Ah, I see. If a country in Europe does it it's protecting people from "hate speech" or "slander", but if China does it it's "censorship". Funny, as an American I'm having a hard time seeing that well-nigh invisible dividing line between the two. Do I need my EU-approved secret decoder ring for this?
Sometimes government-mandated values work for the greater good.
Any time someone starts talking about the "greater good" you know they're just getting ready to tell everyone else how they should think and act and live, and dreaming up new laws to enforce their personal morality on others. If uttering a phrase like this qualified as a shooting offense, we could significantly improve the gene pool in just a couple of generations.
As far as stuff like alternative energy sources go, there's no money to be made until those sources have been found, developed, and made economical vis-a-vis petroleum. And believe it or not, many modern advances have come because of government investment in research. I'd go so far to suggest that government research has resulted in more economic health than private research.
Then tell me why the money isn't being spent on an actual viable alternative, like fusion? None of the non-fusion alternatives, even if they could be perfectly developed, are capable of supplying a fraction of our power needs. And they'll never satisfy the projected demand in growth for China and South America.
Oh wait - there is one. Solar. Assuming you want to put collectors into geosynchronous orbit and beam the power down via microwave. Yes, that *would* work, but the greenies hate that idea almost as much as they hate fission. Something about the waves being able to penetrate their tinfoil hats. Or maybe killing the occasional bird. Or both. Can't remember at the moment.
If we were stuck with the "free market," we'd all be using MSN dialup right now, except the oldtimers, who'd be using AOL (who would've purchased everyone else).
Neither you nor anyone else has any clue what the internet would look like without DARPA. Unless you can see all alternate realities and report back to us on the most likely outcome, in which case there's a million-dollar prize you're eligible for. Assuming you can reliably demonstrate your abilities, of course.
I don't believe the government should meddle in everything. But I don't think we should leave something as important as our future in the hands of corporations, either.
This isn't a binary choice. It's entirely possible to decide to let neither dominate the affairs of your favorite nation. As it stands, however, BOTH do so, usually in cahoots with one another. The smaller the government, the less damage EITHER body can do to you, your family, and your neighbors. Unless you're stupid enough to allow corporations to own their own armies, in which case they become 'governments'.
Ok, then explain to me how it came to be that the current cell phone market in the states, a relatively unregulated market, is by orders of magnitude crappier (from a consumer point of view) than it's highly-regulated european or asian siblings.
What the fuck are you talking about??? Cell phone service ain't any better here in Japan or Korea than it is in the U.S., and they have a MUCH smaller land area to cover (Korea is about the size of OREGON, for chrissakes). My cell phone service in the U.S. was better, cheaper, and covered 99% of the continental U.S. The providers in Japan and Korea couldn't even begin to put together a network large enough to do that.
Cell phone service in the rest of Asia ranges from "OK" to "doesn't fucking exist", even in moderately advanced places like Indonesia.
I don't know about service in Europe, but I see from a quick check that it tends to be more expensive than it is in the U.S. - so much so, in fact, that SMS is preferred to actually talking to people on the bloody phones!
You picked a lousy example to argue for government regulation.
Actually, here in California we have the same "cut taxes and spend and borrow so our children will pay for it" philosophy.
Actually, at this rate it's going to be your great-great-grandchildren who'll still be paying for it, and that's only if your children suddenly decide to become fiscally responsible. With the example their parents set, I'd say that's a pretty fucking unlikely scenario.
The only way to drive the point home is to invent practical immortality. If it eventually dawned on everyone that THEY would end up paying the price, inflated with godawful interest over time, then perhaps they might start thinking a bit more about the borrowing they're doing. Until that happens, though....
Putting aside the fact that your point is only relevant to people who like groveling at the feet of others. Go ahead and grovel; just don't expect the non-masochists to join you in your self-abasement.
As for Europe - we are the world's largest market ever since we put our markets together.
If you're talking about the European Union, which can hardly be considered to have 'put its markets together', the U.S. still consumes and produces more than all the countries in the Union combined.
You are the sole military superpower.
We are the sole superpower, period. There are no others.
However, economic strength is also important (cf. the downfall of the USSR) and concerning that you're not in too great a position.
We have the most powerful economy in the world, by an enormous amount. I'd say that puts us in a better position than anyone else on the planet.
You're not all-important to the EU as Asia is becoming an increasingly important business partner and Asia might decide that they want less of your business than of ours
America has been busy integrating Asia into its own economy since 1945, something that Europe still hasn't caught on to. Europe is a *customer* of Asia for the most part and doesn't have anything like the mixing of economies that the U.S. and Asia has. And Asia seems perfectly content with that situation - more than content as they eagerly take any American business they can get.
for example due to harsh IP laws
Perhaps you haven't been following the news, but EU IP laws are pretty much the same as U.S. IP laws. And if you knew a bit about Asia, you'd realize that none of the countries here (where I'm at, this very moment) give a flying fuck about I.P. laws made in the U.S. or Europe. They pay lip service to those laws and nothing more. Really, they don't care what whitey has to say on the topic, whether whitey is from the U.S. or Europe.
In the end it can't really be predicted who holds what kind of power in the end. One thing is certain, there will be three big players - it's just not decided how big each of them will be.
Given the difficulties the European Union is having politically and economically, there's no guarantee it'll even be around in ten years. But as for three big players in the next few decades, you're right: the U.S. (with Canada, as always); Japan; and China. Brazil is coming up fast too, but it'll probably be another fifty years before they're in the top five.
My belief is, we'll keep right on going in this direction until we feel sufficient pain* to stop.
According to the very best guesstimates, even if the human race were to disappear tomorrow it'd take several centuries for various greenhouse gases to work themselves out of the atmosphere and for any observable reversal to be noticed. That's IF a reversal is possible, and nobody has the first clue if that's the case. While human beings *may* possibly have the power to alter the climate, we DO NOT have the power to do this in a controlled fashion towards certain desired ends.
And since we don't have fusion plants and 'alternative' energy sources aren't remotely close to being able to supply even a fraction of the world's current power demands (much less the future demands of Asia and South America) any drastic action blindly taken to 'stop' climate change (and it IS blind, since no one knows how to do it, or if any action will work, or work enough, or work in time) will cause untold human suffering and misery.
That is a simple fact. Power is required for civilization and no amount of greenie rhetoric to the contrary will change this reality. The more power a civilization has, the better (in general) its citizenry lives.
While there isn't a soul on Earth with a definitive solution to the problem (and probably won't be for decades to come) we could spend the money on adaptive strategies. That is, instead of trying to solve a problem we can't begin to address at our current level of technology and science, we could simply accept the fact that the climate will change and use our money to ADAPT to the situation. If there's one thing we excel at, it's adapting, and we don't need any futuristic technologies or further decades of climatological science to start doing that right now.
Famine and flooding will certainly increase the likelihood of conflict.
Famine and flooding have been on the increase for the last several centuries, yet the number of people killed by war each year has remained steady since 1945. Which, if you're counting, means you're less likely to be killed in a war today than you were fifty years ago.
It may become the view that USA and Europe, have had it good long enough and they should cut down on emissions first.
Even the Kyoto protocols recognize that a drastic reduction in emissions will have a miniscule effect on global temperatures, and it's a big 'might', not a 'will'. Again, there is no scientist or group of scientists on the planet that can chart a course towards reversing the process. We simply aren't that advanced, and won't be for another couple of generations (at least). What we can do, with absolute certainty, is plot the most probable changes (e.g., shoreline alterations) and adapt to that RIGHT NOW.
Those who have dipped deepest and longest into the carbon fuels trough the will have an uncomfortable time of it.
No, it's the Third World that's going to be fucked the most. As usual.
And let's not forget Okinawa, which was considered a test-run of how things would go in Japan itself. While American casualties weren't terribly heavy, almost a third of the population of the island died trying to fend off the American invasion. The stories of the fighting were horrific, to say the least (shades of Vietnam-to-come here), and highly demoralizing for the American invaders who found the ferocity of the citizenry incomprehensible. Not demoralizing in the sense of the casualties they did to the Americans, but how many the Americans had to kill before they would surrender.
There was serious concern in the American high command that if an invasion of the Japanese homeland was anything like what happened in Okinawa that they'd have one hell of a time keeping the average American trooper fighting. More troops had to be rotated out of the Okinawan units for psychological reasons than from any other battle the Americans fought during the war. And despite the high security the stories were so gruesome and widespread they managed to make it back to the mainland. Imagine Okinawa writ large across all of Japan and you've got serious problems, both militarily and back home.
Currently, I experience a growing dislike of US in total
Which would happen no matter who our leader is or what he was doing. Fact is, when the Soviet Union was around a lot of would-be America-haters, especially those in Europe, had another target to focus their ill-will against. Now that the Soviet Union is gone and there's only one superpower left in the world they turn their attention to the last big boy left on the block. Fact is they're a) jealous that THEY aren't the superpower in question, and never will be; and b) that we 'barbarians' in America won't allow a bunch of Europeans to tell us what to do, or how to behave.
Too bad for them, because like most Americans I'm not about to get down on my knees and grovel before my European cousins in order to win some bullshit popularity contest. We will do as we please - just as Britain, and France, and Spain, and a whole host of others did before us - and they can just suck it up and deal with it. If it bothers them that it's our turn in the historical limelight and that theirs is long, long past then that's their problem, because there's nothing they can do about it other than slinging epithets about our parentage in our general direction. And Europeans have been doing THAT since before the Revolution.
But America no longer has a claim to superior process and innovation
For most things it still does. The fact that we can't sweep the field doesn't mean that we don't, for the most part, own said field. Even buying our debt is a great way to tie your country to ours, as the Chinese found out.
Europe is the past; America is the present; Asia is the future. Thinking that Europe (as if there were a single entity by that name, which there sure as hell isn't) is somehow going to take center stage again is nothing more than the batshit ramblings of rabid Unionists longing for the glory days of colonial imperialism. Only Asia has any potential to challenge U.S. hegemony and who cares? We don't have to compete with them; just tag along for the ride. They're too intertwined with us to ever be separated economically. What's good for them is, for the most part, good for us too.
Here's a cultural indicator. This year, the US didn't win the World Baseball Classic.
Well, fuck me! We're doomed! Y'know, Italy took the World Cup but I don't see people claiming that's some sort of indicator for the downfall of Brazil - an obvious up-and-comer both economically and politically.
I'm far too polite to mention the Ryder Cup. So, if you can't beat us on the playgrounds, how are you going to beat us in the war?
Who the hell is talking about war? It's not like we're going to be invading Britain or Australia or Japan anytime soon, and why would we? We have far too much invested in those countries. As for these countries invading the U.S. - let's pause for a moment while I laugh my ass off, shall we?
The days when the US had 40% of world GDP are over; your relative share is falling, and is going to keep falling for years.
So what? In case you somehow missed the clue train the U.S. is still the only superpower in the entire world, which is a good sight better than being one of two superpowers. And any way you slice it we're still going to be the most powerful player around for decades to come. No one will be taking our place any time in the foreseeable future, and even when they do (and someone always does - that's just history for you) odds are that our economy will be so intermixed with theirs that they'll have no choice but to take us up the ladder with them. Intermixing economies is, after all, something that we Americans absolutely excel at.
Empires fall and are rarely regained. The best one can really hope for is to identify who's next in line and then make sure they can't live without you.
Y'know, as a Canadian you should be painfully aware of just how inextricably your fate is tied to ours, politically and economically. If we should somehow fall, your victory party will be *very* short-lived as you own nation gets dragged down with us.
The north Korean army doesn't need missiles to reach Seoul. They've been able to do that with artillery since the '50's. It's estimated that most of Seoul would be destroyed by *artillery fire* within the first few hours of open conflict - and Seoul accounts for 70% of all industry and business in South Korea. Destroy Seoul and you put an end to South Korea economically for decades.
The missiles are for a) Japan, who rightly despises North Korea, and b) as a bargaining chip for those non-existent nuclear weapons that NK keeps claiming that they have. They figure that the ability to strike the U.S. is worth billions in foreign aid, assuming we're stupid enough to believe their bullshit claims over having nukes in the first place.
The US and Soviet Union are the only two countries which had enough nuclear power to destroy the world
They weren't capable of destroying the world, or even human civilization. They were only capable of destroying civilization in the *First World*. That isn't even remotely the same as 'destroying the world'. While it probably would've sucked to be in the northern hemisphere for a few years, by all accounts the southern hemisphere would've been relatively unaffected (other than losing their trading partners and sugar-daddies).
I think you are correct to fear nuclear proliferation in India & Pakistan, as I think they are more likely to use the weapons. However, the world will not end if India & Pakistan use their weapons. We will suffer, but the world would not end.
The world won't end if every warhead on the planet is detonated simultaneously. These weapons lack the ability to pull off something that grand. In fact, no weapon in the human arsenal can do that job.
The problem with this attitude is that the little brats grow accustomed to being constantly monitored by Daddy. Once they turn 18 they'll happily accept similar monitoring from Daddy Government, and why shouldn't they? So far as they're concerned it's the natural order of things, and anyone who objects to being monitored 'has something to hide'.
I have a sick feeling that maybe bars, restaurants,etc. have maximized their profits, but it's downright sick
It's called capitalism. If you don't like it you can a) move to a country with a centralized economy, or b) start your own bar/restaurant/etc. where the "sick" practice of maximizing profits isn't your primary goal. Good luck staying in business.
What's new here is that they now see the blogosphere as important enough to merit attention.
They see Youtube as important enough to merit attention. The self-important hacks who post their maturbatory drivel to various websites and then have the arrogance to rename their collective efforts the "blogosphere", as if what they did were somehow different or more important than what any other wanker has been doing since the '90's, these folks still don't count for shit outside the cirlcle-jerks that they and their admirers live in.
And while we're at it, what's with the absurd insistence on reducing the question to simplistic all-inclusive alternatives by both sides of this debate? It could very well be the life is common and develops independently anywhere where the conditions are favorable, without the need to wallow in silliness that life on Earth is unique (completely ignoring the pathetically small sample size available to us); or that life itself is unique and needs some sort of super-galactic magical explanation to explain its presence on Earth (panspermia). Both of these extremes require life to be 'special' in some fashion, while the most likely and rational explanation is that it almost certainly is not and that our own version of it is pedestrian by galactic standards.
It's just as likely - more likely, I'd argue - that life itself is common wherever favorable conditions prevail, but that intelligent life is not. On our own Earth (the only sample anyone, including myself, has to work with) life can be found in the most extreme conditions, and has existed even before the planet stopped being regularly bombarded by interplanetary junk. But the only provably intelligent species ever to occupy the Earth is us, despite the more than one billion years life has had to evolve on our planet. Until we have more data, i.e., we send probes to a few hundred other star systems, it flies in the face of everything we know about our own planet to claim that life is rare and special, or that intelligent life is common. Anything more is speculative fiction, at best, and completely contrary to what we do know (limited as this is) at worst.
Most inventors aren't altruists. They invent because they see a way to make money off of their efforts. Without that potential to profit they aren't going to be motivated to spend their time and effort doing something they'll never get compensated for.
Contrary to what a bunch of naive geeks on Slashdot think, the vast majority of inventors aren't sitting in their garages or basements cooking up the latest batch of wonders for the "greater good". And people don't pay them for their inventions out of the goodness of their little hearts, either.
Patents are not a property right.
According to the Constitution they are. And that trumps anything you might claim to the contrary. Don't like it? Then grow a sac and work to amend the Constitution.
Slaves on the plantation were not a property right either.
Non-sequiter alert! Let's try to avoid confusing slavery with patents, shall we? The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.
Patents are a pure evil
I see you wisely avoid hyperbole. Not.
we should be trying to kill them and hammer anyone else who dares try to impose them on us
I'm sure your fiery hard-eyed give-no-quarter stand makes you the 'great hero of the people' in your own fevered imagination, but those of us with a firmer grasp of reality are bored by your puerile teen ranting. Get back to us when your pubes have come in and you've calmed down a bit, won't you?
Hypercapitalism? What fucking color is the sky in *your* world? The current system of economic mismanagement, in case you haven't noticed, is firmly rooted in corporate oligarchy backed, supported, and enforced by bought-and-paid-for government legislation and police power. This sure as shit isn't capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't really see the problem here. It's not as if any of the folks in question (Torvalds, FSF, EFF, whatever) have any sort of actual authority to force the adoption of any particular licensing scheme. They can recommend a licensing scheme until they turn blue in the face, but that's all that they can do and all they'll ever be able to do.
So what if one set of folks chant mantras over the greatness of v3, while another group do the same over v2? Neither group can enforce an agenda on anyone else, so if you don't prefer v3 or v2 (or vice versa) then fuck what the opposition thinks. Choose whatever license makes your little developer heart go pitter-patter and move along, doggie.
My guess here is that the very lack of real authority is what gets the fanatics panties in a twist. They can't *force* everyone around them to adopt v3 or v2, so they get royally pissed when others won't automatically adopt The One True and Right Way(TM) with cheerful abandon. If anything this should make the non-fanatics happy, as the situation provides *us* with the right to make that choice, rather than some bunch of arrogant fuckers who prides themselves over being our intellectual or moral 'superiors'.
He doesn't have to justify anything. It's his money; he can buy any damned car he pleases.
Seems to me the people who bitch the most are the ones who can't afford the lifestyle, and are jealous. Strip down all that neo-eco-urban bullshit and what you get is yet another useless git who's pissed off that HE isn't the one making barrels of cash.
In our Modern Times, there's no particular need for kids to "grow up fast"
Maturity is a physical process, not an artificial one defined by society. Kids "grow up" at the same rate today as they did 50,000 years ago. Nothing about that has changed one tiny little bit.
The difference here is that we're trying to extend the definition of 'childhood' to people who clearly aren't children, based on the insane idea that it's true just because we say it's true and, like, we're wiser and stuff than our ancestors were. You have to wonder at what the real motivation is behind this incessant drive in Western countries to summarily declare that people who have acted as adults for entirety of human history are no longer capable of doing so - "just because".
Your knowledge of American history is appalling. There was no "absence of government" with the rise of the first corporate monopolies; government *actively aided and abetted* those monopolies. The journalists of the day wailed and moaned about it incessantly, and the situation got progressively worse until voters credibly threatened to do serious damage to the entrenched power structure if something wasn't done.
No, the government intervening to provide basic rights is not "evil", rights like the right for labor to organize, consumer rights against cartel behavior, limitations on contracts, etc.
The government didn't intervene to provide these "rights"; the people did. The government went out of its way to use its police and armed forces AGAINST organized labor and other malcontents. This sort of pro-business abuse of power was only curtailed when enough voters got fed up with their representatives and bureaucrats that they began to act to remake the system that wasn't working for them. Politicians, being the scum that they are, acted to save their own hallowed positions at the very last possible moment. They sure as shit didn't do it out of conscience, when these self-same politicians were just moments before chortling over the payoffs they were getting by selling off legislation (and the army!) to corporate interests.
but it's better than any alternative explored so far
No alternative has been explored. Government still encourages and enforces monopolies to this day, through a variety of means both great and small (do you have any idea what a "barrier to entry" is???). It's just that now governnment is a bit more subtle about the whole thing than it was in, say, 1880.
And in unrelated news, human longevity also steeply increased.
As I pointed out (for the reading-impaired) the human race hasn't changed appreciably in the last 50,000 years. Technology has - we haven't. Adolescence hasn't magically been delayed, or prolonged, simply because our medical care has improved.
No, it doesn't. You're in a public place, you suck it up and deal with it. The courts have been pretty clear on that ever since photography was invented. Don't want your picture being taken, stay out of public places. No one gets a special pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see. If a country in Europe does it it's protecting people from "hate speech" or "slander", but if China does it it's "censorship". Funny, as an American I'm having a hard time seeing that well-nigh invisible dividing line between the two. Do I need my EU-approved secret decoder ring for this?
Max
Sometimes government-mandated values work for the greater good.
Any time someone starts talking about the "greater good" you know they're just getting ready to tell everyone else how they should think and act and live, and dreaming up new laws to enforce their personal morality on others. If uttering a phrase like this qualified as a shooting offense, we could significantly improve the gene pool in just a couple of generations.
Max
As far as stuff like alternative energy sources go, there's no money to be made until those sources have been found, developed, and made economical vis-a-vis petroleum. And believe it or not, many modern advances have come because of government investment in research. I'd go so far to suggest that government research has resulted in more economic health than private research.
Then tell me why the money isn't being spent on an actual viable alternative, like fusion? None of the non-fusion alternatives, even if they could be perfectly developed, are capable of supplying a fraction of our power needs. And they'll never satisfy the projected demand in growth for China and South America.
Oh wait - there is one. Solar. Assuming you want to put collectors into geosynchronous orbit and beam the power down via microwave. Yes, that *would* work, but the greenies hate that idea almost as much as they hate fission. Something about the waves being able to penetrate their tinfoil hats. Or maybe killing the occasional bird. Or both. Can't remember at the moment.
If we were stuck with the "free market," we'd all be using MSN dialup right now, except the oldtimers, who'd be using AOL (who would've purchased everyone else).
Neither you nor anyone else has any clue what the internet would look like without DARPA. Unless you can see all alternate realities and report back to us on the most likely outcome, in which case there's a million-dollar prize you're eligible for. Assuming you can reliably demonstrate your abilities, of course.
I don't believe the government should meddle in everything. But I don't think we should leave something as important as our future in the hands of corporations, either.
This isn't a binary choice. It's entirely possible to decide to let neither dominate the affairs of your favorite nation. As it stands, however, BOTH do so, usually in cahoots with one another. The smaller the government, the less damage EITHER body can do to you, your family, and your neighbors. Unless you're stupid enough to allow corporations to own their own armies, in which case they become 'governments'.
Max
Ok, then explain to me how it came to be that the current cell phone market in the states, a relatively unregulated market, is by orders of magnitude crappier (from a consumer point of view) than it's highly-regulated european or asian siblings.
What the fuck are you talking about??? Cell phone service ain't any better here in Japan or Korea than it is in the U.S., and they have a MUCH smaller land area to cover (Korea is about the size of OREGON, for chrissakes). My cell phone service in the U.S. was better, cheaper, and covered 99% of the continental U.S. The providers in Japan and Korea couldn't even begin to put together a network large enough to do that.
Cell phone service in the rest of Asia ranges from "OK" to "doesn't fucking exist", even in moderately advanced places like Indonesia.
I don't know about service in Europe, but I see from a quick check that it tends to be more expensive than it is in the U.S. - so much so, in fact, that SMS is preferred to actually talking to people on the bloody phones!
You picked a lousy example to argue for government regulation.
Max
Actually, here in California we have the same "cut taxes and spend and borrow so our children will pay for it" philosophy.
Actually, at this rate it's going to be your great-great-grandchildren who'll still be paying for it, and that's only if your children suddenly decide to become fiscally responsible. With the example their parents set, I'd say that's a pretty fucking unlikely scenario.
The only way to drive the point home is to invent practical immortality. If it eventually dawned on everyone that THEY would end up paying the price, inflated with godawful interest over time, then perhaps they might start thinking a bit more about the borrowing they're doing. Until that happens, though....
Max
Putting aside the fact that your point is only relevant to people who like groveling at the feet of others. Go ahead and grovel; just don't expect the non-masochists to join you in your self-abasement.
Max
As for Europe - we are the world's largest market ever since we put our markets together.
If you're talking about the European Union, which can hardly be considered to have 'put its markets together', the U.S. still consumes and produces more than all the countries in the Union combined.
You are the sole military superpower.
We are the sole superpower, period. There are no others.
However, economic strength is also important (cf. the downfall of the USSR) and concerning that you're not in too great a position.
We have the most powerful economy in the world, by an enormous amount. I'd say that puts us in a better position than anyone else on the planet.
You're not all-important to the EU as Asia is becoming an increasingly important business partner and Asia might decide that they want less of your business than of ours
America has been busy integrating Asia into its own economy since 1945, something that Europe still hasn't caught on to. Europe is a *customer* of Asia for the most part and doesn't have anything like the mixing of economies that the U.S. and Asia has. And Asia seems perfectly content with that situation - more than content as they eagerly take any American business they can get.
for example due to harsh IP laws
Perhaps you haven't been following the news, but EU IP laws are pretty much the same as U.S. IP laws. And if you knew a bit about Asia, you'd realize that none of the countries here (where I'm at, this very moment) give a flying fuck about I.P. laws made in the U.S. or Europe. They pay lip service to those laws and nothing more. Really, they don't care what whitey has to say on the topic, whether whitey is from the U.S. or Europe.
In the end it can't really be predicted who holds what kind of power in the end. One thing is certain, there will be three big players - it's just not decided how big each of them will be.
Given the difficulties the European Union is having politically and economically, there's no guarantee it'll even be around in ten years. But as for three big players in the next few decades, you're right: the U.S. (with Canada, as always); Japan; and China. Brazil is coming up fast too, but it'll probably be another fifty years before they're in the top five.
Max
My belief is, we'll keep right on going in this direction until we feel sufficient pain* to stop.
According to the very best guesstimates, even if the human race were to disappear tomorrow it'd take several centuries for various greenhouse gases to work themselves out of the atmosphere and for any observable reversal to be noticed. That's IF a reversal is possible, and nobody has the first clue if that's the case. While human beings *may* possibly have the power to alter the climate, we DO NOT have the power to do this in a controlled fashion towards certain desired ends.
And since we don't have fusion plants and 'alternative' energy sources aren't remotely close to being able to supply even a fraction of the world's current power demands (much less the future demands of Asia and South America) any drastic action blindly taken to 'stop' climate change (and it IS blind, since no one knows how to do it, or if any action will work, or work enough, or work in time) will cause untold human suffering and misery.
That is a simple fact. Power is required for civilization and no amount of greenie rhetoric to the contrary will change this reality. The more power a civilization has, the better (in general) its citizenry lives.
While there isn't a soul on Earth with a definitive solution to the problem (and probably won't be for decades to come) we could spend the money on adaptive strategies. That is, instead of trying to solve a problem we can't begin to address at our current level of technology and science, we could simply accept the fact that the climate will change and use our money to ADAPT to the situation. If there's one thing we excel at, it's adapting, and we don't need any futuristic technologies or further decades of climatological science to start doing that right now.
Famine and flooding will certainly increase the likelihood of conflict.
Famine and flooding have been on the increase for the last several centuries, yet the number of people killed by war each year has remained steady since 1945. Which, if you're counting, means you're less likely to be killed in a war today than you were fifty years ago.
It may become the view that USA and Europe, have had it good long enough and they should cut down on emissions first.
Even the Kyoto protocols recognize that a drastic reduction in emissions will have a miniscule effect on global temperatures, and it's a big 'might', not a 'will'. Again, there is no scientist or group of scientists on the planet that can chart a course towards reversing the process. We simply aren't that advanced, and won't be for another couple of generations (at least). What we can do, with absolute certainty, is plot the most probable changes (e.g., shoreline alterations) and adapt to that RIGHT NOW.
Those who have dipped deepest and longest into the carbon fuels trough the will have an uncomfortable time of it.
No, it's the Third World that's going to be fucked the most. As usual.
Max
And let's not forget Okinawa, which was considered a test-run of how things would go in Japan itself. While American casualties weren't terribly heavy, almost a third of the population of the island died trying to fend off the American invasion. The stories of the fighting were horrific, to say the least (shades of Vietnam-to-come here), and highly demoralizing for the American invaders who found the ferocity of the citizenry incomprehensible. Not demoralizing in the sense of the casualties they did to the Americans, but how many the Americans had to kill before they would surrender.
There was serious concern in the American high command that if an invasion of the Japanese homeland was anything like what happened in Okinawa that they'd have one hell of a time keeping the average American trooper fighting. More troops had to be rotated out of the Okinawan units for psychological reasons than from any other battle the Americans fought during the war. And despite the high security the stories were so gruesome and widespread they managed to make it back to the mainland. Imagine Okinawa writ large across all of Japan and you've got serious problems, both militarily and back home.
Max
Currently, I experience a growing dislike of US in total
Which would happen no matter who our leader is or what he was doing. Fact is, when the Soviet Union was around a lot of would-be America-haters, especially those in Europe, had another target to focus their ill-will against. Now that the Soviet Union is gone and there's only one superpower left in the world they turn their attention to the last big boy left on the block. Fact is they're a) jealous that THEY aren't the superpower in question, and never will be; and b) that we 'barbarians' in America won't allow a bunch of Europeans to tell us what to do, or how to behave.
Too bad for them, because like most Americans I'm not about to get down on my knees and grovel before my European cousins in order to win some bullshit popularity contest. We will do as we please - just as Britain, and France, and Spain, and a whole host of others did before us - and they can just suck it up and deal with it. If it bothers them that it's our turn in the historical limelight and that theirs is long, long past then that's their problem, because there's nothing they can do about it other than slinging epithets about our parentage in our general direction. And Europeans have been doing THAT since before the Revolution.
Max
But America no longer has a claim to superior process and innovation
For most things it still does. The fact that we can't sweep the field doesn't mean that we don't, for the most part, own said field. Even buying our debt is a great way to tie your country to ours, as the Chinese found out.
Europe is the past; America is the present; Asia is the future. Thinking that Europe (as if there were a single entity by that name, which there sure as hell isn't) is somehow going to take center stage again is nothing more than the batshit ramblings of rabid Unionists longing for the glory days of colonial imperialism. Only Asia has any potential to challenge U.S. hegemony and who cares? We don't have to compete with them; just tag along for the ride. They're too intertwined with us to ever be separated economically. What's good for them is, for the most part, good for us too.
Here's a cultural indicator. This year, the US didn't win the World Baseball Classic.
Well, fuck me! We're doomed! Y'know, Italy took the World Cup but I don't see people claiming that's some sort of indicator for the downfall of Brazil - an obvious up-and-comer both economically and politically.
I'm far too polite to mention the Ryder Cup. So, if you can't beat us on the playgrounds, how are you going to beat us in the war?
Who the hell is talking about war? It's not like we're going to be invading Britain or Australia or Japan anytime soon, and why would we? We have far too much invested in those countries. As for these countries invading the U.S. - let's pause for a moment while I laugh my ass off, shall we?
The days when the US had 40% of world GDP are over; your relative share is falling, and is going to keep falling for years.
So what? In case you somehow missed the clue train the U.S. is still the only superpower in the entire world, which is a good sight better than being one of two superpowers. And any way you slice it we're still going to be the most powerful player around for decades to come. No one will be taking our place any time in the foreseeable future, and even when they do (and someone always does - that's just history for you) odds are that our economy will be so intermixed with theirs that they'll have no choice but to take us up the ladder with them. Intermixing economies is, after all, something that we Americans absolutely excel at.
Empires fall and are rarely regained. The best one can really hope for is to identify who's next in line and then make sure they can't live without you.
Y'know, as a Canadian you should be painfully aware of just how inextricably your fate is tied to ours, politically and economically. If we should somehow fall, your victory party will be *very* short-lived as you own nation gets dragged down with us.
Max
The north Korean army doesn't need missiles to reach Seoul. They've been able to do that with artillery since the '50's. It's estimated that most of Seoul would be destroyed by *artillery fire* within the first few hours of open conflict - and Seoul accounts for 70% of all industry and business in South Korea. Destroy Seoul and you put an end to South Korea economically for decades.
The missiles are for a) Japan, who rightly despises North Korea, and b) as a bargaining chip for those non-existent nuclear weapons that NK keeps claiming that they have. They figure that the ability to strike the U.S. is worth billions in foreign aid, assuming we're stupid enough to believe their bullshit claims over having nukes in the first place.
Max
The US and Soviet Union are the only two countries which had enough nuclear power to destroy the world
They weren't capable of destroying the world, or even human civilization. They were only capable of destroying civilization in the *First World*. That isn't even remotely the same as 'destroying the world'. While it probably would've sucked to be in the northern hemisphere for a few years, by all accounts the southern hemisphere would've been relatively unaffected (other than losing their trading partners and sugar-daddies).
I think you are correct to fear nuclear proliferation in India & Pakistan, as I think they are more likely to use the weapons. However, the world will not end if India & Pakistan use their weapons. We will suffer, but the world would not end.
The world won't end if every warhead on the planet is detonated simultaneously. These weapons lack the ability to pull off something that grand. In fact, no weapon in the human arsenal can do that job.
Max
Kids expect so much privacy these days.
The problem with this attitude is that the little brats grow accustomed to being constantly monitored by Daddy. Once they turn 18 they'll happily accept similar monitoring from Daddy Government, and why shouldn't they? So far as they're concerned it's the natural order of things, and anyone who objects to being monitored 'has something to hide'.
Max
I have a sick feeling that maybe bars, restaurants,etc. have maximized their profits, but it's downright sick
It's called capitalism. If you don't like it you can a) move to a country with a centralized economy, or b) start your own bar/restaurant/etc. where the "sick" practice of maximizing profits isn't your primary goal. Good luck staying in business.
Max
What's new here is that they now see the blogosphere as important enough to merit attention.
They see Youtube as important enough to merit attention. The self-important hacks who post their maturbatory drivel to various websites and then have the arrogance to rename their collective efforts the "blogosphere", as if what they did were somehow different or more important than what any other wanker has been doing since the '90's, these folks still don't count for shit outside the cirlcle-jerks that they and their admirers live in.
Max
And while we're at it, what's with the absurd insistence on reducing the question to simplistic all-inclusive alternatives by both sides of this debate? It could very well be the life is common and develops independently anywhere where the conditions are favorable, without the need to wallow in silliness that life on Earth is unique (completely ignoring the pathetically small sample size available to us); or that life itself is unique and needs some sort of super-galactic magical explanation to explain its presence on Earth (panspermia). Both of these extremes require life to be 'special' in some fashion, while the most likely and rational explanation is that it almost certainly is not and that our own version of it is pedestrian by galactic standards.
It's just as likely - more likely, I'd argue - that life itself is common wherever favorable conditions prevail, but that intelligent life is not. On our own Earth (the only sample anyone, including myself, has to work with) life can be found in the most extreme conditions, and has existed even before the planet stopped being regularly bombarded by interplanetary junk. But the only provably intelligent species ever to occupy the Earth is us, despite the more than one billion years life has had to evolve on our planet. Until we have more data, i.e., we send probes to a few hundred other star systems, it flies in the face of everything we know about our own planet to claim that life is rare and special, or that intelligent life is common. Anything more is speculative fiction, at best, and completely contrary to what we do know (limited as this is) at worst.
Max
Inventors are good at inventing things
Most inventors aren't altruists. They invent because they see a way to make money off of their efforts. Without that potential to profit they aren't going to be motivated to spend their time and effort doing something they'll never get compensated for.
Contrary to what a bunch of naive geeks on Slashdot think, the vast majority of inventors aren't sitting in their garages or basements cooking up the latest batch of wonders for the "greater good". And people don't pay them for their inventions out of the goodness of their little hearts, either.
Patents are not a property right.
According to the Constitution they are. And that trumps anything you might claim to the contrary. Don't like it? Then grow a sac and work to amend the Constitution.
Slaves on the plantation were not a property right either.
Non-sequiter alert! Let's try to avoid confusing slavery with patents, shall we? The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.
Patents are a pure evil
I see you wisely avoid hyperbole. Not.
we should be trying to kill them and hammer anyone else who dares try to impose them on us
I'm sure your fiery hard-eyed give-no-quarter stand makes you the 'great hero of the people' in your own fevered imagination, but those of us with a firmer grasp of reality are bored by your puerile teen ranting. Get back to us when your pubes have come in and you've calmed down a bit, won't you?
Max
hypercapitalism
Hypercapitalism? What fucking color is the sky in *your* world? The current system of economic mismanagement, in case you haven't noticed, is firmly rooted in corporate oligarchy backed, supported, and enforced by bought-and-paid-for government legislation and police power. This sure as shit isn't capitalism, by any stretch of the imagination.
Max
I don't really see the problem here. It's not as if any of the folks in question (Torvalds, FSF, EFF, whatever) have any sort of actual authority to force the adoption of any particular licensing scheme. They can recommend a licensing scheme until they turn blue in the face, but that's all that they can do and all they'll ever be able to do.
So what if one set of folks chant mantras over the greatness of v3, while another group do the same over v2? Neither group can enforce an agenda on anyone else, so if you don't prefer v3 or v2 (or vice versa) then fuck what the opposition thinks. Choose whatever license makes your little developer heart go pitter-patter and move along, doggie.
My guess here is that the very lack of real authority is what gets the fanatics panties in a twist. They can't *force* everyone around them to adopt v3 or v2, so they get royally pissed when others won't automatically adopt The One True and Right Way(TM) with cheerful abandon. If anything this should make the non-fanatics happy, as the situation provides *us* with the right to make that choice, rather than some bunch of arrogant fuckers who prides themselves over being our intellectual or moral 'superiors'.
Max
He doesn't have to justify anything. It's his money; he can buy any damned car he pleases.
Seems to me the people who bitch the most are the ones who can't afford the lifestyle, and are jealous. Strip down all that neo-eco-urban bullshit and what you get is yet another useless git who's pissed off that HE isn't the one making barrels of cash.
Fuck 'em.
Max
In our Modern Times, there's no particular need for kids to "grow up fast"
Maturity is a physical process, not an artificial one defined by society. Kids "grow up" at the same rate today as they did 50,000 years ago. Nothing about that has changed one tiny little bit.
The difference here is that we're trying to extend the definition of 'childhood' to people who clearly aren't children, based on the insane idea that it's true just because we say it's true and, like, we're wiser and stuff than our ancestors were. You have to wonder at what the real motivation is behind this incessant drive in Western countries to summarily declare that people who have acted as adults for entirety of human history are no longer capable of doing so - "just because".
Max
No, in the absence of government feudalism ruled
Your knowledge of American history is appalling. There was no "absence of government" with the rise of the first corporate monopolies; government *actively aided and abetted* those monopolies. The journalists of the day wailed and moaned about it incessantly, and the situation got progressively worse until voters credibly threatened to do serious damage to the entrenched power structure if something wasn't done.
No, the government intervening to provide basic rights is not "evil", rights like the right for labor to organize, consumer rights against cartel behavior, limitations on contracts, etc.
The government didn't intervene to provide these "rights"; the people did. The government went out of its way to use its police and armed forces AGAINST organized labor and other malcontents. This sort of pro-business abuse of power was only curtailed when enough voters got fed up with their representatives and bureaucrats that they began to act to remake the system that wasn't working for them. Politicians, being the scum that they are, acted to save their own hallowed positions at the very last possible moment. They sure as shit didn't do it out of conscience, when these self-same politicians were just moments before chortling over the payoffs they were getting by selling off legislation (and the army!) to corporate interests.
but it's better than any alternative explored so far
No alternative has been explored. Government still encourages and enforces monopolies to this day, through a variety of means both great and small (do you have any idea what a "barrier to entry" is???). It's just that now governnment is a bit more subtle about the whole thing than it was in, say, 1880.
Max
And in unrelated news, human longevity also steeply increased.
As I pointed out (for the reading-impaired) the human race hasn't changed appreciably in the last 50,000 years. Technology has - we haven't. Adolescence hasn't magically been delayed, or prolonged, simply because our medical care has improved.
Max
It potentially violates others rights.
No, it doesn't. You're in a public place, you suck it up and deal with it. The courts have been pretty clear on that ever since photography was invented. Don't want your picture being taken, stay out of public places. No one gets a special pass.
Max