You misunderstand his original point. The argument is that the current price of bullets drastically undervalues their true cost. Thus, to reframe the question, he is arguing for prices that acuratly reflect both the financial and other costs of bullets so that the market, with all of its great cost-benifit-equlibrium-finding goodness, can work correctly.
Its not. Thats my point. Perhaps I should have been clearer. If you compare the US's current levels to Kyoto levels, and then do the same for most of the other UN countries, the US is far behind (that is, there is a bigger difference). It seems we agree.
Or, in this case, they know more about it than the wackos who concocted the latest fad climate theory when they really know nothing about it.
The EU, UN, EPA, the Bush administration, and any number of enironmentally oriented groups (although it is to be expected, that doesn't inharently discredit their research) disagree with you. Look here for example : look at this.
One, the latency effect, according to NPR, is between 70 and 100 years, not hundreds. Second, just because our actions would take a long time to come to be 100%, that doesn't mean we should damn the future with our sloth. _If_ we can agree that there is a problem, then we need to answer it.
Second, while it is true that the climate goes through shifts, "global warming" refers to an abnormally quick shift in temp. in terms of hundreds of years as opposed to thousands. This is not a natural thing.
Well, as for evidence, the EPA, EU, UN, and even the bush administration disagree with you on that one. The provisions for certain countries are not so damning as you might suggest. China and India do not pollute as much as the US does, for one. In addition, the costs of reducing emissions would be much greater for those nations than America. For example, according to the NRDC, the average American uses more than fifteen times more electricity in a month than the average person in China, and thirty times more than the average person in India. If you hypothetically cut the US's energy usage in half, we would still be doing pretty good. However, doing so in those other countries would be nothing short of disasterious.
Actually, capitalism doesn't work when you are dealing with externalities such as pollution where costs are externalized. Its econ 101. In addition, to quote Chomsky, if car company 1 puts 50% of its resources into developing a cleaner car for the future, and car company 2 puts those resources into lowering the car's cost, who do you think will be out of business and who will be still selling the pollution cars?
Perhaps it is to late to fix what is already in the air, but that is no excuse to make things worse for the future. If you concede that there is already a problem, then why make it any worse than it might already be?
Also, while everyone else might not be living Kyoto, if you judge it by how much we are polluting vs how much Kyoto levels call for, the rest of thw world is destroying us.
The Chicago Trib is running this story on the shrinking of various glaciers around the world that is also pretty terrifying. Perhaps its time for Bush to reconsider Kyoto?
Incase you are thinking of running metacity...
on
GNOME 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Incause some people out there are running the "experimental" metacity WM, here is configuration tool I wrote that is much nicer to use than the command line.
Good work everyone! I've been using gnome2 from cvs for some time now, and I am impressed with, and greatful for, all of your work. It is an excelent desktop, and one that no longer makes linux seem a compromise.
"I want our president to take care of OUR interests instead of catering to some unspecified , genereal "good"."
I think you just pin pointed the difference between stereotypical democrats(although not so much anymore)/leftists and republicans/rightists. People on the left see themselves as only one part of a world community, while those on the opposite side see it as "us/me" vs the world.
On the topic, and with the complaints of no GUI tool to configure Metacity, I just though I would point everyone to a piece of software that I wrote called Metacity-Setup. Im currently working on getting it a little more friendly (its flawed to be sure) but it does basic stuff nicely.
http://www.gnome.org/softwaremap/projects/metaci ty -setup/
Of course nVidia doesn't work well for me, and my voodoo3 is immediately good to go after I kill off the funked up X server.
Are you agreeing with me that the source of the problem is with the nVidia drivers and not X? It appears so, makeing what you say afterwards sound silly. Also, of course X has bugs, but the server as a whole should be rock solid. That is why I am convinced that your problem is hardware. Chill out!
I going to have to call you on this, you are lying. Doing what you describe will leave your graphics card stuck looking for what to display from the now non-existant X-server. In short, it leaves the display "grocked".
And yes, 4.2 is high quality, just dont use those nVidia drivers (although if you are not using the nvidia driver, then it could be something else. Perhaps overheating. Had that problem afew times.)
What you are describing is not a gnome or kde issue, but a X one, and most likely one stemming from your video card. I would venture to say you are running an nVidia card with their drivers. If this is the case, switching back to the "nv" ones will fix your stability issue, and unless you are heavy into 3d apps, not effect your speed.
No, its nothing new, it just shouldn't be the goal of any society. Instead of simply dissmissing this large ethical flaw from our present soceity, we should be taking active steps to move away from this maxim.
"they're doing it because working in a sweatshop is a step up from subsistence farming."
So essentally, an acceptable (and unfortuantly, and increasingly likely) motto for the future would be "your necessity is my opportunity" [the devils maxim]
The fact of the matter is that he has done more to change the way people look at the history of the United States than all but a few people. A little self analysis doesn't hurt anyone. This of people such as Zinn who find the dust bunnies that government and indusrty sweep under the rug.
You unconditionally, in a pratical sense, make a right by punishing those who infring upon them. If I have a right to live, then I hope you will be punished if you infring upon it. In no way is that in opposition to anarchist principals. Societys, status quo, anarchist, or otherwise simply must come to some concencious as to what is appropriate and what is not. Those are rights. If I only have the rights that I can personally defend, does a senior citizen have less rights than a younger, more able person?
Sure McCarthy violated people's free speach, but I don't see how this makes your point. Why can I not be infavor of McCarthy's right to sling names, but be opposed to people being blacklisted and such. I thought YOU as an anarchist would have been able to make this distinction. Sure public oppinion can be swayed, but it is only be the unalienable rights that you can protect people from these actions. The fact that many people mistakenly followed Stalin, Sharon, or McCarthy does not mean that those men should be, or have been, denied the right to speak feely.
"Well lets take an exception to your rule.... were to argue this."
If a facist is someone who only speaks, then let them speak. If they go beyond speaking and violate other peoples rights, which by definition are innate, then they are no longer exercising free speach, or any type of speach.
"If I was living in Stalinist Russia..."
Again, is someone is taking away your rights, they are not exercising free speach, they are taking some further action. It is not a contradiction at all to say that I am against a Stalinist society and also for free speach. Speach in and of itself cannot silence speach.
"In an anarchist society you would only have rights if you are willing to go far in stopping others from taking yours away. "
Well then I am strongly opposed to your idea of an anarchist society. A right must be something that is guarnteed unconditionally or it ceases to be a right. Anything less is might makes right.
Your creating a catch22 here. The standard you have proposed through the Fanelli quote has the potential for massive abuse. For example, if you, as an anarchist, feel that the current government is denying your rights to X,Y,and Z, is it thus okay to deny them their right to free speach? The problem is everyone has a differnet bright-line as to where freedom and/should be interfeared with. Very few people feel that they are activly trying lo limit freedoms, people don't often think of themselves as "the bad guy". Without the free speach that Chomsky is advocating, everyone who had a different definition of what is freedom and what is shackling would be free to silence those that disagree with them.
No, I believe the point that the previous poster was making is that property rights are not absolute. Setting up a straw man like that does not logically make a good point. For example, if I was to own all of the realistate, does that mean you should have no where to live. Its all about finding what is overall optimal, and I don't think that would be in a system where property "rights" are weighed over people's basic needs.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand his original point. The argument is that the current price of bullets drastically undervalues their true cost. Thus, to reframe the question, he is arguing for prices that acuratly reflect both the financial and other costs of bullets so that the market, with all of its great cost-benifit-equlibrium-finding goodness, can work correctly.
Its not. Thats my point. Perhaps I should have been clearer. If you compare the US's current levels to Kyoto levels, and then do the same for most of the other UN countries, the US is far behind (that is, there is a bigger difference). It seems we agree.
Or, in this case, they know more about it than the wackos who concocted the latest fad climate theory when they really know nothing about it.
The EU, UN, EPA, the Bush administration, and any number of enironmentally oriented groups (although it is to be expected, that doesn't inharently discredit their research) disagree with you. Look here for example : look at this.
One, the latency effect, according to NPR, is between 70 and 100 years, not hundreds. Second, just because our actions would take a long time to come to be 100%, that doesn't mean we should damn the future with our sloth. _If_ we can agree that there is a problem, then we need to answer it.
Second, while it is true that the climate goes through shifts, "global warming" refers to an abnormally quick shift in temp. in terms of hundreds of years as opposed to thousands. This is not a natural thing.
Well, as for evidence, the EPA, EU, UN, and even the bush administration disagree with you on that one. The provisions for certain countries are not so damning as you might suggest. China and India do not pollute as much as the US does, for one. In addition, the costs of reducing emissions would be much greater for those nations than America. For example, according to the NRDC, the average American uses more than fifteen times more electricity in a month than the average person in China, and thirty times more than the average person in India. If you hypothetically cut the US's energy usage in half, we would still be doing pretty good. However, doing so in those other countries would be nothing short of disasterious.
Actually, capitalism doesn't work when you are dealing with externalities such as pollution where costs are externalized. Its econ 101. In addition, to quote Chomsky, if car company 1 puts 50% of its resources into developing a cleaner car for the future, and car company 2 puts those resources into lowering the car's cost, who do you think will be out of business and who will be still selling the pollution cars?
Perhaps it is to late to fix what is already in the air, but that is no excuse to make things worse for the future. If you concede that there is already a problem, then why make it any worse than it might already be?
Also, while everyone else might not be living Kyoto, if you judge it by how much we are polluting vs how much Kyoto levels call for, the rest of thw world is destroying us.
Fuck. Id say the AC up there just kicked your ass :-)
The Chicago Trib is running this story on the shrinking of various glaciers around the world that is also pretty terrifying. Perhaps its time for Bush to reconsider Kyoto?
Incause some people out there are running the "experimental" metacity WM, here is configuration tool I wrote that is much nicer to use than the command line.
s /
http://plastercast.tzo.com/~plastercast/Project
Good work everyone! I've been using gnome2 from cvs for some time now, and I am impressed with, and greatful for, all of your work. It is an excelent desktop, and one that no longer makes linux seem a compromise.
"I want our president to take care of OUR interests instead of catering to some unspecified , genereal "good"."
I think you just pin pointed the difference between stereotypical democrats(although not so much anymore)/leftists and republicans/rightists. People on the left see themselves as only one part of a world community, while those on the opposite side see it as "us/me" vs the world.
Seriously! How dare they inform you of a problem and then try to fix it! The nerve of some people!
On the topic, and with the complaints of no GUI tool to configure Metacity, I just though I would point everyone to a piece of software that I wrote called Metacity-Setup. Im currently working on getting it a little more friendly (its flawed to be sure) but it does basic stuff nicely.
i ty -setup/
http://www.gnome.org/softwaremap/projects/metac
Of course nVidia doesn't work well for me, and my voodoo3 is immediately good to go after I kill off the funked up X server.
Are you agreeing with me that the source of the problem is with the nVidia drivers and not X? It appears so, makeing what you say afterwards sound silly. Also, of course X has bugs, but the server as a whole should be rock solid. That is why I am convinced that your problem is hardware. Chill out!
I going to have to call you on this, you are lying. Doing what you describe will leave your graphics card stuck looking for what to display from the now non-existant X-server. In short, it leaves the display "grocked".
And yes, 4.2 is high quality, just dont use those nVidia drivers (although if you are not using the nvidia driver, then it could be something else. Perhaps overheating. Had that problem afew times.)
What you are describing is not a gnome or kde issue, but a X one, and most likely one stemming from your video card. I would venture to say you are running an nVidia card with their drivers. If this is the case, switching back to the "nv" ones will fix your stability issue, and unless you are heavy into 3d apps, not effect your speed.
Stick around for gnome2s nautilus. I hae for the first time been keeping up with CVS and, with out exageration, it SCREEMS
No, its nothing new, it just shouldn't be the goal of any society. Instead of simply dissmissing this large ethical flaw from our present soceity, we should be taking active steps to move away from this maxim.
"they're doing it because working in a sweatshop is a step up from subsistence farming."
So essentally, an acceptable (and unfortuantly, and increasingly likely) motto for the future would be "your necessity is my opportunity" [the devils maxim]
And the problem with Zinn would be...
The fact of the matter is that he has done more to change the way people look at the history of the United States than all but a few people. A little self analysis doesn't hurt anyone. This of people such as Zinn who find the dust bunnies that government and indusrty sweep under the rug.
You unconditionally, in a pratical sense, make a right by punishing those who infring upon them. If I have a right to live, then I hope you will be punished if you infring upon it. In no way is that in opposition to anarchist principals. Societys, status quo, anarchist, or otherwise simply must come to some concencious as to what is appropriate and what is not. Those are rights. If I only have the rights that I can personally defend, does a senior citizen have less rights than a younger, more able person?
Sure McCarthy violated people's free speach, but I don't see how this makes your point. Why can I not be infavor of McCarthy's right to sling names, but be opposed to people being blacklisted and such. I thought YOU as an anarchist would have been able to make this distinction. Sure public oppinion can be swayed, but it is only be the unalienable rights that you can protect people from these actions. The fact that many people mistakenly followed Stalin, Sharon, or McCarthy does not mean that those men should be, or have been, denied the right to speak feely.
If a facist is someone who only speaks, then let them speak. If they go beyond speaking and violate other peoples rights, which by definition are innate, then they are no longer exercising free speach, or any type of speach.
"If I was living in Stalinist Russia..."
Again, is someone is taking away your rights, they are not exercising free speach, they are taking some further action. It is not a contradiction at all to say that I am against a Stalinist society and also for free speach. Speach in and of itself cannot silence speach.
"In an anarchist society you would only have rights if you are willing to go far in stopping others from taking yours away. "
Well then I am strongly opposed to your idea of an anarchist society. A right must be something that is guarnteed unconditionally or it ceases to be a right. Anything less is might makes right.
Your creating a catch22 here. The standard you have proposed through the Fanelli quote has the potential for massive abuse. For example, if you, as an anarchist, feel that the current government is denying your rights to X,Y,and Z, is it thus okay to deny them their right to free speach? The problem is everyone has a differnet bright-line as to where freedom and/should be interfeared with. Very few people feel that they are activly trying lo limit freedoms, people don't often think of themselves as "the bad guy". Without the free speach that Chomsky is advocating, everyone who had a different definition of what is freedom and what is shackling would be free to silence those that disagree with them.
No, I believe the point that the previous poster was making is that property rights are not absolute. Setting up a straw man like that does not logically make a good point. For example, if I was to own all of the realistate, does that mean you should have no where to live. Its all about finding what is overall optimal, and I don't think that would be in a system where property "rights" are weighed over people's basic needs.