Your response, as I understand it is, "If you're actually dying, you can get emergency room health care! Woo! USA!"
The fact that you can get treatment doesn't invalidate the fact that (unless you're fortunate enough to already be so broke that nobody will get money from you) the hospital is going to come after you for some huge bills. Which you can't afford. Because you're already too broke to afford health insurance. This can force someone living on the brink straight on into bankruptcy, at which point the taxpayers often end up footing the bill.
It makes more sense (to my wonky-liberal mind, at least) to make sure that everybody who wants health care can get it, in a non-punitive fashion. It's better for the country, because we would have a healthier and more productive workforce. It makes sense for the hospitals, who don't have their ERs tied up with problems that could have been treated more effectively with earlier diagnosis. It makes sense for companies, many of whom are going broke trying to provide benefits (or simply scaling those benefits back).
Nobody (plus or minus 5%) is asking for "top notch health care for everybody," and if that's your impression, then you've been misled. Proponents -- the reasonable ones, anyways -- are just asking for basic, prevention-focused care. What that specifically constitutes is going to be subject to intense debate. So is the best way to achieve that goal. But please keep in mind what, exactly, the goal is.
Re: Sicko. The 9/11 relief workers got severe respiratory problems as a result of working at Ground Zero, from breathing the toxic dust.* While they had private insurance, their claims got rejected. They showed up in Cuba, and got the medical care they needed, free. Dollar for dollar, Cuba's health care system is probably the best in the world.
* Christine Todd Whitman, Bush's EPA director at the time, told the relief crews that it was safe. It wasn't.
Workers didn't go on strike. They were locked out by upper management (who sabotaged the refineries as they left, and who were rightly the target of the bulk of the firings). There was an unholy alliance where the international oil companies were making a relative handful of Venezuelans extremely wealthy, in exchange for cheap access to oil. So in a way, blaming America for the "strike" (actually a lockout by the recipients of all that money) isn't far-fetched.
You are correct that the PDVSA was always government-owned. The actions Chavez took involved canceling the contracts of the multinationals. But the effects were similar to a true renationalization.
Again, what sample size would you deem appropriate for such a study?
I'm no statistician myself, but the size of the sample population needed to demonstrate an effect can be quite small if the effect is highly pronounced. If you were trying to prove a very subtle effect (say, eating bugs as a child leads to a.05% increase in cancer rates), then a very large sample would be required.
If you were trying to demonstrate something dramatic, like "men are statistically taller than women," a very small sample size would be sufficient, because the correlation is strong.
Nor do I see their non-random sample as a problem, so long as they threw in a caveat about how their conclusions only really apply to peaple with strong political opinions. It would have been interesting to see how a control group would have fared, though.
>> Who said anything about him abusing his power? All I said is that he can't just propose a theory, call anyone who disagrees either idiots or paid Oil company stooges, and then insist they be prosecuted and measures be put in place by fiat just because he's smart and knows better than everyone else.
Ummm, yes he can. He has no more power to dictate that we listen to him than is granted by his own fame and prestige, which he earned fair and square. If he wants to squander it on intemperate statements, that's his business.
>> I could also easily say that the other side of the argument is populated by left wing, government teat sucking, go along to get grants scientists who re-enforce their own group think.
That is also your right. Of course, that's utter bollocks, and nobody would care because who the hell is sycodon anyways. But go ahead.
>> How long did Science have a consensus that black s were inferior? Ot that the world was flat? Or pick any other absurd past belief. Those guys thought they were smart and knew it all. But they were wrong...and these guys could be wrong too.
Ah, yes, the old "science is sometimes wrong" card. Imperfect though it may be, it is still the best guess we have, and you can't simply replace science-as-it-is with science-as-you-hope-it-will-be-because-you'd-hate-to-cut-back-on-your-driving. Not if you want to remain honest.
>> When the news about the Sun spots (or lack thereof) came out the guy who had several years ago theorized (a real honest to gosh scientists mind you) that the Sun had more to do with warming than man said that Nature ( or one of the science journals) had declined to publish paper because it was "too controversial". He wasn't right wing. He wasn't undermining respect for scientific conclusions, he wasn't using pseudoscience. But he was effectively silenced because no one could have him going against AGW.
Can you name "the guy"? Can you tell me which journal refused to publish his paper? Can you show me the peer review notes that failed to find flaws in the paper itself, but nevertheless refused to publish? Your third-hand, vaguely recalled anecdote means nothing.
Once we have a specific instance to discuss, I can draw my own conclusions. Until then, the preceding paragraph is mere assertion without proof. Every shady, pseudoscientific field -- from astrology to the moon landing denialists to the folks who still insist there is a link between vaccines and autism -- is littered with THAT EXACT SAME ANECDOTE! Replace a few key phrases and you're done.
Speaking of phrases that need replacing, "the Sun had more to do with warming than man" has to go. You're insinuating that the vast bulk of the climatologists are too stupid to look up. The morons in question believe that their climate models actually do factor in the existence of the Daystar. It's not hard deciding who to believe.
Read this, and try to understand it before you get back to me. I'll be able to tell if you haven't.
>> Lastly, no one needs to undermine respect for scientific conclusions when they are all over the place and overly alarmist. Manhattan under water, FL gone or some such nonsense. End of civilization as we know it. AHhhhhh!
>> What crap. Your Science has been hijacked by Politics.
Hijacked or not, at least my science is peer reviewed. More than I can say for yours.
That is so far from what I said, you must have walked a week.
Disagreeing is, "John McCain doesn't reflect our core Republican values." Subverting the public discourse is, "John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child."
In Exxon-land, disagreeing is to fund solid scientific research that, when published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, would cause scientists to question the global warming consensus. Subverting the public discourse is funding right-wing bully pulpits that try to sway public opinion directly and undermine respect for scientific conclusions, using misleading pseudoscience.
And if it's not too much to ask, you still haven't explained how Hansen is abusing his power by stating his opinion. I await clarification on that point.
First, Hansen said that oil executives who -- knowing the consequences of global warming -- embarked on a campaign to mislead the public and obfuscate the science, should be tried for "crimes against humanity". Not "anyone opposing GW rhetoric". Get your facts straight.
Second, saying what sort of actions you would like to see taken is exactly the sort of thing that people are supposed to do with their right to free speech. You haven't demonstrated that Hansen has done anything anti-democratic in making such a statement, or that he has gone an inch beyond his rights as a citizen.
Third, Hansen can "insist that public policy kowtow to him" all he likes. We don't have to do it.
Finally, while I think his call was ill-advised and inflammatory, it's fundamentally sound. If the oil execs knowingly subverted the public discourse on a potentially catastrophic issue, then there should be severe consequences for those actions.
No, I think he's just saying that RNC protesters are yet another in a long, long list of bogus "existential threats" that right-wingers have used to whittle away our civil rights. Nothing that the protesters could do, even in Dick Cheney's most fevered dreams, constitutes the sort of threat that requires the police state that so many Americans seem to desire.
Counterargument: France. If anything, the government there is far more responsive to the demands of its citizens than the United States. Yet the French could totally school us in rioteering. The standard response is that they, unlike us sober and hardworking American folk, are self-entitled and corrupted by secular values. My view is that it means that the people are far more in control of the government than vice versa. That is both the cause and the result of their rioting.
Rioting has a strong cultural component, is all I'm saying.
Here's your "better explanation." Not that it will change your thinking in the least.
Two buckets contain grey water and were being used to flush toilets, to conserve water, in the upstairs bathroom. Both were identified in the inventory as "unidentified liquid." The third bucket, as shown by inventory sheets, was seized from illegal apartment over a garage in the rear. This apartment has been occupied for several years by a person unconnected to the house occupants or the RNC. No bathroom was in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket. This was listed as "unidentified yellow liquid" in the inventory sheets.src
Also, since when was ownership of a firearm evidence that someone intends to perpetrate a crime? The NRA would like to have a word with you.
Why exactly would you want it to? Unless your goal is to keep politics out of the hands of those darned elitists with their "facts" and their "studies".
"Treated as genuine" by whom? Republicans have been shredding both Obama and Clinton as "tokens" since the race began. They even went after Geraldine Ferraro with the old "inexperienced" argument. Now the Republican candidate, a man who would be older than Reagan when he was first elected, a man who has already survived cancer once, has gone and selected a woman whose previous experience is twenty months running a state with a population smaller than sixteen American cities.
Now, it's JMC's right to select whomever he wants as his veep, but he seems to be deciding based solely on who will give him the best shot of winning the election, regardless of the actual implications for the country. Worse -- and this makes me wonder how useful McCain's vaunted "experience" actually is -- he seems to be proceeding based on a simpleminded assumption that there is a huge population out there that just wants to vote for a woman, any woman.
Alternate theory: I read a book recently, called "Team of Rivals", about Abraham Lincoln's presidency. This is a book that Obama claims has influenced him heavily, especially his vision for his own presidency.
Lincoln could have chosen yes-men for his cabinet. Inexperienced men would be grateful for their positions, and feel less qualified to disagree with their boss. Instead, he gave very prominent positions (State, Treasury, War, etc.) to the very men he had defeated in the Republican nomination fight. Lincoln, having served only one term in the House, was about as inexperienced as presidents came. For much of his first term, critics within his own party consoled themselves with the false assumption that the Secretary of State was actually pulling the strings.
All that infighting led to quite a few ego-driven disputes that Lincoln had to step in and resolve. It also led to an atmosphere where doubts were aired, and where issues got brought up and resolved before decisions were made.
The fact is, Obama knew full well that tapping an experienced, opinionated foreign policy wonk with decades more senate experience would highlight his inexperience. If he was feeling really insecure, he could have gone with a one-termer like Tom Kaine or Jim Webb. If he wanted to surround himself with yes-men, he could find a VP whose views more closely mirrored his own. I hope Obama really does try to build a Lincolnish presidency, where the (sometimes very public) infighting usually led to better choices.
So, "a realistic solution to our current problems" is, in effect, exactly what we've been doing, plus drowning a few million tons of geology?
Look, when the next generation comes to you and asks, "When you saw these problems ahead, what did you do?" what answer do you want to have for them?
A) I tightened my belt, stopped buying shit I didn't need, started biking everywhere, and started putting up wind turbines as fast as I could. It was hard work, but I did it because I wanted the world to be as nice for you as it was for me.
B) I ripped out that mountain over there, and dumped it into this ocean over here. It wasn't pretty, but it was either that or get rid of my SUV.
If we'd made all the hard sacrifices, and were still faced with a big potential crisis, I'd say bring on the geoengineering. Otherwise, it's like listening to a chubby couch potato tell you that, rather than following a challenging diet and exercise regimen, he's just going to start slamming back the diet pills. Maybe it will actually improve his overall health, but it's hard not to look at their "solution" with a mixture of pity and disgust.
Now that my cleansing rant is over, could you elaborate on your statement that those "sustainable communities" aren't practical?
That sounds like a convincing argument, so long as you don't actually compare numbers, or do much actual thinking about it.
First problem: while the CO2 footprint of your food varies wildly according to what you're eating and how it was shipped, even the absolute worst-case scenario (all calories derived from beef shipped from Japan), walking and driving seem to be about equivalent. Cycling is, calorie-for-calorie, about twice as efficient. If your calories come from locally grown, organic produce, your CO2 footprint is minimal.
Hints: Switching from beef to chicken or fish greatly reduces CO2. Switching from beef to rice or legumes has an even bigger impact.
Second problem: who says that all calories need replacing? Americans consume more calories now than they ever have, which means that theoretically they could burn a couple hundred additional calories a day without needing to eat so much as an extra McNugget.
Third problem: the lifespan argument doesn't work for me, because most of those additional years will be lived out in the distant future. For me, the difference between living until 60 and living until 80 would be the difference between 2038 and 2058. If we haven't switched to much lower-impact technologies by that time, then I don't expect to live that long anyways. But the point is, those extra years ought to have far less effect than you would imply.
Me, I have an electric bike kit, which is fueled mostly by coal. But it still kicks serious eco-ass. I commute with it almost every day, and still my electric bill hasn't gone up noticeably. I can run the numbers for you if you're interested.
Actually, there were a few scientists predicting cooling, mostly due to increasing sulfides in the upper atmosphere. Happily, Nixon started the EPA and ended that trend.
I saw a survey of climatology papers published during the imagined "global cooling scare", and papers predicting warming outnumbered papers predicting cooling by about 6 to 1.
Our internet infrastructure is "quite modern" in comparison with whom? Zimbabwe? Most industrialized nations have far more regulation, and also far better broadband penetration. I don't think that's a coincidence.
You might want to reflect on your own reading comprehension for a while. Read it again, and then tell me who the author says is actually producing all that wealth. Hint: where is all that "cheap labor" situated?
I think Ted Kaczynski would make a wonderful Slashdot denizen. Smart, politically aware, able to write well about a variety of interesting topics. Okay, yes, he blew some people up, but does that really make him that much more unhinged than the rest of the people here?
Slashdot Mirror
Your response, as I understand it is, "If you're actually dying, you can get emergency room health care! Woo! USA!"
The fact that you can get treatment doesn't invalidate the fact that (unless you're fortunate enough to already be so broke that nobody will get money from you) the hospital is going to come after you for some huge bills. Which you can't afford. Because you're already too broke to afford health insurance. This can force someone living on the brink straight on into bankruptcy, at which point the taxpayers often end up footing the bill.
It makes more sense (to my wonky-liberal mind, at least) to make sure that everybody who wants health care can get it, in a non-punitive fashion. It's better for the country, because we would have a healthier and more productive workforce. It makes sense for the hospitals, who don't have their ERs tied up with problems that could have been treated more effectively with earlier diagnosis. It makes sense for companies, many of whom are going broke trying to provide benefits (or simply scaling those benefits back).
Nobody (plus or minus 5%) is asking for "top notch health care for everybody," and if that's your impression, then you've been misled. Proponents -- the reasonable ones, anyways -- are just asking for basic, prevention-focused care. What that specifically constitutes is going to be subject to intense debate. So is the best way to achieve that goal. But please keep in mind what, exactly, the goal is.
Re: Sicko. The 9/11 relief workers got severe respiratory problems as a result of working at Ground Zero, from breathing the toxic dust.* While they had private insurance, their claims got rejected. They showed up in Cuba, and got the medical care they needed, free. Dollar for dollar, Cuba's health care system is probably the best in the world.
* Christine Todd Whitman, Bush's EPA director at the time, told the relief crews that it was safe. It wasn't.
Workers didn't go on strike. They were locked out by upper management (who sabotaged the refineries as they left, and who were rightly the target of the bulk of the firings). There was an unholy alliance where the international oil companies were making a relative handful of Venezuelans extremely wealthy, in exchange for cheap access to oil. So in a way, blaming America for the "strike" (actually a lockout by the recipients of all that money) isn't far-fetched.
You are correct that the PDVSA was always government-owned. The actions Chavez took involved canceling the contracts of the multinationals. But the effects were similar to a true renationalization.
Your first example is a bad one. If more people tried the "barge in at the end" trick, traffic flow overall would be smoother.
I demand a world that makes sense, and where everything is demonstrably either true or false. You and Godel can go hang.
Again, what sample size would you deem appropriate for such a study?
I'm no statistician myself, but the size of the sample population needed to demonstrate an effect can be quite small if the effect is highly pronounced. If you were trying to prove a very subtle effect (say, eating bugs as a child leads to a .05% increase in cancer rates), then a very large sample would be required.
If you were trying to demonstrate something dramatic, like "men are statistically taller than women," a very small sample size would be sufficient, because the correlation is strong.
Nor do I see their non-random sample as a problem, so long as they threw in a caveat about how their conclusions only really apply to peaple with strong political opinions. It would have been interesting to see how a control group would have fared, though.
Someone doesn't like me!
Boo hoo, I think I'll go home and cry into my copy of Das Kapital.
Without consulting any reference sources, can you tell us how many test subjects would have been required for a non-useless result?
Just out of curiosity.
>> Who said anything about him abusing his power? All I said is that he can't just propose a theory, call anyone who disagrees either idiots or paid Oil company stooges, and then insist they be prosecuted and measures be put in place by fiat just because he's smart and knows better than everyone else.
Ummm, yes he can. He has no more power to dictate that we listen to him than is granted by his own fame and prestige, which he earned fair and square. If he wants to squander it on intemperate statements, that's his business.
>> I could also easily say that the other side of the argument is populated by left wing, government teat sucking, go along to get grants scientists who re-enforce their own group think.
That is also your right. Of course, that's utter bollocks, and nobody would care because who the hell is sycodon anyways. But go ahead.
>> How long did Science have a consensus that black s were inferior? Ot that the world was flat? Or pick any other absurd past belief. Those guys thought they were smart and knew it all. But they were wrong...and these guys could be wrong too.
Ah, yes, the old "science is sometimes wrong" card. Imperfect though it may be, it is still the best guess we have, and you can't simply replace science-as-it-is with science-as-you-hope-it-will-be-because-you'd-hate-to-cut-back-on-your-driving. Not if you want to remain honest.
>> When the news about the Sun spots (or lack thereof) came out the guy who had several years ago theorized (a real honest to gosh scientists mind you) that the Sun had more to do with warming than man said that Nature ( or one of the science journals) had declined to publish paper because it was "too controversial". He wasn't right wing. He wasn't undermining respect for scientific conclusions, he wasn't using pseudoscience. But he was effectively silenced because no one could have him going against AGW.
Can you name "the guy"? Can you tell me which journal refused to publish his paper? Can you show me the peer review notes that failed to find flaws in the paper itself, but nevertheless refused to publish? Your third-hand, vaguely recalled anecdote means nothing.
Once we have a specific instance to discuss, I can draw my own conclusions. Until then, the preceding paragraph is mere assertion without proof. Every shady, pseudoscientific field -- from astrology to the moon landing denialists to the folks who still insist there is a link between vaccines and autism -- is littered with THAT EXACT SAME ANECDOTE! Replace a few key phrases and you're done.
Speaking of phrases that need replacing, "the Sun had more to do with warming than man" has to go. You're insinuating that the vast bulk of the climatologists are too stupid to look up. The morons in question believe that their climate models actually do factor in the existence of the Daystar. It's not hard deciding who to believe.
Read this, and try to understand it before you get back to me. I'll be able to tell if you haven't.
>> Lastly, no one needs to undermine respect for scientific conclusions when they are all over the place and overly alarmist. Manhattan under water, FL gone or some such nonsense. End of civilization as we know it. AHhhhhh!
>> What crap. Your Science has been hijacked by Politics.
Hijacked or not, at least my science is peer reviewed. More than I can say for yours.
That is so far from what I said, you must have walked a week.
Disagreeing is, "John McCain doesn't reflect our core Republican values." Subverting the public discourse is, "John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child."
In Exxon-land, disagreeing is to fund solid scientific research that, when published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, would cause scientists to question the global warming consensus. Subverting the public discourse is funding right-wing bully pulpits that try to sway public opinion directly and undermine respect for scientific conclusions, using misleading pseudoscience.
And if it's not too much to ask, you still haven't explained how Hansen is abusing his power by stating his opinion. I await clarification on that point.
First, Hansen said that oil executives who -- knowing the consequences of global warming -- embarked on a campaign to mislead the public and obfuscate the science, should be tried for "crimes against humanity". Not "anyone opposing GW rhetoric". Get your facts straight.
Second, saying what sort of actions you would like to see taken is exactly the sort of thing that people are supposed to do with their right to free speech. You haven't demonstrated that Hansen has done anything anti-democratic in making such a statement, or that he has gone an inch beyond his rights as a citizen.
Third, Hansen can "insist that public policy kowtow to him" all he likes. We don't have to do it.
Finally, while I think his call was ill-advised and inflammatory, it's fundamentally sound. If the oil execs knowingly subverted the public discourse on a potentially catastrophic issue, then there should be severe consequences for those actions.
No, I think he's just saying that RNC protesters are yet another in a long, long list of bogus "existential threats" that right-wingers have used to whittle away our civil rights. Nothing that the protesters could do, even in Dick Cheney's most fevered dreams, constitutes the sort of threat that requires the police state that so many Americans seem to desire.
Counterargument: France. If anything, the government there is far more responsive to the demands of its citizens than the United States. Yet the French could totally school us in rioteering. The standard response is that they, unlike us sober and hardworking American folk, are self-entitled and corrupted by secular values. My view is that it means that the people are far more in control of the government than vice versa. That is both the cause and the result of their rioting.
Rioting has a strong cultural component, is all I'm saying.
Correction.
Here's your "better explanation." Not that it will change your thinking in the least.
Also, since when was ownership of a firearm evidence that someone intends to perpetrate a crime? The NRA would like to have a word with you.
Why exactly would you want it to? Unless your goal is to keep politics out of the hands of those darned elitists with their "facts" and their "studies".
"Treated as genuine" by whom? Republicans have been shredding both Obama and Clinton as "tokens" since the race began. They even went after Geraldine Ferraro with the old "inexperienced" argument. Now the Republican candidate, a man who would be older than Reagan when he was first elected, a man who has already survived cancer once, has gone and selected a woman whose previous experience is twenty months running a state with a population smaller than sixteen American cities.
Now, it's JMC's right to select whomever he wants as his veep, but he seems to be deciding based solely on who will give him the best shot of winning the election, regardless of the actual implications for the country. Worse -- and this makes me wonder how useful McCain's vaunted "experience" actually is -- he seems to be proceeding based on a simpleminded assumption that there is a huge population out there that just wants to vote for a woman, any woman.
Alternate theory: I read a book recently, called "Team of Rivals", about Abraham Lincoln's presidency. This is a book that Obama claims has influenced him heavily, especially his vision for his own presidency.
Lincoln could have chosen yes-men for his cabinet. Inexperienced men would be grateful for their positions, and feel less qualified to disagree with their boss. Instead, he gave very prominent positions (State, Treasury, War, etc.) to the very men he had defeated in the Republican nomination fight. Lincoln, having served only one term in the House, was about as inexperienced as presidents came. For much of his first term, critics within his own party consoled themselves with the false assumption that the Secretary of State was actually pulling the strings.
All that infighting led to quite a few ego-driven disputes that Lincoln had to step in and resolve. It also led to an atmosphere where doubts were aired, and where issues got brought up and resolved before decisions were made.
The fact is, Obama knew full well that tapping an experienced, opinionated foreign policy wonk with decades more senate experience would highlight his inexperience. If he was feeling really insecure, he could have gone with a one-termer like Tom Kaine or Jim Webb. If he wanted to surround himself with yes-men, he could find a VP whose views more closely mirrored his own. I hope Obama really does try to build a Lincolnish presidency, where the (sometimes very public) infighting usually led to better choices.
Biden seems like a good start.
So, "a realistic solution to our current problems" is, in effect, exactly what we've been doing, plus drowning a few million tons of geology?
Look, when the next generation comes to you and asks, "When you saw these problems ahead, what did you do?" what answer do you want to have for them?
A) I tightened my belt, stopped buying shit I didn't need, started biking everywhere, and started putting up wind turbines as fast as I could. It was hard work, but I did it because I wanted the world to be as nice for you as it was for me.
B) I ripped out that mountain over there, and dumped it into this ocean over here. It wasn't pretty, but it was either that or get rid of my SUV.
If we'd made all the hard sacrifices, and were still faced with a big potential crisis, I'd say bring on the geoengineering. Otherwise, it's like listening to a chubby couch potato tell you that, rather than following a challenging diet and exercise regimen, he's just going to start slamming back the diet pills. Maybe it will actually improve his overall health, but it's hard not to look at their "solution" with a mixture of pity and disgust.
Now that my cleansing rant is over, could you elaborate on your statement that those "sustainable communities" aren't practical?
That sounds like a convincing argument, so long as you don't actually compare numbers, or do much actual thinking about it.
First problem: while the CO2 footprint of your food varies wildly according to what you're eating and how it was shipped, even the absolute worst-case scenario (all calories derived from beef shipped from Japan), walking and driving seem to be about equivalent. Cycling is, calorie-for-calorie, about twice as efficient. If your calories come from locally grown, organic produce, your CO2 footprint is minimal.
Hints: Switching from beef to chicken or fish greatly reduces CO2. Switching from beef to rice or legumes has an even bigger impact.
Second problem: who says that all calories need replacing? Americans consume more calories now than they ever have, which means that theoretically they could burn a couple hundred additional calories a day without needing to eat so much as an extra McNugget.
Third problem: the lifespan argument doesn't work for me, because most of those additional years will be lived out in the distant future. For me, the difference between living until 60 and living until 80 would be the difference between 2038 and 2058. If we haven't switched to much lower-impact technologies by that time, then I don't expect to live that long anyways. But the point is, those extra years ought to have far less effect than you would imply.
Me, I have an electric bike kit, which is fueled mostly by coal. But it still kicks serious eco-ass. I commute with it almost every day, and still my electric bill hasn't gone up noticeably. I can run the numbers for you if you're interested.
Actually, there were a few scientists predicting cooling, mostly due to increasing sulfides in the upper atmosphere. Happily, Nixon started the EPA and ended that trend.
I saw a survey of climatology papers published during the imagined "global cooling scare", and papers predicting warming outnumbered papers predicting cooling by about 6 to 1.
Our internet infrastructure is "quite modern" in comparison with whom? Zimbabwe? Most industrialized nations have far more regulation, and also far better broadband penetration. I don't think that's a coincidence.
If the bill could have been stopped by one lone senator, wouldn't Chris Dodd have done so?
You might want to reflect on your own reading comprehension for a while. Read it again, and then tell me who the author says is actually producing all that wealth. Hint: where is all that "cheap labor" situated?
I think Ted Kaczynski would make a wonderful Slashdot denizen. Smart, politically aware, able to write well about a variety of interesting topics. Okay, yes, he blew some people up, but does that really make him that much more unhinged than the rest of the people here?
I disagree. Quoting Ayn rand is always gratuitous, never obligatory.