1. Padilla I knew about. Kokal I didn't know about, but given the link I'll read up and see what I think...
2. The other reply got it right.
3. Fair enough, but I'll just keep voting Libertarian so I can feel good about myself.:)
4. Coal does emit CO2, but far less than in previous generations, and I see no reason why that trend will not continue. Nuclear does not get very far because the common man in America is scared shitless of it, which has everything to do with environmental wackos demonizing it, and nothing to do with the "Oil Patch Gang". We are already moving to less gas dependence. It will simply take some time. In a generation, every car will _at least_ be a hybrid. Look at the popularity now. No reason to see that trend reversing itself.
5. If you think this administration is the worst we've ever had (and with the "Period" it sounds too much like you're attempting to call that statement a fact, which obviously it isn't), I'd content that Carter's was far, far worse.
Agreed. And you have no God-given (or any other deity, if you believe in one) right to live in one place or another, which is my point: If you (the figurative "you") can't afford it, move somewhere else!
Might be cold-hearted, but I'll stick by it. I am kind of a cold-hearted guy when I think about it.:)
Occurs to me that many folk left the Old World for the New a few hundred years ago in search of a better life. Maybe people who can't afford to live in one city in America could try another. Upstate New York is pretty empty these days.:)
I like how your opinion of large companies is that they were "lucky". In my opinion, those smaller companies that were able to grow got there because they _positioned_ themselves well.
Granted, most of the HR-related ideas (TQM, out-sourcing, cutting benefits) are stupid, but the financial expertise of executives in corporations should not be taken lightly.
As the brilliant engineer that you appear to be, why not start your own company. My uncle did, and it's doing quite well, for a small primary research pharmaceutical co... (www.bioanalytical.com)
Did you ever consider that perhaps it was your methods or your presentation (resume) that was the problem?
Of course I don't know you, but I can say, I have a very low opinion of interviewees who provide resumes with silly spelling or grammatical errors.
Perhaps you have odd skills that are not applicable in the market where you were looking (say, mainframe experience and you're looking for work in East Bumfuck, PA).
There ARE jobs available. Most, I've noticed, are with tiny companies, or simple support-style jobs for small companies. Not glamorous, but sure is better than many alternatives.
Not sure why I'm responding to an AC, but what the hell:
1. I would, in fact, like some unbiased, professional references, particularly the state dept deaths.
2. The vote recount was bad politics on both sides, and a bunch of pathetic morons in S. Florida. Nothing conspiratorial there.
3. Given your units of measure, I'm assuming you're not American. Re: Commuting: We have a much bigger friggin country than any in Europe. Why not spread out a bit?:) Re: Our lack of good public transportation: We're too big. It's generally not feasible. And I, as a libertarian, don't want to pay what it would cost to make it feasible, thank you very much.
4. If you think coal and nuclear are anywhere near "old and dirty", you haven't been paying attention.
5. The "unbelieveable ludicrous things" is also an indication of not really paying attention. There are shitty bureaucrats in EVERY government, which is why we should be fighting for less gov't PERIOD. You just seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder against the current American one. As if any other gov't around the world is ANY better....
Of course there is: I like my country, and the job that I have. If I valued warm weather more, I'd go live on the Costa Rican pacific coast, and make a princely sum being the one "gringo computer guru" around...
You say on one hand, "it's too expensive to live here", while on the other "it's where I can find work." I find it exceedingly hard to believe that you cannot find work anywhere else in the U.S....
Heck, as long as we're making "law" more and more complex, I like your idea, it's essentially the reason companies outsource: Costs.
Carrot/stick thing: Some states attract businesses through lower taxes. Why not work it the same way at the national level: Create incentives to stay. But do it as a reward system, not a punishment one...
Take a ride up to Western New York. There are jobs available if you have some skill and aren't afraid to network (that's people network, not machine network).
One of my best friends just bought a tiny place for 21,000. About 900 sq ft, 30x100 lot... Comfy. Could live comfortably there for about $25k, not extravagant, by any means, but it's certainly doable.
Where is your evidence that "there are fewer jobs available" is a _fact_?
I would contest that rather strenuously.
There are a great many tech jobs available, if you know where to look (small businesses). And you're always free to start up your own business. And you're always free to make less money.
"blind executive thing" is pretty foolish, don't you think, considering they've been building gigantic corporations for decades? Seems like they know exactly what they're doing: Controlling controllable costs.
I'm with you. I was reading it in the actual magazine last month (go subscribe! it's good!) hoping to see more good Cyberpunk stuff. I can attribute some of his missing proof to lack of magazine space (and reader attention, or lack thereof).
However, one interesting approach his Viridians (or whatever they'd call themselves) have is simply the "you catch more flies with honey" idea: Instead of beating everyone's heads with doom and gloom environmental scenarios, why not work harder to create marketable reasons to go green? Some people do, and I find it much more interesting than all the global-warming hysteria going on.
Yes, but you see, there is nothing that says you must by CD-Rs, is there? Canadians often come across the border to Buffalo to shop, so they're more than welcome to buy CD-Rs from us.
They cannot force me to play music I have on certain equipment. All my music is on CD, or MP3. I can do what I want with those.
To that, you might say, "But look, down the road all music will be in the XYZ format, which you cannot use!". Then I am free to opt out of that new generation of music, and maintain my current collection.
Since they are the producers of said music, they must be given the right to do with it what they please: If they want to make it hard for people to use, so be it!
Are you starting to get the picture yet, to understand that you are not locked into buying what the corporations are selling? To be self-sufficient? To enjoy your life without being a mindless consumer?
You are very correct about your last point: Corporations certainly DO want us to be captive consumers. But we are only such as long as we ALLOW ourselves to be so. We can opt out any time we choose!
Corporations can only exert pressure that you allow.
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music! Even if "evil" corporations were the only ones producing CDs, do you think there would be no other music available to you? Radio, orchestras, street performers... Who cares that the corporations make billions: You still have a choice!
Well, I'm certainly not an Earth-first type, but you have got me at one thing: I'm not particularly concerned with the survival of humanity. If we fuck things up sufficiently, well, you know the old saw, "You reap what you sow."
I agree that there's plenty of human-inflicted change going on in the world. However, even given your rephrasing of the rain-on-the-24th question, the burden of proof must be on you: You claim climate is aberrant in NYC, you must provide greater proof than "Rain on the 24th never happened before". In this case, it's not up to me to proove that you're wrong (though given sufficient time and resources, neither of which I have at my disposal right now, I'm 100% certain I could prove it). You made the claim, you must be the one to back it up, right?
Back to the bigger question of us destroying the world: We ought to, then, work our butts off to pull the poor and uneducated in the rest of the world up to first-world status. Again, I could go find numbers but I'll trust you can look it up if you want: First world, well-educated populaces are better for the environment than third-world poor, for a number of reasons (better, more efficient use of agricultural land, less slash/burn techniques, better pollution controls (wastewater treatment, etc)).
And of course, the best way to do that is sacrifice some of our own well-being through globalization. Which is anathema to many liberal types who tend to freak out about the "exploitation of the poor", but I'm getting far afield, sorry.
Good conversation though; interesting that we're holding two debates on/. at the same time...
I don't have the numbers, sorry. Read them in a study a while ago, and I can't find it. Doubtless it was written by a greedy oil company though.:-D
A more important question than yours regarding mass transit is simply, "How can we convince Americans that mass transit is a viable option?" Get that one figured out and the money for mass transit will come along easily.
As for your question about my vehicle choices: I had an SUV, you don't get any special tax breaks.:) I got the Mustang because I like to go fast, and I am getting the Prius because I like the idea of using the HOV-3 lanes on I-395 to get into Arlington much faster in the mornings.
As for why I'm standing up for SUVs: I find them incredibly useful. I find them one hell of a lot more attractive than other "hauler" options (minivans and pickup trucks). I also have a philosophical bent to allow someone else to do what they want with their car purchasing decisions, and not to mock them for making their choice based on whatever parameters they choose are most important. For you and I, SUVs are not the answer right now. For most of my family members back home in Buffalo, the 4WD SUV is nearly a necessity.
The weather is NOT broken. You speak more like a hollywood director planning the next disaster flick than a rational person.
I'd love to go find a historical record of all the NYC Dec 24's, but I can't seem to locate one. Pardon me if I don't buy into your belief that this is the only one that has ever had rain.
The average temperature statistics I do have, plus some common sense, indicate that there's a real good chance that there has been rain on Dec 24 in NYC before, and you simply don't remember those days.
If you'd like to keep worrying about how we're destroying the planet, go ahead. In the meantime, I'm going to continue my comparatively optimistic view that we're most certainly NOT destroying any planets. The worst thing we might be doing is increasing the average temps by a few fractions of a degree... and for my skinny ass, I say, the more degrees, the better.:) Last time I read the history, ancient Earth was at times lots warmer and lots cooler than it is now. And look, we're still here.
What makes you think the Earth's temps should be static? Just wondering what's wrong with a little climate change...
Wrong, the best bang for the legislative buck would be to subsidize the purchase of new cars by the poor, who are the ones driving the ancient beaters.
Sorry to try to use some logic in the argument here. It's obvious by your reaction (an airsick bag? Sheesh, it's an SUV, not a Chernobyl meltdown) that rationality is not the menu.
As for you "his purchase of a gaz guzzler", I can only point out that I own a new Mustang convertible, and I'm about to buy an '04 Prius. Are they "okay" for you? Or am I still an evil polluter?:)
Wow, you know, I see the same thing, but never met anyone else who noticed it.
My parents had a blue digital clock that I couldn't focus on in the dark (when it was the only color). For some reason, noone else noticed it. I wonder if they just didn't realize it.:)
Oh, so it's all the SUV's fault. It's not the slash and burn farming in sub-Saharan Africa then?
Also, please be more precise: No vehicles in America are "immune" to emissions laws.
Toyota Car: 30 mpg. For Explorer: 15 mpg.
That's only a 2-1 ratio, but the way you reactionist anti-SUV types talk, one would be lead to believe the SUVs use at least 10x as much gas.
Granted, cars DO get better gas mileage. But answer me this: What pollutes more, a brand new Explorer or the 12 year old Camry with the rotting catalytic converter? (hint: it ain't the Explorer)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the reply.
:)
:)
1. Padilla I knew about. Kokal I didn't know about, but given the link I'll read up and see what I think...
2. The other reply got it right.
3. Fair enough, but I'll just keep voting Libertarian so I can feel good about myself.
4. Coal does emit CO2, but far less than in previous generations, and I see no reason why that trend will not continue.
Nuclear does not get very far because the common man in America is scared shitless of it, which has everything to do with environmental wackos demonizing it, and nothing to do with the "Oil Patch Gang".
We are already moving to less gas dependence. It will simply take some time. In a generation, every car will _at least_ be a hybrid. Look at the popularity now. No reason to see that trend reversing itself.
5. If you think this administration is the worst we've ever had (and with the "Period" it sounds too much like you're attempting to call that statement a fact, which obviously it isn't), I'd content that Carter's was far, far worse.
See you in CR!
Oh that's right, Democrats have never broken the law...
Fuck's sake, you really think the Demolicans are any better than the Republicrats??
Thank you sir, for providing the link. I read that yesterday, a very well-written piece.
Agreed. And you have no God-given (or any other deity, if you believe in one) right to live in one place or another, which is my point: If you (the figurative "you") can't afford it, move somewhere else!
Might be cold-hearted, but I'll stick by it. I am kind of a cold-hearted guy when I think about it. :)
:)
Occurs to me that many folk left the Old World for the New a few hundred years ago in search of a better life. Maybe people who can't afford to live in one city in America could try another. Upstate New York is pretty empty these days.
I like how your opinion of large companies is that they were "lucky". In my opinion, those smaller companies that were able to grow got there because they _positioned_ themselves well.
Granted, most of the HR-related ideas (TQM, out-sourcing, cutting benefits) are stupid, but the financial expertise of executives in corporations should not be taken lightly.
As the brilliant engineer that you appear to be, why not start your own company. My uncle did, and it's doing quite well, for a small primary research pharmaceutical co... (www.bioanalytical.com)
Did you ever consider that perhaps it was your methods or your presentation (resume) that was the problem?
Of course I don't know you, but I can say, I have a very low opinion of interviewees who provide resumes with silly spelling or grammatical errors.
Perhaps you have odd skills that are not applicable in the market where you were looking (say, mainframe experience and you're looking for work in East Bumfuck, PA).
There ARE jobs available. Most, I've noticed, are with tiny companies, or simple support-style jobs for small companies. Not glamorous, but sure is better than many alternatives.
Not sure why I'm responding to an AC, but what the hell:
:) Re: Our lack of good public transportation: We're too big. It's generally not feasible. And I, as a libertarian, don't want to pay what it would cost to make it feasible, thank you very much.
1. I would, in fact, like some unbiased, professional references, particularly the state dept deaths.
2. The vote recount was bad politics on both sides, and a bunch of pathetic morons in S. Florida. Nothing conspiratorial there.
3. Given your units of measure, I'm assuming you're not American. Re: Commuting: We have a much bigger friggin country than any in Europe. Why not spread out a bit?
4. If you think coal and nuclear are anywhere near "old and dirty", you haven't been paying attention.
5. The "unbelieveable ludicrous things" is also an indication of not really paying attention. There are shitty bureaucrats in EVERY government, which is why we should be fighting for less gov't PERIOD. You just seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder against the current American one. As if any other gov't around the world is ANY better....
Of course there is: I like my country, and the job that I have. If I valued warm weather more, I'd go live on the Costa Rican pacific coast, and make a princely sum being the one "gringo computer guru" around...
...
You say on one hand, "it's too expensive to live here", while on the other "it's where I can find work." I find it exceedingly hard to believe that you cannot find work anywhere else in the U.S.
Heck, as long as we're making "law" more and more complex, I like your idea, it's essentially the reason companies outsource: Costs.
Carrot/stick thing: Some states attract businesses through lower taxes. Why not work it the same way at the national level: Create incentives to stay. But do it as a reward system, not a punishment one...
Take a ride up to Western New York. There are jobs available if you have some skill and aren't afraid to network (that's people network, not machine network).
One of my best friends just bought a tiny place for 21,000. About 900 sq ft, 30x100 lot... Comfy. Could live comfortably there for about $25k, not extravagant, by any means, but it's certainly doable.
I didn't know you had a Constitutional right to live where you live. Pretty cool.
Just curious: If the cost of living is so high where you are, why not move?
Where is your evidence that "there are fewer jobs available" is a _fact_?
I would contest that rather strenuously.
There are a great many tech jobs available, if you know where to look (small businesses). And you're always free to start up your own business. And you're always free to make less money.
"blind executive thing" is pretty foolish, don't you think, considering they've been building gigantic corporations for decades? Seems like they know exactly what they're doing: Controlling controllable costs.
Dammit! Damn the monks! I knew it was them! :) Just one more reason to dislike christianity.
And too bad the Vikings never figured out how to build better ships... Good try though, very impressive while it lasted.
I'm with you. I was reading it in the actual magazine last month (go subscribe! it's good!) hoping to see more good Cyberpunk stuff. I can attribute some of his missing proof to lack of magazine space (and reader attention, or lack thereof).
However, one interesting approach his Viridians (or whatever they'd call themselves) have is simply the "you catch more flies with honey" idea: Instead of beating everyone's heads with doom and gloom environmental scenarios, why not work harder to create marketable reasons to go green? Some people do, and I find it much more interesting than all the global-warming hysteria going on.
Yes, but you see, there is nothing that says you must by CD-Rs, is there? Canadians often come across the border to Buffalo to shop, so they're more than welcome to buy CD-Rs from us.
They cannot force me to play music I have on certain equipment. All my music is on CD, or MP3. I can do what I want with those.
To that, you might say, "But look, down the road all music will be in the XYZ format, which you cannot use!". Then I am free to opt out of that new generation of music, and maintain my current collection.
Since they are the producers of said music, they must be given the right to do with it what they please: If they want to make it hard for people to use, so be it!
Are you starting to get the picture yet, to understand that you are not locked into buying what the corporations are selling? To be self-sufficient? To enjoy your life without being a mindless consumer?
You are very correct about your last point: Corporations certainly DO want us to be captive consumers. But we are only such as long as we ALLOW ourselves to be so. We can opt out any time we choose!
I didn't see any reference to English translations of Viggen in any of the articles, which is why I asked. If I missed it, so be it, sorry. :)
Gods, I love the Vikings. Why the hell did they give up? They could have ruled the world!
Damn, makes me proud to be Scandanavian.
Okay, big question: What the hell does "Viggen" mean. Draken, Lancen, Gripen I can figure out...
They make for some cool names, the Swedes.
Corporations can only exert pressure that you allow.
There is NO WAY a corporation can ever force you to buy their music! Even if "evil" corporations were the only ones producing CDs, do you think there would be no other music available to you? Radio, orchestras, street performers... Who cares that the corporations make billions: You still have a choice!
Well, I'm certainly not an Earth-first type, but you have got me at one thing: I'm not particularly concerned with the survival of humanity. If we fuck things up sufficiently, well, you know the old saw, "You reap what you sow."
/. at the same time...
I agree that there's plenty of human-inflicted change going on in the world. However, even given your rephrasing of the rain-on-the-24th question, the burden of proof must be on you: You claim climate is aberrant in NYC, you must provide greater proof than "Rain on the 24th never happened before". In this case, it's not up to me to proove that you're wrong (though given sufficient time and resources, neither of which I have at my disposal right now, I'm 100% certain I could prove it). You made the claim, you must be the one to back it up, right?
Back to the bigger question of us destroying the world: We ought to, then, work our butts off to pull the poor and uneducated in the rest of the world up to first-world status. Again, I could go find numbers but I'll trust you can look it up if you want: First world, well-educated populaces are better for the environment than third-world poor, for a number of reasons (better, more efficient use of agricultural land, less slash/burn techniques, better pollution controls (wastewater treatment, etc)).
And of course, the best way to do that is sacrifice some of our own well-being through globalization. Which is anathema to many liberal types who tend to freak out about the "exploitation of the poor", but I'm getting far afield, sorry.
Good conversation though; interesting that we're holding two debates on
I don't have the numbers, sorry. Read them in a study a while ago, and I can't find it. Doubtless it was written by a greedy oil company though. :-D
:) I got the Mustang because I like to go fast, and I am getting the Prius because I like the idea of using the HOV-3 lanes on I-395 to get into Arlington much faster in the mornings.
A more important question than yours regarding mass transit is simply, "How can we convince Americans that mass transit is a viable option?" Get that one figured out and the money for mass transit will come along easily.
As for your question about my vehicle choices: I had an SUV, you don't get any special tax breaks.
As for why I'm standing up for SUVs: I find them incredibly useful. I find them one hell of a lot more attractive than other "hauler" options (minivans and pickup trucks). I also have a philosophical bent to allow someone else to do what they want with their car purchasing decisions, and not to mock them for making their choice based on whatever parameters they choose are most important. For you and I, SUVs are not the answer right now. For most of my family members back home in Buffalo, the 4WD SUV is nearly a necessity.
The weather is NOT broken. You speak more like a hollywood director planning the next disaster flick than a rational person.
:) Last time I read the history, ancient Earth was at times lots warmer and lots cooler than it is now. And look, we're still here.
I'd love to go find a historical record of all the NYC Dec 24's, but I can't seem to locate one. Pardon me if I don't buy into your belief that this is the only one that has ever had rain.
The average temperature statistics I do have, plus some common sense, indicate that there's a real good chance that there has been rain on Dec 24 in NYC before, and you simply don't remember those days.
If you'd like to keep worrying about how we're destroying the planet, go ahead. In the meantime, I'm going to continue my comparatively optimistic view that we're most certainly NOT destroying any planets. The worst thing we might be doing is increasing the average temps by a few fractions of a degree... and for my skinny ass, I say, the more degrees, the better.
What makes you think the Earth's temps should be static? Just wondering what's wrong with a little climate change...
Wrong, the best bang for the legislative buck would be to subsidize the purchase of new cars by the poor, who are the ones driving the ancient beaters.
:)
Sorry to try to use some logic in the argument here. It's obvious by your reaction (an airsick bag? Sheesh, it's an SUV, not a Chernobyl meltdown) that rationality is not the menu.
As for you "his purchase of a gaz guzzler", I can only point out that I own a new Mustang convertible, and I'm about to buy an '04 Prius. Are they "okay" for you? Or am I still an evil polluter?
Wow, you know, I see the same thing, but never met anyone else who noticed it.
:)
My parents had a blue digital clock that I couldn't focus on in the dark (when it was the only color). For some reason, noone else noticed it. I wonder if they just didn't realize it.
Oh, so it's all the SUV's fault. It's not the slash and burn farming in sub-Saharan Africa then?
Also, please be more precise: No vehicles in America are "immune" to emissions laws.
Toyota Car: 30 mpg.
For Explorer: 15 mpg.
That's only a 2-1 ratio, but the way you reactionist anti-SUV types talk, one would be lead to believe the SUVs use at least 10x as much gas.
Granted, cars DO get better gas mileage. But answer me this: What pollutes more, a brand new Explorer or the 12 year old Camry with the rotting catalytic converter? (hint: it ain't the Explorer)