I understand the theory spouted by free market evangelists. That theory has been tested and shown to fail. The idea that profit motive will be balanced by the profit motive of others does not work. its a fragile unstable balance on the edge of a precipice. It is in a state of dynamic equilibrium near an unrecoverable state. If there is any possibility of slipping into the unrecoverable state, eventually it will and the system comes to an end. Chaos determines that there will eventually be such a slip and the system collapses.
The age of oil is ending. We can do something about it now and prevent the suffering and death resulting from a profitable transition or collapse. Or we can be honest and spread profits over time at the cost of the suffering and deaths of many people. Or we can lie about it to gather great profits now and cause total collapse later.
It looks like the 3rd option is being taken. People are ignorant, either willfully or through intellectual incapacity. It is time to stock up on guns, ammo & solar panels to prepare for a mad max style distopia.
So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm
Which is stupid. I understand the "it's ugly" and "it ruins the environment" concerns, and perhaps those should be addressed... but to decide, as a politician, that (1) the free market giving incentive to companies to innovate/invent/investigate/[insert cool word that starts with i here] and (2) that various shales are inaccessible (and never WILL be accessible) and then force, through the things you mentioned, companies NOT to investigate and try to do it with their own money...
Well, at least, American companies. Who knows what non-American/non-European companies or governments will do.
One of the cool words to insert there is Ignore. In the free market, you do well by maximizing your short term returns while ignoring the delayed costs and consequences of your actions. Many people look no farther ahead than next year, some don't look past the next quarter, very few are able much less willing to look at something that is decades or centuries in coming. This same type of thing happened in America once before. A seemingly valuable natural resource was being over taxed and everyone ignored the possibility that it was being exhausted and could come to an end. This partially caused the dust bowl and led to the near collapse of the global free market economy and the deaths of millions.
To trust the free market economy is to trust that peoples are not greedy ignorant bastards who would sell their children for a widescreen tv. I don't have that kind of faith. Of course I don't have the faith that the government is any more capable either. I am a pessimist, at best.
a 7 meter object has less than a third of the mass of a 10 meter object. And some of that mass would be lost to ablation on atmospheric entry. Depending on a number of factors the damage would likely be somewhere between a very large conventional bomb and no damage at all.
They have OCD. Seriously, my fiance has it. It gets ridiculous at times. She worries. And then she worries about worrying. And then she worries about worrying about worrying.
But if the economy improved with unemployment going down, what would we have to complain about? We can't be happy without something to complain about, regardless of what side of the fence is stuck up our behind.
6 miles should should take about 15 minutes with a bike on normal roads. I've done 5 miles in 10 minutes, including stopping at 2 signs. Of course bikes are considered motor vehicles in the US, so you must follow all traffic signals. Won't be much faster in this case.
I hate to be blunt. But that is either a lie or woefully uninformed. Provide some documentation for me. Everything I have read has shown a real budget surplus. It is illegal for the US government to invest the SS surplus and therefore the above budget SS income was being held without interest. By using that excess to pay down interest bearing debts, it cuts the cost of operating the government and would have allowed all of that money to have been repaid by the interest savings alone, not to mention the overall growth of the economy that resulted from debt reduction.
Ok, I've looked at that site a bit. Quite interesting. I see a lot of comparative analysis, but nothing specific to my suggestion. Care to point to something a bit more specific?
I would point out that republicans have been big government on a federal level for at least the last 30 years, much more so than the democrats. Look at a chart showing the growth of national debt caused by overspending and you will see that debt rises during republican administrations and (more often) falls during democratic administrations. The policies enacted by Clinton in the 90's saw national debt fall and the social security surplus rise. A few more years of that would have eliminated the national debt and kept medicare afloat for an extra 40 or more years.
There is no party for me. Every single party has something I can not agree with.
I could never agree with republicans because of their slash and burn policies of cutting taxes while exploding spending, their theocratic extremism, their shredding of pretty much the entire bill of rights, etc.
Democrats desire to remove the second amendment, selling out to corporate interests, and general backwards and non-productive approach to achieving the parts of their ideology that they agree with has me turning away from them.
The green party is crap. While I am an environmentalist, I am not an anti-human, ignorant and unhealthy vegan that wants to suppress technological advancement and the bounty of nuclear power.
I would be a close to a constitutionalist, except they hide racist and religious oppression behind the guise of states rights.
But yes, I also see us moving for a corporfascist oligarchy of a police-state.
In 2000, I lived in Mississippi, a red state ever since the democrats threw out the segregationists. I voted independent for president in the attempt to reach 5% for matching federal funds in the next election. That was my only goal with that vote, it almost succeeded.
I believe that a large portion of the people voting "for" a democrat or republican are not doing so specifically because they support that candidate, but rather because they oppose the other candidate. If my supposition is true, then the ability to negative vote could even the playing field for other candidates.
How the hell was it made clear. Until last year I never saw mention that the speed the mentioned was burst speed in any ads.
Hell, last time I ordered cable internet I asked the person on the phone about caps, throttling and DNS poisoning and they told me they did none of that. This was with comcast, and I already knew the answer. They lied, but my only choice was them or nothing.
Here is a better question... Is personal responsibility compatible with religion? Historically in many religions (christianity, islam, etc) all things were considered to be predetermined by the hand of god. It doesn't matter what you do, it was gods will. That belief continues today in many forms, though often modified. I meet and talk to these people every day, they probably represent the majority of the people I interacted with when I worked in retail (though its possible this is skewed by their evangelism causing them to seek out this expression for viral purposes).
As an atheist I have to accept that every decision that I make is my own. I can not defer that responsibility to the will of god or magic spells. I can't just cast a magic spell (AKA pray) to solve a problem, I have to face it and work towards overcoming it myself. My genes and my environment shape who I am, but I can also shape that. I can decide to be different than the sum of my programming. I own my soul and can shape it as I see fit. I am a product of a dysfunctional home. I grew up with a level of ignorance, violence, fear, hatred and religious fervor that makes the taliban look tame in comparison. I choose to be the antithesis of that. I choose to have a thirst for knowledge. I choose to not hate. I choose to let go of fear (at least I try). I choose to reserve violence for defense. I choose to be better.
School shootings have been happening for the better part of two centuries, more if you count attacks not including guns (though the power disparity between modern arms and unarmed kids allow the attacks to last much longer).
Its just that it didn't become a matter of national media attention until the late 1980's/early 1990's.
In the vast majority of cases it is caused by unstable young boys that are bullied or ostracized by their peers and do not have any adults they feel they can turn to for help.
It has nothing to do with violence in entertainment in general or in video games specifically.
If you have a problem with your kids playing mature games, the solution is simple, don't buy your kids mature games. The retailers will not sell to a minor. You want to keep your kids from becoming a school shooter? Spend time with them, be their friend, talk with them and here is the part where most people fail... listen to them.
1: developers need to run the software they write. 2: there are more legitimate programs than viruses. 3: a virus could potentially infect a white-listed program, though it may be difficult if a hash or check-sum is used (collisions do exist). 4: who gets to define the white-list? what if MS only white-listed MS and MS affiliate software?
Seriously though, a properly designed OS can be made all but idiot proof without antivirus. Idiots will still download and run whatever they want. Even if you tell them OMGkittensScreenSaver.exe is a virus and provide ample proof, they will want it enough to ignore your warnings.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the theory spouted by free market evangelists. That theory has been tested and shown to fail. The idea that profit motive will be balanced by the profit motive of others does not work. its a fragile unstable balance on the edge of a precipice. It is in a state of dynamic equilibrium near an unrecoverable state. If there is any possibility of slipping into the unrecoverable state, eventually it will and the system comes to an end. Chaos determines that there will eventually be such a slip and the system collapses.
The age of oil is ending. We can do something about it now and prevent the suffering and death resulting from a profitable transition or collapse. Or we can be honest and spread profits over time at the cost of the suffering and deaths of many people. Or we can lie about it to gather great profits now and cause total collapse later.
It looks like the 3rd option is being taken. People are ignorant, either willfully or through intellectual incapacity. It is time to stock up on guns, ammo & solar panels to prepare for a mad max style distopia.
So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm
Which is stupid. I understand the "it's ugly" and "it ruins the environment" concerns, and perhaps those should be addressed... but to decide, as a politician, that (1) the free market giving incentive to companies to innovate/invent/investigate/[insert cool word that starts with i here] and (2) that various shales are inaccessible (and never WILL be accessible) and then force, through the things you mentioned, companies NOT to investigate and try to do it with their own money ...
Well, at least, American companies. Who knows what non-American/non-European companies or governments will do.
One of the cool words to insert there is Ignore. In the free market, you do well by maximizing your short term returns while ignoring the delayed costs and consequences of your actions. Many people look no farther ahead than next year, some don't look past the next quarter, very few are able much less willing to look at something that is decades or centuries in coming. This same type of thing happened in America once before. A seemingly valuable natural resource was being over taxed and everyone ignored the possibility that it was being exhausted and could come to an end. This partially caused the dust bowl and led to the near collapse of the global free market economy and the deaths of millions.
To trust the free market economy is to trust that peoples are not greedy ignorant bastards who would sell their children for a widescreen tv. I don't have that kind of faith. Of course I don't have the faith that the government is any more capable either. I am a pessimist, at best.
a 7 meter object has less than a third of the mass of a 10 meter object. And some of that mass would be lost to ablation on atmospheric entry. Depending on a number of factors the damage would likely be somewhere between a very large conventional bomb and no damage at all.
what? agoraphobia is fear of public places.
Since when does ping measure distance?
http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html
They have OCD. Seriously, my fiance has it. It gets ridiculous at times. She worries. And then she worries about worrying. And then she worries about worrying about worrying.
This is exactly the first thing I thought as well.
Hell, both the deathstar and the LHC even are the largest and most powerful beam weapons of their respective cultures.
clearly. ;)
But if the economy improved with unemployment going down, what would we have to complain about? We can't be happy without something to complain about, regardless of what side of the fence is stuck up our behind.
when the economy gets better while unemployment rises. It means the wealthy are earning much more than when only one of those conditions are true.
6 miles should should take about 15 minutes with a bike on normal roads. I've done 5 miles in 10 minutes, including stopping at 2 signs. Of course bikes are considered motor vehicles in the US, so you must follow all traffic signals. Won't be much faster in this case.
I like my elves like I like everything else, finely minced, baked with mushrooms and served in a legendary obsidian dining hall.
*elf meat biscuit*
Loosing is fun. Dwarf Fortress.
I read that link as cosmo magazine.
I was wondering why a magazine dedicated to women giving better blowjobs would have a geology article.
I hate to be blunt. But that is either a lie or woefully uninformed. Provide some documentation for me. Everything I have read has shown a real budget surplus. It is illegal for the US government to invest the SS surplus and therefore the above budget SS income was being held without interest. By using that excess to pay down interest bearing debts, it cuts the cost of operating the government and would have allowed all of that money to have been repaid by the interest savings alone, not to mention the overall growth of the economy that resulted from debt reduction.
Ok, I've looked at that site a bit. Quite interesting. I see a lot of comparative analysis, but nothing specific to my suggestion. Care to point to something a bit more specific?
I would point out that republicans have been big government on a federal level for at least the last 30 years, much more so than the democrats. Look at a chart showing the growth of national debt caused by overspending and you will see that debt rises during republican administrations and (more often) falls during democratic administrations. The policies enacted by Clinton in the 90's saw national debt fall and the social security surplus rise. A few more years of that would have eliminated the national debt and kept medicare afloat for an extra 40 or more years.
There is no party for me. Every single party has something I can not agree with.
I could never agree with republicans because of their slash and burn policies of cutting taxes while exploding spending, their theocratic extremism, their shredding of pretty much the entire bill of rights, etc.
Democrats desire to remove the second amendment, selling out to corporate interests, and general backwards and non-productive approach to achieving the parts of their ideology that they agree with has me turning away from them.
The green party is crap. While I am an environmentalist, I am not an anti-human, ignorant and unhealthy vegan that wants to suppress technological advancement and the bounty of nuclear power.
I would be a close to a constitutionalist, except they hide racist and religious oppression behind the guise of states rights.
But yes, I also see us moving for a corporfascist oligarchy of a police-state.
I agree with what you are saying.
In 2000, I lived in Mississippi, a red state ever since the democrats threw out the segregationists. I voted independent for president in the attempt to reach 5% for matching federal funds in the next election. That was my only goal with that vote, it almost succeeded.
I believe that a large portion of the people voting "for" a democrat or republican are not doing so specifically because they support that candidate, but rather because they oppose the other candidate. If my supposition is true, then the ability to negative vote could even the playing field for other candidates.
How the hell was it made clear. Until last year I never saw mention that the speed the mentioned was burst speed in any ads.
Hell, last time I ordered cable internet I asked the person on the phone about caps, throttling and DNS poisoning and they told me they did none of that. This was with comcast, and I already knew the answer. They lied, but my only choice was them or nothing.
I've long suggested the option to vote against a candidate instead of for one, that would be a variation on preferential voting.
I hate to break it to you, but most cars have more than 1 seat. Passengers could very well need to operate a phone.
Here is a better question... Is personal responsibility compatible with religion? Historically in many religions (christianity, islam, etc) all things were considered to be predetermined by the hand of god. It doesn't matter what you do, it was gods will. That belief continues today in many forms, though often modified. I meet and talk to these people every day, they probably represent the majority of the people I interacted with when I worked in retail (though its possible this is skewed by their evangelism causing them to seek out this expression for viral purposes).
As an atheist I have to accept that every decision that I make is my own. I can not defer that responsibility to the will of god or magic spells. I can't just cast a magic spell (AKA pray) to solve a problem, I have to face it and work towards overcoming it myself. My genes and my environment shape who I am, but I can also shape that. I can decide to be different than the sum of my programming. I own my soul and can shape it as I see fit. I am a product of a dysfunctional home. I grew up with a level of ignorance, violence, fear, hatred and religious fervor that makes the taliban look tame in comparison. I choose to be the antithesis of that. I choose to have a thirst for knowledge. I choose to not hate. I choose to let go of fear (at least I try). I choose to reserve violence for defense. I choose to be better.
School shootings have been happening for the better part of two centuries, more if you count attacks not including guns (though the power disparity between modern arms and unarmed kids allow the attacks to last much longer).
Its just that it didn't become a matter of national media attention until the late 1980's/early 1990's.
In the vast majority of cases it is caused by unstable young boys that are bullied or ostracized by their peers and do not have any adults they feel they can turn to for help.
It has nothing to do with violence in entertainment in general or in video games specifically.
If you have a problem with your kids playing mature games, the solution is simple, don't buy your kids mature games. The retailers will not sell to a minor. You want to keep your kids from becoming a school shooter? Spend time with them, be their friend, talk with them and here is the part where most people fail... listen to them.
Are you kidding me? Bush was a gold mine for the comedic industry!
Depends on what you mean by "self propagating"? There are a number that run on macs with MS office. There were quite a few for OS9 and earlier.
Ah... Found a few references for os x virus's.
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/osxleapa.html (spreads via ichat)
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/osxinqtanaa.html (spreads automatically via bluetooth)
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/shrenepoa.html (spreads to other macs on the same network)
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/osxinqtanab.html (spreads automatically via bluetooth)
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/macamphimixa.html (spreads as an mp3 file)
There are Mac viruses, its just that they are a fraction of the danger of windows virus.Going mac/linux isn't a perfect solution, but it does help.
1: developers need to run the software they write.
2: there are more legitimate programs than viruses.
3: a virus could potentially infect a white-listed program, though it may be difficult if a hash or check-sum is used (collisions do exist).
4: who gets to define the white-list? what if MS only white-listed MS and MS affiliate software?
Seriously though, a properly designed OS can be made all but idiot proof without antivirus. Idiots will still download and run whatever they want. Even if you tell them OMGkittensScreenSaver.exe is a virus and provide ample proof, they will want it enough to ignore your warnings.