Christians, then geneticists, farmers who use crop rotation (which would be pretty much all of them), and those who wear cotton/polyester blends are every bit as sinful as homosexuals and crossdressers are in the eyes of God.
If you hold to the dogma that all unmarried sex, including masturbation, is sin, and furthermore hold to the dogma that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, then you could make the case that homosexuality is ungodly, because it's unmarried sexual activity.
But hold on... There's not a single page anywhere in the Bible which forbids you from spanking the monkey. Go ahead. Look for it. Take your time. There was one guy who was struck down for "spilling his seed", but that was a guy who was specifically commanded to have children in order to continue his bloodline, and didn't want to do so just yet, so he pulled out, figuring he would get more sex if he didn't get the woman pregnant right away.
Since nothing gays do with each other could ever possibly lead to procreation, are they really even having sex, as Hebrew law defines it? Sure, they are committing "Sodomy" and a whole lot of other things which require euphemisms when speaking in polite company, but is it actual sex if they are just getting each others' rocks off?
Former President Clinton would obviously say no.
So what we have here is an issue of dogma upon which reasonable Christian believers can disagree. One group or the other is completely wrong, so it's a lucky thing for them that both groups believe in a religion where they can afford to be wrong sometimes.
Note that the line "As for the Gentile believers," does not come from a passage of universal law or spiritual instruction, but rather from a passage which is quoting the instruction of one group of believers to Paul (and said passage makes no judgement about whether their instruciton was the wisest course of action... in fact, following their instructions later results in a lot of trouble for Paul), and only pertains to a specific group of recent non-Jewish converts which they became aware of and were generally happy about, but also alarmed over.
I played French Horn for decades
Ooo... Got a good one for you:
Q: How do you make a trombone sound like a french horn?
A: Stick your hand in the bell and play wrong notes.
Zing!
As I said, far from a smoking gun.
Good. Then be a man and PAY for it. Yup. Rather than borrow that cash, ASK for taxes to be raised to pay for what you think is fine, pay for it.
Go on. Show us your tax returns where you took all the money you made and gave it to the Government to pay for what you consider is a good idea.
Anything less shows you are a moral coward.
I'm already paying for debt left over from WW II and Korea, both good ideas, and Viet Nam (perhaps not a good idea, but it seemed needed at the time), and I don't mind, because the world is a better place as a result of our involvement.
Likewise, I've got no problem with your snot-nosed kid helping carry the cost of the current war when he grows up. Sorry, I just don't.
If today's california condor isn't well suited in the modern environment; wouldn't it be better to grow better ones more able to survive?
No, you fool! If you do that, NOTHING will stop them! We'd be doooooomed!!!
The question remains though whether members of the US's administration wanted to go to war with Iraq and magically found evidence to support that.
Seeing as the WMD evidence that got trotted out was mostly info the CIA got from the intel services of allied countries, I think you are giving the hawks like Wolfowitz waaaaay to much credit for mad puppet-master skillz if you're going to insist that they manufactured it.
It is valid if you want to say that they chose which evidence to believe based upon what they wanted to hear, but I would come back and say it's just as likely that they chose based on Saddam's history as a WMD user, and a disposition of wanting to err on the side of caution.
Going to war when there are no WMD stockpiles is bad. Not doing so when there are is worse. They looked at the evidence and said "there might be" and made the call. Personally, I'm glad Saddam was overthrown regardless of the status of his WMD programs at that particular moment, but if you feel otherwise I could see why you would judge the call they made in a much harsher light than I do.
Let me guess
They've been out for a while now. For somebody who sounds so certain about themselves, it doesn't appear you are making much of an effort to stay informed.
these will be as accurate as Colin powells presentation of satellite photos at the UN and all the other fake evidence
Those photos were real photos. Whether they drew the right conclusions from them is open to debate, but Colin Powell didn't present fake evidence. That would be Dan Rather.
Perhaps the sarcasm itself contains something insightful? It could happen.
;)
I totally agree.
It didn't happen in this case, but I totally agree that it could.
Do US Marines get paid for their service? Does their service include fighting in wars? If so, then they are soldiers, because that's what the word soldier originally means: one who gets paid to fight.
Also, isn't it kind of silly to call somebody in the US Navy a "sailor"? When was the last time the US went to war in a sailboat? Would a typical Navy man even know how to work a sail?
Anyway, here's my opinionn of how it should go:
If you are in the ARMY you are a "HERO"
If you are in the NAVY you are a "HERO"
If you are in the MARINES you are a "HERO"
If you are in the AIR FORCE you are a "HERO"
Hats off to all of our fighting men and women, regardless of job title.
I think he's confusing the Superbowl with baseball's "World Series."
However, there are Canadian teams in American Major League Baseball, and most of the best players from around the world play in our league, so the winner of the World Series typically is likely the be the world's best baseball team.