A creationist would argue that the lord sent AIDS to punish sinners.
Even though some creationist modded you "flamebait", what you say is true. The fundies, who are also creationists, said over and over again that AIDS was God's judgement on evil homosexuals. The fact that there are straight people with AIDS and children with AIDS who received bad blood transfusions didn't phase their hate-addled brains one bit.
There's something I've never understood coming from critics of the environmentalist movement: Where do you get the idea that people want to drag down the standard of living? Does it come from the fact that you think most of the time making the 'environmentalist' choice (whether it be to recycle glass, or change a light bulb, etc) costs (most of the time, slightly) more money? And do those costs significantly affect people's standards of living? Really? Spending $3 on a light bulb will make me poor?
What exactly brings down my standard of living when I turn off a light when I leave a room? When I shut down my computer when I'm not using it? When I drive in a more fuel-efficient manner (NOT buying a different car)? All of these are 'environmentalist' choices, yet they cost nothing except the effort required to modify my behavior slightly. If you're so against changing a habit, to the point where you argue it damages your standard of living, I think you have other issues to be concerned about.
There are some environmentalists who do think we should basically live like a third world country and that technology itself is evil. They are the fringe, though. The problem is that people like GP then go and take the fringe outliers and act as though they are the average.
The best way to improve the environment is to develop *more* and *better* technology that will raise all our standards of living while keeping an eye towards the environmental impacts of what we develop. Most environmentally-minded people understand this. But, the people who prefer to be able to shit where we eat want to paint all environmentalists as "tree huggers" or as people who want us to return to the Dark Ages.
Plus, they are the ones who are really holding us back. Instead of developing improved technology, they want us to go on getting our energy by setting fire to things, like a bunch of cavemen. And, those wacky Wahibi-loving governments are going to get even more violent as we move away from oil since they will see their wealth being drained away (no more palaces for you, filthy Saudi princes!).
Wow, the demonization of Tony Hayward is complete. Why don't you start spreading some wrong information that he's a pedophile to add the icing on the cake?
I mean seriously, what did this guy do or fail to do? The way I see it the whole disaster would not have happened if Halliburton didn't fuck up the cementing and that other company didn't fuck up the failsafe mechanism.
I thought he raped and murdered an 11 year-old girl in 1990? Or, was that Glenn Beck? Or both?
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me. People at his level think that laws only apply to us "little people".
Maybe but the funny thing is 2 of the worst professors I had in university were amongst the most intelligent people I've ever met. Admittedly one knew he was kind of bad, largely because his english was pretty bad and gave everybody a break. They other guy was obviously super smart and wrote "the" book in his field but couldn't teach at all. (Unfortunately other professors at the school only knew him by his reputation and would say stupid things like "he's really good isn't he?" This guy was so bad he couldn't tell you how he determined your grade. The reason he couldn't tell you is because he didn't even know how he was going to do it. Yes, that's literally true.)
Sounds like my circuits professor. He wrote the book. The students had to buy the book. He also taught the Circuits I class, and he taught straight from the book. It all sucked massively. My Circuits II professor said the book was "good" but politely suggested that we all go out and find a "supplemental" textbook to help us in the course.
I doubt the professors who said "he's really good, isn't he?" didn't know that your professor sucked. They just didn't want to openly bad-mouth one of their colleagues. In fact, "he's really good, isn't he?" sounds more to me like "yeah, we know he sucks, but we can't do anything about it."
Flamebait? WTF? Does Sharron Angle have mod points on slashdot? What Runaway1956 says is perfectly correct. Using copyright law to silence political speech goes completely against the whole idea of the First Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
A creationist would argue that the lord sent AIDS to punish sinners.
Even though some creationist modded you "flamebait", what you say is true. The fundies, who are also creationists, said over and over again that AIDS was God's judgement on evil homosexuals. The fact that there are straight people with AIDS and children with AIDS who received bad blood transfusions didn't phase their hate-addled brains one bit.
Unfortunately, with marriage, you still have to pay maintenance fees even after it expires.
There's something I've never understood coming from critics of the environmentalist movement: Where do you get the idea that people want to drag down the standard of living? Does it come from the fact that you think most of the time making the 'environmentalist' choice (whether it be to recycle glass, or change a light bulb, etc) costs (most of the time, slightly) more money? And do those costs significantly affect people's standards of living? Really? Spending $3 on a light bulb will make me poor?
What exactly brings down my standard of living when I turn off a light when I leave a room? When I shut down my computer when I'm not using it? When I drive in a more fuel-efficient manner (NOT buying a different car)? All of these are 'environmentalist' choices, yet they cost nothing except the effort required to modify my behavior slightly. If you're so against changing a habit, to the point where you argue it damages your standard of living, I think you have other issues to be concerned about.
There are some environmentalists who do think we should basically live like a third world country and that technology itself is evil. They are the fringe, though. The problem is that people like GP then go and take the fringe outliers and act as though they are the average.
The best way to improve the environment is to develop *more* and *better* technology that will raise all our standards of living while keeping an eye towards the environmental impacts of what we develop. Most environmentally-minded people understand this. But, the people who prefer to be able to shit where we eat want to paint all environmentalists as "tree huggers" or as people who want us to return to the Dark Ages.
Plus, they are the ones who are really holding us back. Instead of developing improved technology, they want us to go on getting our energy by setting fire to things, like a bunch of cavemen. And, those wacky Wahibi-loving governments are going to get even more violent as we move away from oil since they will see their wealth being drained away (no more palaces for you, filthy Saudi princes!).
Wow, the demonization of Tony Hayward is complete. Why don't you start spreading some wrong information that he's a pedophile to add the icing on the cake? I mean seriously, what did this guy do or fail to do? The way I see it the whole disaster would not have happened if Halliburton didn't fuck up the cementing and that other company didn't fuck up the failsafe mechanism.
I thought he raped and murdered an 11 year-old girl in 1990? Or, was that Glenn Beck? Or both?
Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me. People at his level think that laws only apply to us "little people".
Well, stop changing it all the time! Then, maybe people will ignore it.
Fucker.
Maybe but the funny thing is 2 of the worst professors I had in university were amongst the most intelligent people I've ever met. Admittedly one knew he was kind of bad, largely because his english was pretty bad and gave everybody a break. They other guy was obviously super smart and wrote "the" book in his field but couldn't teach at all. (Unfortunately other professors at the school only knew him by his reputation and would say stupid things like "he's really good isn't he?" This guy was so bad he couldn't tell you how he determined your grade. The reason he couldn't tell you is because he didn't even know how he was going to do it. Yes, that's literally true.)
Sounds like my circuits professor. He wrote the book. The students had to buy the book. He also taught the Circuits I class, and he taught straight from the book. It all sucked massively. My Circuits II professor said the book was "good" but politely suggested that we all go out and find a "supplemental" textbook to help us in the course.
I doubt the professors who said "he's really good, isn't he?" didn't know that your professor sucked. They just didn't want to openly bad-mouth one of their colleagues. In fact, "he's really good, isn't he?" sounds more to me like "yeah, we know he sucks, but we can't do anything about it."
Flamebait? WTF? Does Sharron Angle have mod points on slashdot? What Runaway1956 says is perfectly correct. Using copyright law to silence political speech goes completely against the whole idea of the First Amendment.
Bullshit. Radio is just a passing fad, too. Pianos and sheet music, FTW!