Sure, I would like to see a better infrastructure for shipping, but to implement that would be a lot harder than convincing people to get rid of their wasteful SUVs.
I sincerely doubt you are correct on that assertion.
I would ask why you feel the need to meddle in someone else's private financial or personal matters, or why you have to inherently try to belittle his choices by calling them a McMansion. I personally don't need a house 6500 ft^2, but I definitely want the ability to buy what I can afford to buy and am not going to mock someone just because they need or want more than me. That's the marvelous thing about freedom.
You should not troll about this subject. It's way too serious. People die everyday because of pollution.
Maybe, but not because of CO2 which is the imaginary bad-guy of the global warming debate. If we'd actually start talking about pollution, I'd happy to give a rats ass. But as long as we're talking about CO2, nope.
That kind of logic strikes me as very narrow minded, because if any of their premises are wrong we *might* end up in shit creek. I think we need policy driven by honest science-based risk assessment.
Great. I look forward to some such science being available. In the meantime, I'm completely opposed to running around like chickens with our heads cut off shouting "The sky is falling" because the climate is changing; as if climate change were something new.
Calling the gloabal warming trend "highly doubtful" is inflamatory to say the least.
Just like calling Jesus nothing more than a man is inflammatory. I'm happy to see that the GW crowd is reaching religious proportions, though. I've long said a lot of the junk science wrapped into global warming was a skip and a jump away from becoming its own religion that cannot be questioned. Your post suggests that I was exactly right about that.
Umm... why does "the environment" have to care whether it's being treated well? How are environmentalists supposed to not make social or economic recommendations?
From my point of view, environmental scientists should investigate the environment and present their results. It's then up to society and politicians to take those results and form policy of them. It should almost be treated like a separation of powers in the government. Granted, not legally. But some of these environmentalist groups are achieving a level of power that has no checks and balances. If they want to investigate the climate, fine, but they should provide the data and then let society and politicians decide how--or if--to address it. The current situation makes their fearmongering look like a severe conflict of interests; either to achieve social/political policies they can't get at the voting booth, or in the interests of getting more funding. It's not a scenario that's conducive to solid science that has any integrity.
Why would we go through all the bother of "providing a framework in which individuals may contribute valuable services (blah blah blah)" if the end result wasn't happier people?
The end result is happier people. It's far more efficient and productive than the barter system. But the economy's goal isn't to make people happy. Perhaps it could be argued that should be one of society's goal, but that's a different discussion.
How can having more and better access to a vital natural resource not improve the economy of Mexico?
You assume that there is currently a lack of a vital natural resource that is hindering the economy of Mexico. Mexico's problems stem from corruption, not a lack of vital natural resources. While more natural resources can't hurt, it's far from a given that it will help if the corruption problems are not addressed. But it's clear you really don't know much about what you're talking about on this issue, so you can let the thread die with your 'troll' comment if you'd like.
Seriously, this sort of thing should be punished by summary execution. It's a huge assault on the very fabric of our society, trying to create a world where we're afraid to participate with our neighbour with trust.
Huh? Sony did some viral advertising so now you can't trust your neighbor? Really? Are you kidding? Heck, do you have a neighbor? Do you know his or her name?
I would argue that environmentalists simply accept the fact that a rapidly growing economy is nigh impossible to manage without seriously harming the environment.
That does not automatically mean that the solution is to restrain the economy and growth. Too many radical environmentalists are willing to sacrifice the common good for, in their estimate, the environment's good--without really knowing whether or not the environment cares.
And I certainly don't see how it undermines the message of the environmental movement when its members point out that we're taking necessities from poor countries to provide luxuries for ourselves.
One thing is economics, another is environmentalism. The problem I have with environmentalists is precisely when their advocacy goes behind scientific environmentalism and advocating for the environment, and suddenly they are making social or economic recommendations. That's when their true colors become crystal clear.
After all, what is the point of the economy if not to allocate limited resources in such a way as to produce maximum happiness?
Maximum happiness for who? The purpose of the economy is to provide a framework in which individuals may contribute valuable services to produce a product or service that someone else wishes to acquire, and to obtain compensation for that service or product. Whether that makes anyone happy is completely besides the point, but hopefully will be a byproduct of economic activity.
I see his reasoning: if there is less (and more polluted) water flowing into Mexico because California is slurping it up to spray all over its lawns, this impoverishes the economy of Mexico. If their economy was doing better (imagine that you could only make seven or eight times as much in the U.S., rather than the ten you quote) then less people would be hopping the border.
No, you miss the point. Everything you said would be valid if a water shortage in Mexico was a substantial reason for their economy being sluggish. The reality is, it's not. Thus the guy's original comments make no sense and your attempt to restate his comments aren't any more useful.
Water-dependant schemes are prone to the constraint of water; bearing in mind many of the poor lack fresh water today, we would (are currently*) diverting fresh water from the poor to make pretty golf courses. Taking more water from the poor to power a Hummer doesn't appear to be a moral victory.
Sigh... So we can't use petroleum because it raises the temperature of the earth. We can't use water because some people don't have water. It's posts like this that really seem to confirm to me that "environmentalists" are more about restraining economic activity and prosperity than really caring about the environment.
*The Rio Grande used to bring water to Mexico, which it no longer does do to consumption in southern California - part of the reason in fact that many Mexicans now come north to farm.
I'm an American but lived 10 years in Mexico. Mexicans don't come north because there's no water in Mexico to irrigate. They come north because regardless of water, they can earn 10 times as much in the U.S. That is completely unrelated to water.
Hydrogen is not an energy source and no one expects to use the oceans for a magic tap an oil field. The reason why hydrogen is so desirable is that it does not release greenhouse gases into the environment like fossil fuels, ethanol, and whatnot.
I'm 100% in favor of a hydrogen economy that is powered ultimately by nuclear power. However, it is wrong to say that burning hydrogen does not release greenhouse gases. It releases the #1 greenhouse gas: Water vapor. My only question is whether the environmentalist wackos will start complaining about H2O in the atmosphere when we stop releasing carbon.
I used to have TMobile, but gave it up for Cingular due to better coverage. I have had no complaints with Cingular. Well, except the fact that their GRPS is so slow that I don't use it anymore. But for the core service they offer--cellular telephone--not a single complaint. I don't have a landline, just my Cingular cell service, and it's worked great.
I agree completely. Solid state is the only way to fly. While some people's storage needs will continue to explode as they store an ever-expanding collection of pr0n and MP3s, some of us are really reaching the limit of what we need. I have a 100GB hard drive. I have all my music, applications, and projects on it. I'm using something like 50GB, which is not that different than the space I was using 3 years ago. If, at some point, solid state storage devices get to the 50-80GB level, I'll be ditching my hard drive and going solid-state.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't profess to know the floorplan behind the ticket counter but it's entirely possible that going through that door doesn't give them access to passenger bags. Maybe it's just access to private company bathrooms or the company break-room. We're all just speculating here, unless one of us has worked behind the counter at an airline.
I'd say it was illegal and wrong. It served no purpose. It showed that security was weak which is something that anyone with more than a few days of experience with desktop publishing or Powerpoint already knew. The authorities keep doing their security to act like they're doing something and we, travelers, go through their hoops so that we can all act like there is security when, in reality, we all know there isn't. We all know it's B.S., but the politics involved don't permit the politicians to come out and say, "Hey, we can't make this 100% safe unless you're all willing to travel with no carry-on baggage and if you're willing to strip out of your clothes at the checkpoint and check that to your destination, too." Politics doesn't permit that because the other side would just turn around and say the side saying it is "weak on terrorism." So the politicians keep up the farce, and so do we so we can just get to our destination. The last thing we want to do is give the idiotic politicians reason to get serious about security.
Was it illegal? Obviously.
Was it wrong? Elsewhere in this thread I've already said why it was, but basically: 1) He risked causing an inconvenience to travelers if the governmental response was to reject home-printed boarding passes. 2) He risked increasing security checkpoint delay times because the security people would have to scan the boarding passes to make sure they were real. 3) He didn't publicize anything that anyone with an ounce of computer skills didn't already know.
So, basically, his exercise was pointless, accomplished nothing, and had the possibility of inconveniencing a lot of people. That's "wrong" as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to inconvenience people, there damn well be a better reason than making some headlines for your 15 minutes. And if you're going to make a public website that allows people to print bogus boarding passes in this political/security environment, forgive me if I don't really care if you later complain that you've been added to the no-fly list.
I knew that was coming. It'd be a gamble, and it's going to ultimately depend on what's behind the door. I don't know what's behind that door. Maybe a code is adequate security considering what is (or isn't) behind the door.
I observed several United Airlines employees entering and every time I could clearly see the code being entered. I felt very secure.
And yet I'll bet if you had jumped behind the ticketing counter, entered the code, and walked through the door, you would have been taken down by authorities within a minute, tops.
TSA seems to be getting their panties in a wad because he pointed out that the system is flawed, and did it in such a way as to force them to fix it.
Really? He forced the TSA to fix the system? Exactly how was it fixed? I can still print boarding passes at home and last time I was at the airport, the security checkpoints still weren't scanning them. So exactly how did he force them to fix it? The whole issue was swept under the rug, and I'm glad.
We don't want real security. As it is now, we complain about the fake security because it's a hassle. Do you know what real security would be like??? Seriously, I'd just start driving anywhere on this continent and leave air travel for intercontinental travel--and only because my car doesn't travel well over oceans.
This person committed no actual crime -- he didnt use one, and didnt even print one.
Really? Come on, I'll bet he printed one. I have no doubt he destroyed it, but if I were writing a system like that I know I'd at least print it to make sure it still looks good on real paper.
What did he do? He made us all safer.
How are we safer? I'm not aware of any changes to policies regarding home-printed boarding passes. And I'm glad there haven't been any changes to policies. But how did he make us safer? Even with his little system it was impossible to get on a plane anyway... it was just possible to go buy lunch at the McDonald's inside the security area instead of the one on the corner.
Really? The story made headlines for a day or two at most. Then nothing. It's very easy to ignore and that's exactly what the government, TSA, and airlines appear to have done. And I for one am glad that was the reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely doubt you are correct on that assertion.
I would ask why you feel the need to meddle in someone else's private financial or personal matters, or why you have to inherently try to belittle his choices by calling them a McMansion. I personally don't need a house 6500 ft^2, but I definitely want the ability to buy what I can afford to buy and am not going to mock someone just because they need or want more than me. That's the marvelous thing about freedom.
Maybe, but not because of CO2 which is the imaginary bad-guy of the global warming debate. If we'd actually start talking about pollution, I'd happy to give a rats ass. But as long as we're talking about CO2, nope.
It would seem that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Great. I look forward to some such science being available. In the meantime, I'm completely opposed to running around like chickens with our heads cut off shouting "The sky is falling" because the climate is changing; as if climate change were something new.
Just like calling Jesus nothing more than a man is inflammatory. I'm happy to see that the GW crowd is reaching religious proportions, though. I've long said a lot of the junk science wrapped into global warming was a skip and a jump away from becoming its own religion that cannot be questioned. Your post suggests that I was exactly right about that.
From my point of view, environmental scientists should investigate the environment and present their results. It's then up to society and politicians to take those results and form policy of them. It should almost be treated like a separation of powers in the government. Granted, not legally. But some of these environmentalist groups are achieving a level of power that has no checks and balances. If they want to investigate the climate, fine, but they should provide the data and then let society and politicians decide how--or if--to address it. The current situation makes their fearmongering look like a severe conflict of interests; either to achieve social/political policies they can't get at the voting booth, or in the interests of getting more funding. It's not a scenario that's conducive to solid science that has any integrity.
Why would we go through all the bother of "providing a framework in which individuals may contribute valuable services (blah blah blah)" if the end result wasn't happier people?
The end result is happier people. It's far more efficient and productive than the barter system. But the economy's goal isn't to make people happy. Perhaps it could be argued that should be one of society's goal, but that's a different discussion.
How can having more and better access to a vital natural resource not improve the economy of Mexico?
You assume that there is currently a lack of a vital natural resource that is hindering the economy of Mexico. Mexico's problems stem from corruption, not a lack of vital natural resources. While more natural resources can't hurt, it's far from a given that it will help if the corruption problems are not addressed. But it's clear you really don't know much about what you're talking about on this issue, so you can let the thread die with your 'troll' comment if you'd like.
Huh? Sony did some viral advertising so now you can't trust your neighbor? Really? Are you kidding? Heck, do you have a neighbor? Do you know his or her name?
Depends on your definition of "good publicity." I bet Hitler had (and probably still has) more followers than either you or me.
That does not automatically mean that the solution is to restrain the economy and growth. Too many radical environmentalists are willing to sacrifice the common good for, in their estimate, the environment's good--without really knowing whether or not the environment cares.
And I certainly don't see how it undermines the message of the environmental movement when its members point out that we're taking necessities from poor countries to provide luxuries for ourselves.
One thing is economics, another is environmentalism. The problem I have with environmentalists is precisely when their advocacy goes behind scientific environmentalism and advocating for the environment, and suddenly they are making social or economic recommendations. That's when their true colors become crystal clear.
After all, what is the point of the economy if not to allocate limited resources in such a way as to produce maximum happiness?
Maximum happiness for who? The purpose of the economy is to provide a framework in which individuals may contribute valuable services to produce a product or service that someone else wishes to acquire, and to obtain compensation for that service or product. Whether that makes anyone happy is completely besides the point, but hopefully will be a byproduct of economic activity.
I see his reasoning: if there is less (and more polluted) water flowing into Mexico because California is slurping it up to spray all over its lawns, this impoverishes the economy of Mexico. If their economy was doing better (imagine that you could only make seven or eight times as much in the U.S., rather than the ten you quote) then less people would be hopping the border.
No, you miss the point. Everything you said would be valid if a water shortage in Mexico was a substantial reason for their economy being sluggish. The reality is, it's not. Thus the guy's original comments make no sense and your attempt to restate his comments aren't any more useful.
Sigh... So we can't use petroleum because it raises the temperature of the earth. We can't use water because some people don't have water. It's posts like this that really seem to confirm to me that "environmentalists" are more about restraining economic activity and prosperity than really caring about the environment.
*The Rio Grande used to bring water to Mexico, which it no longer does do to consumption in southern California - part of the reason in fact that many Mexicans now come north to farm.
I'm an American but lived 10 years in Mexico. Mexicans don't come north because there's no water in Mexico to irrigate. They come north because regardless of water, they can earn 10 times as much in the U.S. That is completely unrelated to water.
I'm 100% in favor of a hydrogen economy that is powered ultimately by nuclear power. However, it is wrong to say that burning hydrogen does not release greenhouse gases. It releases the #1 greenhouse gas: Water vapor. My only question is whether the environmentalist wackos will start complaining about H2O in the atmosphere when we stop releasing carbon.
A shortage of energy and water? Nuclear power and oceans, need I say more?
Palm's been doing it for years. And, yes, they boot and load applications very quickly.
Was it illegal? Obviously.
Was it wrong? Elsewhere in this thread I've already said why it was, but basically: 1) He risked causing an inconvenience to travelers if the governmental response was to reject home-printed boarding passes. 2) He risked increasing security checkpoint delay times because the security people would have to scan the boarding passes to make sure they were real. 3) He didn't publicize anything that anyone with an ounce of computer skills didn't already know.
So, basically, his exercise was pointless, accomplished nothing, and had the possibility of inconveniencing a lot of people. That's "wrong" as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to inconvenience people, there damn well be a better reason than making some headlines for your 15 minutes. And if you're going to make a public website that allows people to print bogus boarding passes in this political/security environment, forgive me if I don't really care if you later complain that you've been added to the no-fly list.
Oh, and what idiot moderators moderated my original post as flamebait? I hope you get meta-moderated.
I knew that was coming. It'd be a gamble, and it's going to ultimately depend on what's behind the door. I don't know what's behind that door. Maybe a code is adequate security considering what is (or isn't) behind the door.
Whooooosh....
And yet I'll bet if you had jumped behind the ticketing counter, entered the code, and walked through the door, you would have been taken down by authorities within a minute, tops.
Really? He forced the TSA to fix the system? Exactly how was it fixed? I can still print boarding passes at home and last time I was at the airport, the security checkpoints still weren't scanning them. So exactly how did he force them to fix it? The whole issue was swept under the rug, and I'm glad.
We don't want real security. As it is now, we complain about the fake security because it's a hassle. Do you know what real security would be like??? Seriously, I'd just start driving anywhere on this continent and leave air travel for intercontinental travel--and only because my car doesn't travel well over oceans.
Really? Come on, I'll bet he printed one. I have no doubt he destroyed it, but if I were writing a system like that I know I'd at least print it to make sure it still looks good on real paper.
What did he do? He made us all safer.
How are we safer? I'm not aware of any changes to policies regarding home-printed boarding passes. And I'm glad there haven't been any changes to policies. But how did he make us safer? Even with his little system it was impossible to get on a plane anyway... it was just possible to go buy lunch at the McDonald's inside the security area instead of the one on the corner.
Really? The story made headlines for a day or two at most. Then nothing. It's very easy to ignore and that's exactly what the government, TSA, and airlines appear to have done. And I for one am glad that was the reaction.