Everybody in the USA knows China has been grabbing everything it can by digital espionage for a long time now.
And ha ha, guess what -- thanks to Snowden, everybody in China, not to mention the world, knows that the USA indiscriminately grabs whatever it can from foreign sources.
Only a fool would believe that either side has any intentions of stopping.
If you'd stop calling them "nukes", it would help. That word is usually associated with bombing and deaths.
I have to agree. It was purely an anomaly, what happened at Fukushima, Onagawa, Fleurus, Forsmark, Erwin, Sellafield, Atucha, Braidwood, Paks, Tokaimura, Yanangio, Ikitelli, Ishikawa, Tomsk, Cadarache, Vandellos, Greifswald, Chernobyl, Hamm-Uentrop, Tsuraga, Saint Laurent des Eaux, Three Mile Island, Jaslovské Bohunice, Lucens, Chapelcross, Monroe, Charlestown, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Chalk River, Vina, Kyshtym, Windscale Pile, and Chalk River.
1. It is almost certainly written with a corporate agenda.
2. It is attempting to predict the future of technological innovation (e.g. renewable power will get cheaper and more efficient). That's fine and good, but we don't know the future.
3. The elephant in the room with any discussion about reducing carbon emissions has always been, and remains that the rising third world carbon emitters aren't going to change their ways, and therefore the official reason for reducing emissions (to curb climate change) is pretty much ineffectual. Any realistic estimate of how much Western carbon capping will affect global climate change in the face of China and India's continued/increased emissions ends up with a puny number, and really a rounding error. If the problem isn't getting solved, then does any of this even matter?
Most renewable energy sources are never going to be competitive with coal in the third world, no matter how much tree-planting first world enviro-warriors dupe themselves into the belief that they're "making a difference". It's likely to stay that way until somebody makes fusion power work, or some other similarly dramatic innovation.
Good point. The thing I most love about those electric cars is their lack of internal combustion engines, and the "whoooosh" sound they make going down the roadway.
Who cares about cheap batteries in 2020. I read that fusion power will supply a veritable firehose of free power for the whole world, and solving the pesky remaining engineering challenges should only take about 15 years.:p
the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding.
What bullshit, if your position is correct then you don't need to engage in hypocrisy to hide your true motive.
Not sure what you were drinking yesterday, but hopefully the hangover wasn't too bad. Let's try again: There are some people who are kind to animals in public, but get outed by hidden cameras for cruelty such as kicking their dog. According to you, their hypocrisy proves that it's OK to kick dogs. However, according to me, this proves that human beings are flawed. Which theory looks better this morning (or whatever time it is in your part of the world), hmm?
The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
I was right with you up to this statement. You are welcome to ridicule the position, as you are entitled to your opinion, however the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding. If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," meaning even the (alleged) best specimens of humanity will let you down. This is true of views you may cherish as well -- so you find public environmentalists who privately show they really don't care, etc.
Their only point was "I think you are thinking bad thoughts and are a bad person. Waaaaaah!" Can you discern any more substantive "point" than that? Nah, I think I addressed their point quite satisfactorily.
I run my Hackintosh in VMware along with other operating system instances. (To be fair, the article cited virtualization as an exception to its otherwise disturbingly skimpy recommendation.)
It would look like some crappy partisan document and would ultimately break down over abortion, leaving us with a bunch of un-unified states.
Funny you put it that way, since they really had the same problem, albeit with slavery. At least slaves were counted as 3/5 persons by the time of Clay/Webster/Calhoun. It seems our current president and his favorite organ trafficking chums at PP prefer not to count late/full term babies as people at all. Getting human rights straight is a continuing challenge for the USA and we surely ain't there yet.
America's government used to be elected by white male landowners.
That doesn't preclude them from being great. It is possible that there were great white male land owners, and you know it.
The problem with not having diversity is that you are preventing great people from other sectors from becoming leaders. On average this will pull down the level of greatness, but there still can be great leaders.
Probably if you backed him to the wall, Lessig would admit that judging by today's standards the Founding Fathers were horrible people with nasty primeval ideas; but that for their time and historical period, their ideas were at least a great improvement over the European status quo.
If all you're saying is that people who knowingly publish lies positioned as guidance for other people can be held accountable for the harm that directly results, then I'm with you.
Fortunately, I don't think anybody is planning to knowingly publish lies in this case. It's just that the junk food companies will pay people to focus on areas of research that you don't like. And you apparently want the government to make it illegal to research some areas of science, because... well, because a guy on the internet doesn't like it, I guess?
The only reason for you to say that must be that you are hoarding more than your fair share of wealth, which is a limited resource and you didn't build that. I demand full equality of... ooh, is my TV program on? brb...
So for you the key is the Vice President. Lessig has one agenda - fundamental electoral reform to bring Congress back in sync with the American populace.
Nope, it's part of the same ball of wax. The "purer" a democracy, the shorter the time until that system of government collapses. This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property.
The VP gets to do all those things you believe destroy America...
Not destroy America, just destroy American prosperity. You know, like Greece. Or Detroit.
the greatness of America will be reflected in its government too. It once was. When we are finally equal citizens, it will again
Bovine excreta. Lessig doesn't actually believe that. America's government used to be elected by white male landowners. And all the freedoms and founding principles that were important to the Founding Fathers --- er... "Parents" -- is stuff Lessig and Sanders totally hate and want to demolish. The whole continuum from European socialism to forms of communism is simply not compatible with the founding freedoms of America as articulated in our fundamental documents.
My basic problem with Sanders was very well expressed by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." So let's radically change our government so we can start confiscating and spending other people's money even faster, because that will make everything better!
Accusing people you don't agree with of being SJW is the new Godwin.
Maybe. However, this person's wide eyed conspiracy theories and gratuitous insults made me think they would look fetching in the pillory, and I'm not sorry.:)
they are coming closer and closer to their goal: to brainwash idiots like you into thinking that carbonated sugar water is somehow good for you.
On behalf of the whole world, we would all like to deeply apologize to you, and we sincerely promise never to offend you again in the future, including especially never laughing at your SJW internet posts.
If you start your research with the goal to prove something, it is bad research.
That is absolute nonsense. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, an agenda, and a personal desire to see the result work out a certain way. All scientists are human beings and certainly almost all have a vision of how they think/want the experiment to turn out. The important part is being fair in the writeup and admitting when your expectation was wrong.
How do you think the famous inventors of history did what they did? Do you think they might have been motivated by a goal, and a personal belief that their goal was possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody in the USA knows China has been grabbing everything it can by digital espionage for a long time now.
And ha ha, guess what -- thanks to Snowden, everybody in China, not to mention the world, knows that the USA indiscriminately grabs whatever it can from foreign sources.
Only a fool would believe that either side has any intentions of stopping.
Hello butler,
Hello poodle,
Here I am at
Camp by Google.
Camp is very
Highfalutin
Cause it's all-a
'Bout computin'.
"Try to like it",
Mama told me.
If I diss it,
Then she'll scold me.
All the boys are
Banned from coming
Since Mom finds their
Presence dumbing.
Since they do this
Just for funsies,
Makes us look bad --
Hence the shunsies.
This is stupid
I lack interest.
I would rather
Be on Pinterest.
'Stead of sitting,
Making faces,
Can't a boy just
Trade me places?
And for the "climate change" nazis,
Hi, Nazi here.
overdue for a mini ice age phenomena.
The word "phenomena" is plural. You should say "a ... phenomenon" to make it singular. Thank you, that is all.
If you'd stop calling them "nukes", it would help. That word is usually associated with bombing and deaths.
I have to agree. It was purely an anomaly, what happened at Fukushima, Onagawa, Fleurus, Forsmark, Erwin, Sellafield, Atucha, Braidwood, Paks, Tokaimura, Yanangio, Ikitelli, Ishikawa, Tomsk, Cadarache, Vandellos, Greifswald, Chernobyl, Hamm-Uentrop, Tsuraga, Saint Laurent des Eaux, Three Mile Island, Jaslovské Bohunice, Lucens, Chapelcross, Monroe, Charlestown, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Chalk River, Vina, Kyshtym, Windscale Pile, and Chalk River.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank
1. It is almost certainly written with a corporate agenda.
2. It is attempting to predict the future of technological innovation (e.g. renewable power will get cheaper and more efficient). That's fine and good, but we don't know the future.
3. The elephant in the room with any discussion about reducing carbon emissions has always been, and remains that the rising third world carbon emitters aren't going to change their ways, and therefore the official reason for reducing emissions (to curb climate change) is pretty much ineffectual. Any realistic estimate of how much Western carbon capping will affect global climate change in the face of China and India's continued/increased emissions ends up with a puny number, and really a rounding error. If the problem isn't getting solved, then does any of this even matter?
Most renewable energy sources are never going to be competitive with coal in the third world, no matter how much tree-planting first world enviro-warriors dupe themselves into the belief that they're "making a difference". It's likely to stay that way until somebody makes fusion power work, or some other similarly dramatic innovation.
Good point. The thing I most love about those electric cars is their lack of internal combustion engines, and the "whoooosh" sound they make going down the roadway.
Who cares about cheap batteries in 2020. I read that fusion power will supply a veritable firehose of free power for the whole world, and solving the pesky remaining engineering challenges should only take about 15 years. :p
the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding.
What bullshit, if your position is correct then you don't need to engage in hypocrisy to hide your true motive.
Not sure what you were drinking yesterday, but hopefully the hangover wasn't too bad. Let's try again: There are some people who are kind to animals in public, but get outed by hidden cameras for cruelty such as kicking their dog. According to you, their hypocrisy proves that it's OK to kick dogs. However, according to me, this proves that human beings are flawed. Which theory looks better this morning (or whatever time it is in your part of the world), hmm?
The view or position also deserves to be ridiculed.
I was right with you up to this statement. You are welcome to ridicule the position, as you are entitled to your opinion, however the phenomenon of hypocrisy and people behaving like jerks is orthogonal to the correctness or incorrectness of the position they postured themselves as upholding. If you will allow me a quote from the Bible, "Put not your trust in princes," meaning even the (alleged) best specimens of humanity will let you down. This is true of views you may cherish as well -- so you find public environmentalists who privately show they really don't care, etc.
Their only point was "I think you are thinking bad thoughts and are a bad person. Waaaaaah!" Can you discern any more substantive "point" than that? Nah, I think I addressed their point quite satisfactorily.
It's part of the English language, Bub. Deal with it.
I run my Hackintosh in VMware along with other operating system instances. (To be fair, the article cited virtualization as an exception to its otherwise disturbingly skimpy recommendation.)
It would look like some crappy partisan document and would ultimately break down over abortion, leaving us with a bunch of un-unified states.
Funny you put it that way, since they really had the same problem, albeit with slavery. At least slaves were counted as 3/5 persons by the time of Clay/Webster/Calhoun. It seems our current president and his favorite organ trafficking chums at PP prefer not to count late/full term babies as people at all. Getting human rights straight is a continuing challenge for the USA and we surely ain't there yet.
America's government used to be elected by white male landowners.
That doesn't preclude them from being great. It is possible that there were great white male land owners, and you know it. The problem with not having diversity is that you are preventing great people from other sectors from becoming leaders. On average this will pull down the level of greatness, but there still can be great leaders.
Probably if you backed him to the wall, Lessig would admit that judging by today's standards the Founding Fathers were horrible people with nasty primeval ideas; but that for their time and historical period, their ideas were at least a great improvement over the European status quo.
If all you're saying is that people who knowingly publish lies positioned as guidance for other people can be held accountable for the harm that directly results, then I'm with you.
Fortunately, I don't think anybody is planning to knowingly publish lies in this case. It's just that the junk food companies will pay people to focus on areas of research that you don't like. And you apparently want the government to make it illegal to research some areas of science, because... well, because a guy on the internet doesn't like it, I guess?
The only reason for you to say that must be that you are hoarding more than your fair share of wealth, which is a limited resource and you didn't build that. I demand full equality of... ooh, is my TV program on? brb...
So for you the key is the Vice President. Lessig has one agenda - fundamental electoral reform to bring Congress back in sync with the American populace.
Nope, it's part of the same ball of wax. The "purer" a democracy, the shorter the time until that system of government collapses. This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property.
The VP gets to do all those things you believe destroy America...
Not destroy America, just destroy American prosperity. You know, like Greece. Or Detroit.
the greatness of America will be reflected in its government too. It once was. When we are finally equal citizens, it will again
Bovine excreta. Lessig doesn't actually believe that. America's government used to be elected by white male landowners. And all the freedoms and founding principles that were important to the Founding Fathers --- er... "Parents" -- is stuff Lessig and Sanders totally hate and want to demolish. The whole continuum from European socialism to forms of communism is simply not compatible with the founding freedoms of America as articulated in our fundamental documents.
My basic problem with Sanders was very well expressed by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." So let's radically change our government so we can start confiscating and spending other people's money even faster, because that will make everything better!
Freedom (speech, choice, personal responsibility etc.) isn't really your thing, is it?
I have good news -- you don't have to buy it. Were you not aware of that?
Ugh, you win the gross out contest.
Accusing people you don't agree with of being SJW is the new Godwin.
Maybe. However, this person's wide eyed conspiracy theories and gratuitous insults made me think they would look fetching in the pillory, and I'm not sorry. :)
Too late: I ate it, because I got mixed up in my brainwashing from the tobacco company and the junk food companies. ;)
they are coming closer and closer to their goal: to brainwash idiots like you into thinking that carbonated sugar water is somehow good for you.
On behalf of the whole world, we would all like to deeply apologize to you, and we sincerely promise never to offend you again in the future, including especially never laughing at your SJW internet posts.
If you start your research with the goal to prove something, it is bad research.
That is absolute nonsense. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, an agenda, and a personal desire to see the result work out a certain way. All scientists are human beings and certainly almost all have a vision of how they think/want the experiment to turn out. The important part is being fair in the writeup and admitting when your expectation was wrong.
How do you think the famous inventors of history did what they did? Do you think they might have been motivated by a goal, and a personal belief that their goal was possible?