Assuming you'd use the hydrogen to power stuff that isn't local. If you decentralize both the power generation and its use it becomes a lot more feasible. Think a village with some of this stuff, some windmills and a pack of hydrogen batteries to regulate the flow of power. There's no point in moving the hydrogen to a central location if you're going to be using the power it outputs within a radius of 100m around the solar plant, is there?
Ehmmm, any solar energy we manage to capture and convert into electricity would have been converted to heat *anyway*. We're just making it jump through a couple hoops and power our fridges before it gets to that point. You might have an argument once we consider putting up satellites that would would capture solar energy that would otherwise have missed the planet and beam that down, but until that point you kinda fail on the whole preservation of energy concept.
And global warming/climate change is not being caused by sunlight, it's a question of atmospheric gasses trapping heat instead of allowing it to radiate off into space again...
So your argument is that because an organization could potentially influence corrupt politicians that organization should not be allowed to exist? Because if that's the case you got a heap of work ahead of you...
The very concept of legislation that prevents people from banding together and negotiating as a group is a fucking abomination. That anyone, let alone the citizens of a nation that prides itself on its liberties, would even contemplate this to be a good idea shows just how deep the indoctrination wrt unions runs.
Solve the root cause, not the symptoms. If corrupt politicians are getting bought then:
A) toss their asses in jail, and B) stop electing the corrupt jackasses for a change
Indeed. How is it that they (anon) fail to see the hypocrisy here? (emphasis added)
'We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS â" the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People â" have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism,' says Anonymous, stating 'Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS.'"
I don't like anything that Westboro has to say either -- but they damned sure have the right to say it.
Indeed they do. And Anonymous has the right to say they're a bunch of nutjob jesushumping bigots for doing so.
Freedom of speech means people(generally in the form of some sort of government) can't restrict what you say. It doesn't say *anything* about not having to face the consequences of what you say...
And this is different from refusing a search in the EU or US - how? I don't know about Europeans, but I've read about several Americans jailed for refusing to assent to a search, or changing their mind and trying to leave the airport, or refusing to open their car trunk at random police stops (et cetera).
Uhuh. And what do you think would happen when a bunch of "cops" burst into an ISP in the middle of a revolution and the folks that are working there are refusing to comply? I'll give you a hint, jails do not get involved. If you're going to shoot up the place, why bother clearing it out first?
We're talking a regime that had snipers fire into unarmed crowds...
Ehmm, these days almost everyone games. Just because they're not playing an FPS with a bunch of jackass 15 yr olds on Xbox live doesn't mean they're not gaming...
Farmville is a game. Bejeweled is a game. World of Warcraft is literally overflowing with adults.
I'm reasonably certain that classified documents don't fall under protected speech.
So...we can expect to see the New York Times dragged into court when exactly?
Still reasonably certain? Because you might want to check again on the difference between *stealing* and *publishing* classified documents. I'd suggest googling for something called the Pentagon Papers as a start.
A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
That was pretty much the whole point. Beck loves asking questions like these on his show. He doesn't outright say $politician is sodomizing small girls with wads of cash $politician made selling american secrets to $countrythatfoxnewsviewersthinkisevil, he's just asking the question and leaving it up to $politician to defend himself.
So some folks started asking something similar about him...
Nearly 80% of the 'common' people there support them in some fashion, including sharia law.
Almost correct. According to some news sources, nearly 80% of the *Muslim* people support some form of sharia law, not necessarily with the Muslim brotherhood in power.
If you value freedom in being able to use cannabis, go to the Netherlands.
Bad news, that freedom is disappearing as we speak. Instead of trying to get ourselves a nice little chunk of extra income from all the folks looking to score we're introducing a "pass" that is required to enter a coffeeshop. Because making weed illegal has proven so succesful in the past.
In other news, this planet is populated by fucking idiots.
And, with the exception of very specific military / intelligence information such as the location of nukes or the identity of spies, what other government business do you think should be kept a secret.
If my government makes a deal with another country, I want to fucking know about it. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a trade agreement or deployment of troops, "we the people" are ultimately in charge, and our democratically elected government governs at our sufferance. So yes, the truth should be out there. All of it, with an absolute minimum of exceptions.
Speaking purely for myself, I now have a far better idea which of the politicians in my country might as well be lobbyists for the US, and will adjust my voting behavior accordingly.
Maybe things won't change in the US, but the US *is* losing yet more face as we speak, as do people around the globe which the cables have shown to have acted against the best interests of the very people that voted them into office.
Change may not happen overnight. Heck, it may hardly happen at all. But so far from my point of view the benefit of these leaks far outweighs the feeble attempts at demonstrating damage from them.
I can't judge the level of courage it truly requires, and have a hard time condemning someone for not doing something I don't know that I could do myself.
Realistically I'd estimate that in NK the amount of time between an individual saying "we should revolt" where someone else can hear him and the jail cell slamming shut while the grinning torturer starts unpacking his tools to be expressed in hours. When that large a percentage of the population has been brainwashed into compliance there's always an agent of the state around.
At this point is there any indication of significant civil unrest that could be sparked into full-scale rebellion by a serious incident? Because if not, then any attempt at revolting would be pointless.
And on the 6th day, God invented the vagina, and he saw that it was good and that he wanted some of that. And 6000 years later, we're all still claiming that on day 7 we "rest".
Yes, there is something wrong with that. Personal details and conversations from law-abiding citizens were made available to law enforcement without a warrant or the consent of those individuals. Suppose the phone company acted the same way? Your ISP?
I mean, if child porn is found on a pr0n server, how hard is it for law enforcement to convince a judge that they need access, especially if the operator of said server is willing to cooperate?
Really, now? When you and I enter into an agreement where you sell me a product, and part of that agreement is that my personal information stays private unless requested by a warrant (boilerplate stuff really), that agreement is null and void when someone screams "think of the children"?
Of course he is arrogant. He is pointing his middle finger directly at the most powerful nation on this planet. There are mainstream TV pundits calling on the president of said country to have him "disappeared". You don't put yourself in a situation like that unless you have a massive pair of brass ones.
One could argue that 1300 people in Kenya have died because of a wikileak, especially considering Assange himself said so. That's what happens when you point out to people the guy with the gun who's supposed to be standing behind them covering their back is instead fucking them hard and deep in the ass.
I would suppose there is some sort of international treaty covering situations like this, where under most nations laws, it would be illegal to publish illegally obtain, classified information for allies of that nation.
Well, yeah, in fact there *is* a treaty which covers this exact subject. To be specific, it is resolution 59(I) of the United Nations. It says a lot of stuff about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and other details rather annoying to governments that seek to wallow in corruption instead of performing the jobs they were hired for. You know, the kind of principles the United States once claimed to be the shining example of.
but the government, holly hell we can judge Them, because They are even easier to comprehend than a complex individual such as yourself. Us vs Them think is really intellectually dishonest.
If we can't judge our own governments, then why the flying fuck are we even bothering with the whole democracy thing? Just because you're happy to have your government work shady deals in the dark doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same way.
"In God We Trust" sound a lot like something the Islamic Republic of Iran would choose.
Nah, it's perfectly suitable for the USA. Compared to the folks they tend to elect God definitely ranks pretty damn high on the trustworthiness scale. At least he doesn't ask to get paid for fucking people over.
Every government on the planet is calling for Wikileaks to shut down.
Really? Because I just did some digging and so far I can find exactly 2 governments that have said so, being the US and France. I see a ton of press debating both sides of the issue, as well as stances being taken by elected officials, but no calls to shut it down.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you'd use the hydrogen to power stuff that isn't local. If you decentralize both the power generation and its use it becomes a lot more feasible. Think a village with some of this stuff, some windmills and a pack of hydrogen batteries to regulate the flow of power. There's no point in moving the hydrogen to a central location if you're going to be using the power it outputs within a radius of 100m around the solar plant, is there?
Ehmmm, any solar energy we manage to capture and convert into electricity would have been converted to heat *anyway*. We're just making it jump through a couple hoops and power our fridges before it gets to that point. You might have an argument once we consider putting up satellites that would would capture solar energy that would otherwise have missed the planet and beam that down, but until that point you kinda fail on the whole preservation of energy concept.
And global warming/climate change is not being caused by sunlight, it's a question of atmospheric gasses trapping heat instead of allowing it to radiate off into space again...
And every single one of those parties enjoys the freedom of the individual, as well as the responsibilities that come with that freedom.
Corporations want the same freedoms, but cannot be held to the same responsibilities as the individuals involved.
So your argument is that because an organization could potentially influence corrupt politicians that organization should not be allowed to exist? Because if that's the case you got a heap of work ahead of you...
The very concept of legislation that prevents people from banding together and negotiating as a group is a fucking abomination. That anyone, let alone the citizens of a nation that prides itself on its liberties, would even contemplate this to be a good idea shows just how deep the indoctrination wrt unions runs.
Solve the root cause, not the symptoms. If corrupt politicians are getting bought then:
A) toss their asses in jail, and
B) stop electing the corrupt jackasses for a change
Seriously dude, you're pretty damn negative. What's the matter, want your positrons back?
Indeed. How is it that they (anon) fail to see the hypocrisy here? (emphasis added)
'We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS â" the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People â" have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism,' says Anonymous, stating 'Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS.'"
I don't like anything that Westboro has to say either -- but they damned sure have the right to say it.
Indeed they do. And Anonymous has the right to say they're a bunch of nutjob jesushumping bigots for doing so.
Freedom of speech means people(generally in the form of some sort of government) can't restrict what you say. It doesn't say *anything* about not having to face the consequences of what you say...
And this is different from refusing a search in the EU or US - how? I don't know about Europeans, but I've read about several Americans jailed for refusing to assent to a search, or changing their mind and trying to leave the airport, or refusing to open their car trunk at random police stops (et cetera).
Uhuh. And what do you think would happen when a bunch of "cops" burst into an ISP in the middle of a revolution and the folks that are working there are refusing to comply? I'll give you a hint, jails do not get involved. If you're going to shoot up the place, why bother clearing it out first?
We're talking a regime that had snipers fire into unarmed crowds...
Ehmm, these days almost everyone games. Just because they're not playing an FPS with a bunch of jackass 15 yr olds on Xbox live doesn't mean they're not gaming...
Farmville is a game. Bejeweled is a game. World of Warcraft is literally overflowing with adults.
I'm reasonably certain that classified documents don't fall under protected speech.
So...we can expect to see the New York Times dragged into court when exactly?
Still reasonably certain? Because you might want to check again on the difference between *stealing* and *publishing* classified documents. I'd suggest googling for something called the Pentagon Papers as a start.
A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
That was pretty much the whole point. Beck loves asking questions like these on his show. He doesn't outright say $politician is sodomizing small girls with wads of cash $politician made selling american secrets to $countrythatfoxnewsviewersthinkisevil, he's just asking the question and leaving it up to $politician to defend himself.
So some folks started asking something similar about him...
Nearly 80% of the 'common' people there support them in some fashion, including sharia law.
Almost correct. According to some news sources, nearly 80% of the *Muslim* people support some form of sharia law, not necessarily with the Muslim brotherhood in power.
If you value freedom in being able to use cannabis, go to the Netherlands.
Bad news, that freedom is disappearing as we speak. Instead of trying to get ourselves a nice little chunk of extra income from all the folks looking to score we're introducing a "pass" that is required to enter a coffeeshop. Because making weed illegal has proven so succesful in the past.
In other news, this planet is populated by fucking idiots.
And, with the exception of very specific military / intelligence information such as the location of nukes or the identity of spies, what other government business do you think should be kept a secret.
If my government makes a deal with another country, I want to fucking know about it. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a trade agreement or deployment of troops, "we the people" are ultimately in charge, and our democratically elected government governs at our sufferance. So yes, the truth should be out there. All of it, with an absolute minimum of exceptions.
Speaking purely for myself, I now have a far better idea which of the politicians in my country might as well be lobbyists for the US, and will adjust my voting behavior accordingly.
Maybe things won't change in the US, but the US *is* losing yet more face as we speak, as do people around the globe which the cables have shown to have acted against the best interests of the very people that voted them into office.
Change may not happen overnight. Heck, it may hardly happen at all. But so far from my point of view the benefit of these leaks far outweighs the feeble attempts at demonstrating damage from them.
Tsvangirai was a reformer trying to bring democracy to reality. And now that this information has been leaked, he'll be killed by Mugabe.
Using methods the very people that would be likely to elect him after the revolution would almost certainly strongly disapprove of.
So yes, he is almost certainly a less evil bastard than Mugabe, but he's still a two-faced lying politician.
I can't judge the level of courage it truly requires, and have a hard time condemning someone for not doing something I don't know that I could do myself.
Realistically I'd estimate that in NK the amount of time between an individual saying "we should revolt" where someone else can hear him and the jail cell slamming shut while the grinning torturer starts unpacking his tools to be expressed in hours. When that large a percentage of the population has been brainwashed into compliance there's always an agent of the state around.
At this point is there any indication of significant civil unrest that could be sparked into full-scale rebellion by a serious incident? Because if not, then any attempt at revolting would be pointless.
And on the 6th day, God invented the vagina, and he saw that it was good and that he wanted some of that. And 6000 years later, we're all still claiming that on day 7 we "rest".
Yes, there is something wrong with that. Personal details and conversations from law-abiding citizens were made available to law enforcement without a warrant or the consent of those individuals. Suppose the phone company acted the same way? Your ISP?
I mean, if child porn is found on a pr0n server, how hard is it for law enforcement to convince a judge that they need access, especially if the operator of said server is willing to cooperate?
Really, now? When you and I enter into an agreement where you sell me a product, and part of that agreement is that my personal information stays private unless requested by a warrant (boilerplate stuff really), that agreement is null and void when someone screams "think of the children"?
Remind me never to do business with you.
Of course he is arrogant. He is pointing his middle finger directly at the most powerful nation on this planet. There are mainstream TV pundits calling on the president of said country to have him "disappeared". You don't put yourself in a situation like that unless you have a massive pair of brass ones.
One could argue that 1300 people in Kenya have died because of a wikileak, especially considering Assange himself said so. That's what happens when you point out to people the guy with the gun who's supposed to be standing behind them covering their back is instead fucking them hard and deep in the ass.
I would suppose there is some sort of international treaty covering situations like this, where under most nations laws, it would be illegal to publish illegally obtain, classified information for allies of that nation.
Well, yeah, in fact there *is* a treaty which covers this exact subject. To be specific, it is resolution 59(I) of the United Nations. It says a lot of stuff about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and other details rather annoying to governments that seek to wallow in corruption instead of performing the jobs they were hired for. You know, the kind of principles the United States once claimed to be the shining example of.
but the government, holly hell we can judge Them, because They are even easier to comprehend than a complex individual such as yourself. Us vs Them think is really intellectually dishonest.
If we can't judge our own governments, then why the flying fuck are we even bothering with the whole democracy thing? Just because you're happy to have your government work shady deals in the dark doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same way.
"In God We Trust" sound a lot like something the Islamic Republic of Iran would choose.
Nah, it's perfectly suitable for the USA. Compared to the folks they tend to elect God definitely ranks pretty damn high on the trustworthiness scale. At least he doesn't ask to get paid for fucking people over.
Every government on the planet is calling for Wikileaks to shut down.
Really? Because I just did some digging and so far I can find exactly 2 governments that have said so, being the US and France. I see a ton of press debating both sides of the issue, as well as stances being taken by elected officials, but no calls to shut it down.