No, milita groups are gun wielding crazies. These Social-Justice Activists are interested in increasing peace and displacing in-justice. The latter may threaten middle-class-consumer-america, but they are certainly not Anti-Social.
Sure, through gasoline taxes. no, roads are paid (in canada) by a combo of fed/prov/municple tax, someofwhich comes from a at-the-pump tax. why do non-car owners pay for roads? Yep, they pay for that cost when they buy the cotton.
do they pay to replace the Ecology they destroy? species made extinct? the hundred year old trees? No, that has no 'value' in your economy.
The ones that they put there? They sure better. On the other hand, if you put the cups there, that's your problem. no, im talking about the 'convenience' cups they provide, the paper one-use disposable ones that goto landfills and float on beaches and collect in my garden... when they pay $0.03 per cup, are they REALLY considering all this? No.
Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't.
Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't. really, here is a simple question -- as an example -- Is there anyone *selling* access to throw something into the garbage? The cost of a dump is *MUCH* greater than the land it happens to sit on. Furhter, all that disposable-stuff had to be made in the first place, did the cup-manufacturer pay for the real, long-term health/environmental cost of the item? or did they simply vent the process into the atmosphere?
BTW, ive taken quite a few economics courses - your either A) a moron or B) intentionally missing the point.
determining the cost to society of a product we buy. That is - the cost of the product!
except that we dont - does the lcoal factory pay for the air pollution it causes? does mcblondblands pay for the increased health costs of its obese patients? does the auto-driver (solely) pay the cost of the roads (s)he uses? does the yacht owner pay for the oil he spills in the lake? does the gap pay to replace the forest that was cut to grow cotton for the 1231th needless pc of clothing the average-western-teenager DOESNT NEED (it brainwashes the unwashed masses to believe they NEED %something%)? does the local starbucks come and pick up the trash-paper-cups from my yard?
so, in the end, we have a economic system that doesnt account - completely - for all the costs... our Capitalist system EXTERNALIZES and SOCIALIZES costs and INTERNALIZES profit.
What actions are that? You don't know me, and you don't know what my actions are.
just as you cant brand Treehuggers hypocrites. Simple.
Do you have any data backing up whether or not that is more energy efficient? I would think that communal cooking would be much more energy efficient than individualized cooking.
Organic, locally produced foods are unprocessed, better for you (free of chemicals), more-nutritionally-rich (fresher), better for the environment (dont contribute to pollution), dont require transportation (ie: boxed and driven across hell's-half-acre), maintain biodiversity because local-farmers maintain heritage varieties. You support decentralized control which helps avoid the corporatization* of the food supply (pay or starve scenario's by the mega-wealthy)... etc etc.
as for chain foods, they are nutritionally appalling (bad for you), again, you supporting a system of centralized control (by people with perpendicular motivations to their efforts (making money is unrelated to feeding people)), chain restaurants rely on packaged/processed foods shipped from afar, use disposable everything, pay people minimum wage and crush union efforts. chain-restaurants are a product (and source) of marketing bombardment and encourage consumer culture, these are also wasteful. Advertising is meant to coerce, to lead you to a decision that benefits someone's selfish motivation. The Mental Environment suffers because of it.
...as for communal cooking (or central food-prep) vs. individual cooking... im sure a Intentional Community's central cooking facility one within a short walk of a few hundred people is an environmental benefit. But im willing to bet that the idea that everyone should jump in their Internal-Combustion-Engine powered car and drive down to a %burger_joint% far overcomes the savings in your proposed-scenario. *
Bullshit. Tell that the the Artists whos items cant be sold @ Walmart because the content is deemed inappropriate. Censorship can be done by any powerfull body. How about the Orwellian Newspeak that pumps out of ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN,..,.. every day that parrots Washington's Official State Position? Id say that is Censorship of Public Discourse, and just as much censorship as crossing out the naughty bits in unsavoury books.
What, that the environmentalists are hypocrites who waste just as much energy as the rest of us
Well, without engaging your 8th grade debate technique, Ill simply say your probably pretty wrong.
Im as green as they come, a #1 tree-hugger, and I can tell you, I watch my coworkers, neighbours and family pollute and waste endlessly. Try riding your bike to work. Leave bags and packaging on the counter at the grocer. Grow a garden. Compost. Recycle. Pick up random trash when walking in parks and put them in your pocket. Dont use paint where you dont have to. Plant trees. Use an electric lawnmower (infrequently enough to get letters from city-hall). Let 90% of your lawn grow at its own will. Have your shoes repaired. Buy organic-cotten clothing at a co-operative. By organic groceries and support local farmers. Dont eat at chain-restaurants.
...and tell loud-mouthes on slashdot -- who call OTHERS HYPOCRITES TO SATIFSY THEIR OWN GUILT AND PROVIDE SHALLOW-JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR OWN MISDEEDS to @#$@-Off.
Im not greener-than-though pal, but I resent the implied justification for your OWN ACTIONS you present by calling someone a hypocrite.
distribution (or your idea of such) then it wouldn't be capitialism now, would it
Why wouldnt it? What do you think a law stating "two people in the same firm cannot be paid more than 3x wage difference" would accomplish? you could still allow sale at as profit (capitalism) but it would have bounds...
Your views sound very (socialistic||communistic)
what i said has nothing to do with either - though, you might find that some Socialists or Communists (of which I am the former (and only realism prevents the latter)) might find such a "Law" (or convenction or whatever) favourable.
Also keep in mind that they are individuals spending their own money
im willing to bet that these people didnt earn $100million by individual labour. Im sure there were allot of people who contributed to their wealth... now, if there were a fair/equitable distribution of the benefits of Capitalism, you wouldnt have Mega-Super-Filthy-Rich like these who can squander MASSIVE resources (again, that they did not actually "create" themselves). Have you ever heard "Workers create Wealth" or "Tax the Rich"?
These people rely on E-X-P-L-O-I-T-A-T-I-O-N to get the resources for these flights of fancy... and we allow it to happen...
the teams competing will drop collectively over $700 million
thats $100Million more than the United States gives to all of Africa in Aid each year... (but less than a quarter of the aid to Isreal... odd that.. most of wich is spent on good-old-yankee arms and such anyway...)
When considering the crime youve been 'convicted' of; my question is simple: Why goto jail at all? If you are presently on the outside, why not skip out of the country altogether?
Ive considered it in the past, going to jail is simply not an option for myself -- Why dont you go down to Mexico and get out of North America?
Oh, the poster forgot, OnTopic Humour is not permitted in this time of National Emergency(TM) because it is Critical of the President.
A Re-Education team will be arriving to inject this Terrorist with an appropriate amount of good old Ignorant-Myopic-American-Jingoism(TM) in short order.
In closing, Fuck GWB, he is the saddest leader your nation has ever had - i dont where exactly the blame lies, but you Yanks got what you deserve I 'spose.
oh, btw: This is ontopic (Bush's position on Independent Science and people's support/disapproval).. maybe a flame, but I prefer the term "Passionate".
further, ive got lots of karma, ill repost this +2 over and over and over - i dont care if it offends your present desire to destroy all discourse critical of your current Plutocratic Leader.
This post deserves an off-mod no more than the parent deserved a +1 insightful.
Ok, Repost 1 - Ill continue putting this up until the parent gets its '+1' removed.
Oh, the poster forgot, OnTopic Humour is not permitted in this time of National Emergency(TM) because it is Critical of the President.
A Re-Education team will be arriving to inject this Terrorist with an appropriate amount of good old Ignorant-Myopic-American-Jingoism(TM) in short order.
In closing, Fuck GWB, he is the saddest leader your nation has ever had - i dont where exactly the blame lies, but you Yanks got what you deserve I 'spose.
oh, btw: This is ontopic (Bush's position on Independent Science and people's support/disapproval).. maybe a flame, but I prefer the term "Passionate".
further, ive got lots of karma, ill repost this +2 over and over and over - i dont care if it offends your present desire to destroy all discourse critical of your current Plutocratic Leader.
This post deserves an off-mod no more than the parent deserved a +1 insightful.
This change is to remove a bewildering either-or choice that paralyzes many newcomers
this is a very excellent point, new users will arrive with a Gnome / KDE that look very similar... now, they might like some wm or other, or maybe GTK theme or somesuch that looks sexy, or simple or whatever TO THEM, but they arrive at all the (still existing) GNU/Linux Desktop GUI opportunities all the same..
when new users are forced to make the choice that seems somewhat arbitrary (at that point (the beginner, newbie)) that it seems confusing.. more capable users will discover Bonobo and DCOP (and other real fundemental KDE/Gnome differences) in due time.. but why force the issue..? and why make a few icons an issue..? dont like something, well, they can change it.
Further, think of some of the more cluefull (l)users you know with-regards-to their W2K or WXP systems... some of them will take what MS shipped, decide its ugly and change it, with themes, screenies, desktop-backgrounds (whatever) while others will use the standard look-feel.
less cluefull users will encounter a desktop that is farmiliar -- and because they are LESS CAPABLE and DONT UNDERSTAND their 'puter all that much, this IS A GOOD THING - they will not be needlessly alarmed. While other users, who want to trick out their desktop will still do so...
Another way to think of it is this: a new user chooses "KDE" as the default at installation; will they ever arrive at the Gnome opportunities if they lock themselves and their discovery into the KDE world and vice-versa? What RH is doing is making the 'starting' point as similar as possible - this actually expands the users options in future.
but I'm not going to build a DVD collection, I'm going to rent. I look at my current collections and see thousands of dollars that could have been used much more wisely.
One Word: Library
I have sworn off buying books, movies and cds. I borrow ALL media -- for free -- at my Local Library
How can you predict in advance, and with a straight face, that a government-sponsored development contract is going to end up costing less PER GOVERNMENT SEAT than buying Outlook? You can't.
I work for a massive company (Top 5 in size worldwide), in IT. There is *NOTHING* inherently efficient about private enterprise that drives out costs. Conversely, there is *NOTHING* inherent in Government work that makes them inefficient. Any notion otherwise is assumed based on pre-disposition.
The German government may not care whether the project succeeds or fails, BECAUSE it is not spending its own money
yes it is. Its spending tax money. The money it collects from willing participants in the community to serve the public good. Dont like the direction/actions of teh Gov. w/r/t furthering public good? Participate.(note, some countries have a more participatory method of governance than the US.. be mindfull of your myopia)
The Germany government is neither a non-profit, nor a charitable entity. Its funding does not come from the voluntary contributions of its citizens, but from forced taxation
wrong. Germans could elect a government that promised to end taxation. they wouldnt do this because Communities (the Nation of Germany) requires public administration, services for the public good, infrastructure etc etc etc. USA-NeoLibertarianism fantasy aside, you cannot live in a modern society without taxation (or some other method of pooling intention).
You *really* need to get the Gummint McCarthy-Inspired paranoia out of your head. It is not some other-world entity existing in a void, it is a body, run by people with good intentions. Why the fear?
what? it sounds like a national government doing public-good.
not everyone or every country believes that all needs should be met by private-for-profit entities.. only americans (like you probably are) would find this at all a problem...
personally - i think its *terrific * news.
(oh, btw, did you know that the DoD (your gummint) floats ALOT of subsidy to private USA companies..?)
Slashdot Mirror
No, milita groups are gun wielding crazies. These Social-Justice Activists are interested in increasing peace and displacing in-justice. The latter may threaten middle-class-consumer-america, but they are certainly not Anti-Social.
Yep - through taxes
nope, absolutely untrue.
Sure, through gasoline taxes.
no, roads are paid (in canada) by a combo of fed/prov/municple tax, someofwhich comes from a at-the-pump tax. why do non-car owners pay for roads?
Yep, they pay for that cost when they buy the cotton.
do they pay to replace the Ecology they destroy? species made extinct? the hundred year old trees? No, that has no 'value' in your economy.
The ones that they put there? They sure better. On the other hand, if you put the cups there, that's your problem.
no, im talking about the 'convenience' cups they provide, the paper one-use disposable ones that goto landfills and float on beaches and collect in my garden... when they pay $0.03 per cup, are they REALLY considering all this? No.
Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't.
Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't.
really, here is a simple question -- as an example -- Is there anyone *selling* access to throw something into the garbage? The cost of a dump is *MUCH* greater than the land it happens to sit on. Furhter, all that disposable-stuff had to be made in the first place, did the cup-manufacturer pay for the real, long-term health/environmental cost of the item? or did they simply vent the process into the atmosphere?
BTW, ive taken quite a few economics courses - your either A) a moron or B) intentionally missing the point.
Have a look here for more info
determining the cost to society of a product we buy. That is - the cost of the product!
except that we dont - does the lcoal factory pay for the air pollution it causes? does mcblondblands pay for the increased health costs of its obese patients? does the auto-driver (solely) pay the cost of the roads (s)he uses? does the yacht owner pay for the oil he spills in the lake? does the gap pay to replace the forest that was cut to grow cotton for the 1231th needless pc of clothing the average-western-teenager DOESNT NEED (it brainwashes the unwashed masses to believe they NEED %something%)? does the local starbucks come and pick up the trash-paper-cups from my yard?
so, in the end, we have a economic system that doesnt account - completely - for all the costs... our Capitalist system EXTERNALIZES and SOCIALIZES costs and INTERNALIZES profit.
do you see the disconnect?
What actions are that? You don't know me, and you don't know what my actions are.
just as you cant brand Treehuggers hypocrites. Simple.
Do you have any data backing up whether or not that is more energy efficient? I would think that communal cooking would be much more energy efficient than individualized cooking.
Organic, locally produced foods are unprocessed, better for you (free of chemicals), more-nutritionally-rich (fresher), better for the environment (dont contribute to pollution), dont require transportation (ie: boxed and driven across hell's-half-acre), maintain biodiversity because local-farmers maintain heritage varieties. You support decentralized control which helps avoid the corporatization* of the food supply (pay or starve scenario's by the mega-wealthy)... etc etc.
as for chain foods, they are nutritionally appalling (bad for you), again, you supporting a system of centralized control (by people with perpendicular motivations to their efforts (making money is unrelated to feeding people)), chain restaurants rely on packaged/processed foods shipped from afar, use disposable everything, pay people minimum wage and crush union efforts. chain-restaurants are a product (and source) of marketing bombardment and encourage consumer culture, these are also wasteful. Advertising is meant to coerce, to lead you to a decision that benefits someone's selfish motivation. The Mental Environment suffers because of it.
...as for communal cooking (or central food-prep) vs. individual cooking... im sure a Intentional Community's central cooking facility one within a short walk of a few hundred people is an environmental benefit. But im willing to bet that the idea that everyone should jump in their Internal-Combustion-Engine powered car and drive down to a %burger_joint% far overcomes the savings in your proposed-scenario.
*
Only a government can censor.
Bullshit. Tell that the the Artists whos items cant be sold @ Walmart because the content is deemed inappropriate. Censorship can be done by any powerfull body. How about the Orwellian Newspeak that pumps out of ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN,..,.. every day that parrots Washington's Official State Position? Id say that is Censorship of Public Discourse, and just as much censorship as crossing out the naughty bits in unsavoury books.
What, that the environmentalists are hypocrites who waste just as much energy as the rest of us
.
Well, without engaging your 8th grade debate technique, Ill simply say your probably pretty wrong.
Im as green as they come, a #1 tree-hugger, and I can tell you, I watch my coworkers, neighbours and family pollute and waste endlessly. Try riding your bike to work. Leave bags and packaging on the counter at the grocer. Grow a garden. Compost. Recycle. Pick up random trash when walking in parks and put them in your pocket. Dont use paint where you dont have to. Plant trees. Use an electric lawnmower (infrequently enough to get letters from city-hall). Let 90% of your lawn grow at its own will. Have your shoes repaired. Buy organic-cotten clothing at a co-operative. By organic groceries and support local farmers. Dont eat at chain-restaurants.
...and tell loud-mouthes on slashdot -- who call OTHERS HYPOCRITES TO SATIFSY THEIR OWN GUILT AND PROVIDE SHALLOW-JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR OWN MISDEEDS to @#$@-Off
Im not greener-than-though pal, but I resent the implied justification for your OWN ACTIONS you present by calling someone a hypocrite.
"If I was able to see farther, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." - Sir I.Newton.
distribution (or your idea of such) then it wouldn't be capitialism now, would it
Why wouldnt it? What do you think a law stating "two people in the same firm cannot be paid more than 3x wage difference" would accomplish? you could still allow sale at as profit (capitalism) but it would have bounds...
Your views sound very (socialistic||communistic)
what i said has nothing to do with either - though, you might find that some Socialists or Communists (of which I am the former (and only realism prevents the latter)) might find such a "Law" (or convenction or whatever) favourable.
Also keep in mind that they are individuals spending their own money
im willing to bet that these people didnt earn $100million by individual labour. Im sure there were allot of people who contributed to their wealth... now, if there were a fair/equitable distribution of the benefits of Capitalism, you wouldnt have Mega-Super-Filthy-Rich like these who can squander MASSIVE resources (again, that they did not actually "create" themselves). Have you ever heard "Workers create Wealth" or "Tax the Rich"?
These people rely on E-X-P-L-O-I-T-A-T-I-O-N to get the resources for these flights of fancy... and we allow it to happen...
plain and simple.
the teams competing will drop collectively over $700 million
thats $100Million more than the United States gives to all of Africa in Aid each year... (but less than a quarter of the aid to Isreal... odd that.. most of wich is spent on good-old-yankee arms and such anyway...)
hmmmm, priorities...
hey, i just got that board... theyve replaced it w/ a7v400 (i believe).. outta date after 4 weeks...
most newer MBs have clockspeeds set in BIOS... my new Asus A7V333 is one such board - im sure its not unique (my old asus for a P2 was that way).
When considering the crime youve been 'convicted' of; my question is simple: Why goto jail at all? If you are presently on the outside, why not skip out of the country altogether?
Ive considered it in the past, going to jail is simply not an option for myself -- Why dont you go down to Mexico and get out of North America?
Oh, the poster forgot, OnTopic Humour is not permitted in this time of National Emergency(TM) because it is Critical of the President.
A Re-Education team will be arriving to inject this Terrorist with an appropriate amount of good old Ignorant-Myopic-American-Jingoism(TM) in short order.
In closing, Fuck GWB, he is the saddest leader your nation has ever had - i dont where exactly the blame lies, but you Yanks got what you deserve I 'spose.
oh, btw: This is ontopic (Bush's position on Independent Science and people's support/disapproval).. maybe a flame, but I prefer the term "Passionate".
further, ive got lots of karma, ill repost this +2 over and over and over - i dont care if it offends your present desire to destroy all discourse critical of your current Plutocratic Leader.
This post deserves an off-mod no more than the parent deserved a +1 insightful.
Ok, Repost 1 - Ill continue putting this up until the parent gets its '+1' removed.
Oh, the poster forgot, OnTopic Humour is not permitted in this time of National Emergency(TM) because it is Critical of the President.
A Re-Education team will be arriving to inject this Terrorist with an appropriate amount of good old Ignorant-Myopic-American-Jingoism(TM) in short order.
In closing, Fuck GWB, he is the saddest leader your nation has ever had - i dont where exactly the blame lies, but you Yanks got what you deserve I 'spose.
oh, btw: This is ontopic (Bush's position on Independent Science and people's support/disapproval).. maybe a flame, but I prefer the term "Passionate".
further, ive got lots of karma, ill repost this +2 over and over and over - i dont care if it offends your present desire to destroy all discourse critical of your current Plutocratic Leader.
This post deserves an off-mod no more than the parent deserved a +1 insightful.
Well, it would make sense that if you want total control you remove the existance/relevance of a Free and Independant Academia.
All aboard the Totalitarianism Train, next stop: Fascism! TOOT! TOOT!
branded food
how is Food different from Branded Food? When did 'branding' change food?
the whole concept sickens me... sent shivers down my spine when I read that...
...and if you live in Canada, you can legally copy music CDs to CDR(W)s for yourself..
you pay a duty on the blank media* already, you might as well take advantage of that.
*personally, i dont agree with that, but it is the present case.
This change is to remove a bewildering either-or choice that paralyzes many newcomers
this is a very excellent point, new users will arrive with a Gnome / KDE that look very similar... now, they might like some wm or other, or maybe GTK theme or somesuch that looks sexy, or simple or whatever TO THEM, but they arrive at all the (still existing) GNU/Linux Desktop GUI opportunities all the same..
when new users are forced to make the choice that seems somewhat arbitrary (at that point (the beginner, newbie)) that it seems confusing.. more capable users will discover Bonobo and DCOP (and other real fundemental KDE/Gnome differences) in due time.. but why force the issue..? and why make a few icons an issue..? dont like something, well, they can change it.
Further, think of some of the more cluefull (l)users you know with-regards-to their W2K or WXP systems... some of them will take what MS shipped, decide its ugly and change it, with themes, screenies, desktop-backgrounds (whatever) while others will use the standard look-feel.
less cluefull users will encounter a desktop that is farmiliar -- and because they are LESS CAPABLE and DONT UNDERSTAND their 'puter all that much, this IS A GOOD THING - they will not be needlessly alarmed.
While other users, who want to trick out their desktop will still do so...
Another way to think of it is this: a new user chooses "KDE" as the default at installation; will they ever arrive at the Gnome opportunities if they lock themselves and their discovery into the KDE world and vice-versa? What RH is doing is making the 'starting' point as similar as possible - this actually expands the users options in future.
but I'm not going to build a DVD collection, I'm going to rent. I look at my current collections and see thousands of dollars that could have been used much more wisely.
One Word: Library
I have sworn off buying books, movies and cds. I borrow ALL media -- for free -- at my Local Library
Where Information is free.
little "tiger beat" or whatever players that just play Britney Spears and you can get them at McDonald's.
anyone have more info on these..?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
isnt this a good idea?
i mean, really, having something dependable/stable/reliable is much more important than extravigance...
am i missing your point..?
How can you predict in advance, and with a straight face, that a government-sponsored development contract is going to end up costing less PER GOVERNMENT SEAT than buying Outlook? You can't.
I work for a massive company (Top 5 in size worldwide), in IT. There is *NOTHING* inherently efficient about private enterprise that drives out costs. Conversely, there is *NOTHING* inherent in Government work that makes them inefficient. Any notion otherwise is assumed based on pre-disposition.
The German government may not care whether the project succeeds or fails, BECAUSE it is not spending its own money
yes it is. Its spending tax money. The money it collects from willing participants in the community to serve the public good. Dont like the direction/actions of teh Gov. w/r/t furthering public good? Participate.(note, some countries have a more participatory method of governance than the US.. be mindfull of your myopia)
The Germany government is neither a non-profit, nor a charitable entity. Its funding does not come from the voluntary contributions of its citizens, but from forced taxation
wrong. Germans could elect a government that promised to end taxation. they wouldnt do this because Communities (the Nation of Germany) requires public administration, services for the public good, infrastructure etc etc etc. USA-NeoLibertarianism fantasy aside, you cannot live in a modern society without taxation (or some other method of pooling intention).
You *really* need to get the Gummint McCarthy-Inspired paranoia out of your head. It is not some other-world entity existing in a void, it is a body, run by people with good intentions. Why the fear?
The end result is a that more people benefit from the Public effort.
what is so scary about this?
what? it sounds like a national government doing public-good.
not everyone or every country believes that all needs should be met by private-for-profit entities..
only americans (like you probably are) would find this at all a problem...
personally - i think its * terrific * news.
(oh, btw, did you know that the DoD (your gummint) floats ALOT of subsidy to private USA companies..?)