Although, I still have to chuckle at all the passionate supporters at campaign time. They really were convinced he'd reinvent america, now with more unicorns and rainbows.
You sound like such a bitter person. And why is it that Obama can't get anything done? Is it because his plans are all wrong-headed? Or is it because no matter what he attempts, there is a group of reactionaries that going to be against no matter what and no matter what lies and other indecencies they need to commit? America has become so poisonous that even if the Messiah appeared in his full glory with the angels dancing in the sky, he would be unable to do a thing, because he had the wrong shade of opinion about gays or whatever. Against stupidity the gods themselves labor in vain.
A number of things, of course, but since one needs to be able to send a kill signal to each individual processor, without disturbing any other processor, I think most of the things that can go wrong will be along the lines of not being able to reach the damned thing when you need to.
I have to say, I wouldn't mind being able to kill of the phones or laptops that I have lost; or better, a real kill switch that makes the damned thing explode:-)
It is about using porn to get people to roll back the advances and advantages that they acquired with the advent of wide-spread Internet communications access.
Yes, and no.
Of course it isn't about pornography per se - and it is about reining in the internet somewhat. But I don't think one needs to see a government conspiracy in it; it is more about making the internet useful to those that pay for it. As it is now, there is a minority that spews huge amounts of traffic that the majority has no wish to see, such as SPAM, pornography and illegally shared files. The question about whether it should be legal to share your DVDs and cheap porn is beside the point; most people don't actually have an interest in it, and they end up footing the bill.
Ant the end of the day, the job of the government is to manage the country to the benefit of as many as possible. This means regulation of shared resources, among other things, and the internet is one such shared resource. Whether they are doing a good job is another matter, but you can't blame for trying to do what they are supposed to do.
... apps for both iPhone and Android phones, including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield.
And how long before somebody on the other side finds a way to use that to track the where all their enemies are? Wouldn't that be useful information for them? In fact, they don't need much more than a list of telephone numbers for the people they want to track - and the persons won't even need to be talking, since their mobile will be doing that for them at regular intervals in order to stay connected to the network. I'm not sure this is a clever idea.
I sympathise with your sentiment, but - it didn't work that way in USSR and China. And a large part of the reason was simply that ordinary people are not occupied with lofty ideals; I see and hear it every day in the office - people are interested in sport and that kind of things. You will find nuggets of genuine goodness and bits of narrowmindedness and bigotry in most, and occasionally they can be inspired to make great sacrifices for their fellow beings, but mostly they just want to get on with everyday life and its small joys and sorrows.
Some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation
Yes, like Einstein, Bohr and Schrodinger; oh, wait...
This sort of logic is far too similar to the nonsense behind claims like "Smoking can't be so bad - I had an uncle that smoked like a chimney and lived until he was 90". Idiots like that are hurting the lives of young people.
...then blueberry farmers would routinely live to be more than 100
Not quite, since what the supermarket calls blueberry is not necessarily what we are talking about. The most commonly sold one is vaccinium corymbosum, which has big fruits, but not a lot of the anthocyanins that are supposed to be good for you (they are white inside, not blue all through).
Anyway, there is evidence to suggest that aging is related to the shortening of telomeres; this is really a rather old idea, but apparently it has been gaining in strengths recently. In my view, ageing is just one of many life-style related decays that we are slowly learning to counteract - and with some success. Haven't you noticed how people not so many years agou used to look quite old and frail already in their sixties, but now we are no longer surprised to find that people in their seventies are still physically active and mentally alert? It is all about finding the right balance - what to eat and what not to eat, what to do and what not; gobbling up unlimited quantities of "superfoods" is neither pleasant nor good for you.
Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.
The problem with The People is that it consists of, well, people. This is something revolutionary do-gooders have come face to face with many times throughout history; and ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average. They don't care all that much for liberty when it comes to it, they are not all that concerned about democracy or justice in general. They just want life to be relatively easy to live from day to day.
Don't you realise that your democracy and your Congress etc were once exactly the "normal people's democracy/congress"? Only, normal people don't care enough to take part, so it always ends like this, and that is the fundamental problem we have to solve.
Apart from that - what kind of ordinary people did you have in mind? What if it turned out that what a large majority really wanted was to to ban firearms? Or were in favour of something you would find intolerable - would you still want that kind of democracy? Ordinary people are not necessarily nice.
I don't agree with the sentiment, that everything on the internet is/should be a business. Wikipedia is a public service - it is the only real online encyclopedia that is free, and for most parts of good quality. Advertising would completely ruin this aspect; it would certainly open up for suspicion about the neutrality of the articles. As an example, how about the accuracy of articles about drugs, if the medical company that produces them is a major advertiser? The perception of neutrality is orders of magnitude more important for an encyclopedia than for a newspaper; how can one ensure that its information is trustworthy is there are financial interests that influence it?
... the rights of men were not granted by governments, but came from some other higher power...
Just out of interest: what higher power? Isn't the basis of the typical, American view of "freedom" that each individual has as much freedom as they can grab with whatever means? You know, self-determination and all that - so where does "higher power" fit in? As far as I can see, invoking a higher power is no more than a voodoo ritual bolstering your own faltering self-belief by claiming that "God is on my side".
... as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
There is an interesting, logical disconnect here: You want to be allowed to grow and smoke your own pot - in my view a very reasonable wish - and you think the problem is "too much government"? I have a better explanation: it has nothing to do with how much government there is, it has everything to do with wolly thinking on the part of those in charge. Over the last decade or more it has been demonstrated again and again that there is no good, scientific reason to ban cannabis and several other drugs, when alcohol and tobacco are allowed.
So why do we have this situation? A large part of the explanation is that there are some very big and powerful financial interests tied up with the production of alcohol and tobacco; they don't want to be banned or classified and they don't want competition from other drugs that are both safer and more entertaining. So they do their damndest to keep ordinary scared about the "horrifying dangers" of using recreational drugs - "one whiff of the evil weed and you are doomed...."
As far as I can see, the problem is not too much government power, but too little. After all, whose interest does it serve, that government doesn't have the power to pass legislation based on simple, scientific evidence?
The fact that there are some that make money by charging interest is the fundamental problem of Capitalism, in my view; the reason why it can't work in the long term. This is not a new and revolutionary insight - even the early Christians recognised "usury" (orig. charging interest on loans) as one of the major sins - which, incidentally, is why Jews ended up being regarded as greedy money lenders: Jews were excluded from most other careers, but had no religious qualms about money lending.
Interest payment introduces an unproductive overhead on the economy (ie somebody is making a profit without delivering a tangible product), which in my view lies at the bottom of the constant need for economic growth. The solution, I suppose, could be to stop paying your debt, simply. Go bankrupt, let somebody else buy the company at a heavy discount; repeat a few times and it may end up being a wothwhile business.
Or society could simply decide that rent-taking is no longer allowed. Yes, yes, I know: heresy.
I always make a point out of listening to all sides of a discussion and consider criticism, even when it is tempting to dismiss it. Let us analyse your comments:
I think you inadvertently explained why so many people join the cult of global warming fanatics - fear.
I don't think there was anything inadvertent about it; there are people on both sides who are driven by fear, no doubt. Fear has its place, however, as a strong motivator; the trick is not to let the fear control your thoughts and actions. The person who is in control of their fear will work harder to find out what is the right course of actions to take, and my claim is that most climate scientists are doing exactly that.
I think your choice of words is unwarranted; to me it seems that you are trying to paint things either black or white - "you are either fanatically for or against", which is of course nonsense.
... damn society for decades (or possibly centuries) in a useless attempt to stop their exaggerated problem just to feel like they're "doing something"
Here you have decided, a priori, that it is useless to do anything - IOW, you have precluded any discussion or even consideration of the facts. And who is talking about "damning society"? The way I see it, we have a real problem on our hands, and there is little reason to doubt that we will have to change our lifestyles significantly over the coming decades. Some of the changes may seem uncomfortable: everybody will have to use far less energy, we will have to take better care of our surroundings etc, but it is not really as bad as you make it out. Most Americans, to pick an example at random, use something like 25 times as much energy per person as a person in a developing country; there must be a significant proportion of that which is waste - like energy spent on driving oversized cars, heating uninsulated houses or producing food that is simply thrown out. Cutting out waste and becoming more efficient shouldn't be too much of a hardship, I think.
And, as you say, these changes will last for decades or even centuries; but I can't see that is condemns us all to living hell.
Sorry, but your attitude seems to very much be...
I suppose what you see depends on who you are and where you stand, to some degree. Personally, I only have one "ideology" I won't let go of: I absolutely insist that we base our actions on measurable facts and logic. You say things like "maybe there is no problem" and "why should I change my ways" - these are not facts and logic. So far, all the facts and all the logic that I have been presented with, point to the conclusion that we have a real problem and that we can do something about it. I am willing to change my lifestyle no matter what you or anybody else does and so are many other people.
You, on the other hand, seem determined to live as you've always done, come hell or high water. So whose attitude is the most selfish?
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
But surely you see that if it is because of what we do, it is actually more encouraging that if not; because if it is something we do, then there is a chance that we can stop doing it, but if it isn't, then we are powerless.
Also, the important thing has always been that it is happening and we have to do something. If we are causing it, then we have more options as to what we do. The big problem we have with the climate deniers is that their only interest is to stop us from doing anything that will hurt their profit or otherwise compromise their comfort zone - they don't seem to actually care about the reality of things. I mean, how can anybody hope to cooperate or reach a compromise with that sort of attitude?
Still, if the impact is going to be significantly less than previously projected, that is welcome news; however, it is not a forgone conclusion.
I'm not saying it's fair, but it's not (usually) like the prosecutor looks at Dad's tax returns before deciding whether to prosecute.
The point I was making is still valid, though: being rich mean being able to buy privileges. OK, so people don't talk overtly about being "high-born" and that sort of shit, but what is the difference, really? It has always been possible, if not common, to start out in life as a churl and end up as "his Excellency, the right honourable..."
Class divisions simply mean that some are more equal than others.
This has nothing to do with high principles on either side; as a Dane myself I know Ekstra Bladet as an average rag a small step down from the Sun in UK. What they are after with this is not to win an important case for "Freedom and Democracy" or whatever, but to generate some cheap advertising. The group of the Danish population that is the target for Ekstra Bladet are the people who feel that "being free" is all about drinking beer, fondling their balls and bullying immigrants of a murky complexion.
The difference is- the West actually learned that this doesn't work. It was in the context of a country not very long *out* of a full class system (the Victorian "democracy" was starting out at best with almost all the power at that stage in the House of Lords - which was decidedly undemocratic), that Churchill made his famous dictum about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others.
I think you are waxing lyrical here.
First of all, the West has not actually learned anything of the sort; we may subscribe to a different view in words, but words is all it is. Otherwise, why is it that rich kids somehow don't get punished as hard as the filthy junkie when they commit the same crime (drug dealing)? Western society is as class divided as it always was; it seems almost to be something built into human nature. The only real difference is that Confucianism formalises the concept and we pretend that it isn't so.
And the effect of that is that where in Chinese thinking there tends to be a clear expectation that the rulers have the common good at heart, in the West everybody thinks that the only thing that matters is to grab as much as possible and try to get away with itin any way possible.
I am not saying that Democracy is not right, but we don't hold the patent here in the West - again, we just pretend, because it makes us feel superior. How much real democracy is there when you can only get elected president if you can somehow manage to spend in the 100s of millions of USD? It is little more than X-factor for rich people, and not even as entertaining.
This is news? Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?
Nope, the news is that somebody in the Business Community has realised that there are people in the real world who do something without a thought towards profit.
It is not without reason that those in the world of business have always been so eager to portray Communism/Socialism as The Ultimate Evil: this ideology is essentially a formalised version of altruism, and the idea that people may not all be driven by the same, basic greed implies that they haven't quite got it right. And it scares them shitless - if everybody suddenly started sharing and giving others freely, what would happen to profit and ultimately, to the power of the very rich and privileged?
On the other hand I wonder how much this differs from many people involved in politics?
You may not have high thoughts about politicians in general, but I think you are being too cynical. A large part of those in congress etc may be no better than petty criminals in the pockets of mafia-like lobbyists, but like clever parasites, they know not to overexploit their victims and destroy the moneymaking schemes they have going.
The problem with a person like Plain is not her lack of moral, but the fact that she is so appallingly stupid. Will she even be able to realise that there are times when you shouldn't blurt out some cringingly idiotic insult to another world leader? Is she capable of understanding the wider consequences of wielding presidential power? Does she even know, in any detail, what she would like to achieve, were she to become president?
I'm not sure - not that I know a lot about guns (or indeed anything) - in fact, I don't even remember the proper names of any of them, so I hope those more knowledgeable will fill in the empty spaces for me. However, I do remember seeing a documentary that among other things told about why guerrillas preferred the AK-47 (I looked that one up) over the advanced American super rifles: it is simple and robust. The American one tended to jam because of any dirt in the mechanism and was difficult to clean etc etc, whereas the Russian one kept working and was easy to take apart and clean.
The American rifle had impressive specs - superior precision, where the AK-47 would just spray bullets out in the general direction where it was pointed; but then that is more of less what you want anyway.
So this new super-duper rifle, will it actually perform to specification when you have dragged it through 10 miles of choking mud or sand?
Was "China" (ie somebody in China) behind the attack on Google? Perhaps; all governments at some level do this kind of things.
But I don't think this is anything like the main story to extract from this leak; which is much more about what American government and diplomats think, privately, about everybody else. Very revealing stuff, I think, which confirms what we all have had our suspicions about.
In their defence I'll say that what you think in private is often much less refined than what you end up saying or doing, so perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?
Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?
America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.
I am not an anti-porn crusader; I just don't like being ripped off by lame quasi-criminals, who think sex just involves a certain amount of exposed skin accompanied by robotic movements. I suspect to most people sex is a lot more: it involves genuine feelings, care for your partner, etc. Otherwise, why not just masturbate? It is so much more to the point, if an orgasm is all you are after.
I tend to advocate making a distinction between pornography and erotica (or whatever the right term should be) - if we don't demand quality, all we'll ever get is the adulterated piss that is porn.
Slashdot Mirror
Although, I still have to chuckle at all the passionate supporters at campaign time. They really were convinced he'd reinvent america, now with more unicorns and rainbows.
You sound like such a bitter person. And why is it that Obama can't get anything done? Is it because his plans are all wrong-headed? Or is it because no matter what he attempts, there is a group of reactionaries that going to be against no matter what and no matter what lies and other indecencies they need to commit? America has become so poisonous that even if the Messiah appeared in his full glory with the angels dancing in the sky, he would be unable to do a thing, because he had the wrong shade of opinion about gays or whatever. Against stupidity the gods themselves labor in vain.
What could possibly go wrong.
A number of things, of course, but since one needs to be able to send a kill signal to each individual processor, without disturbing any other processor, I think most of the things that can go wrong will be along the lines of not being able to reach the damned thing when you need to.
I have to say, I wouldn't mind being able to kill of the phones or laptops that I have lost; or better, a real kill switch that makes the damned thing explode :-)
It is about using porn to get people to roll back the advances and advantages that they acquired with the advent of wide-spread Internet communications access.
Yes, and no.
Of course it isn't about pornography per se - and it is about reining in the internet somewhat. But I don't think one needs to see a government conspiracy in it; it is more about making the internet useful to those that pay for it. As it is now, there is a minority that spews huge amounts of traffic that the majority has no wish to see, such as SPAM, pornography and illegally shared files. The question about whether it should be legal to share your DVDs and cheap porn is beside the point; most people don't actually have an interest in it, and they end up footing the bill.
Ant the end of the day, the job of the government is to manage the country to the benefit of as many as possible. This means regulation of shared resources, among other things, and the internet is one such shared resource. Whether they are doing a good job is another matter, but you can't blame for trying to do what they are supposed to do.
... apps for both iPhone and Android phones, including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield.
And how long before somebody on the other side finds a way to use that to track the where all their enemies are? Wouldn't that be useful information for them? In fact, they don't need much more than a list of telephone numbers for the people they want to track - and the persons won't even need to be talking, since their mobile will be doing that for them at regular intervals in order to stay connected to the network. I'm not sure this is a clever idea.
I sympathise with your sentiment, but - it didn't work that way in USSR and China. And a large part of the reason was simply that ordinary people are not occupied with lofty ideals; I see and hear it every day in the office - people are interested in sport and that kind of things. You will find nuggets of genuine goodness and bits of narrowmindedness and bigotry in most, and occasionally they can be inspired to make great sacrifices for their fellow beings, but mostly they just want to get on with everyday life and its small joys and sorrows.
Some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation
Yes, like Einstein, Bohr and Schrodinger; oh, wait...
This sort of logic is far too similar to the nonsense behind claims like "Smoking can't be so bad - I had an uncle that smoked like a chimney and lived until he was 90". Idiots like that are hurting the lives of young people.
...then blueberry farmers would routinely live to be more than 100
Not quite, since what the supermarket calls blueberry is not necessarily what we are talking about. The most commonly sold one is vaccinium corymbosum, which has big fruits, but not a lot of the anthocyanins that are supposed to be good for you (they are white inside, not blue all through).
Anyway, there is evidence to suggest that aging is related to the shortening of telomeres; this is really a rather old idea, but apparently it has been gaining in strengths recently. In my view, ageing is just one of many life-style related decays that we are slowly learning to counteract - and with some success. Haven't you noticed how people not so many years agou used to look quite old and frail already in their sixties, but now we are no longer surprised to find that people in their seventies are still physically active and mentally alert? It is all about finding the right balance - what to eat and what not to eat, what to do and what not; gobbling up unlimited quantities of "superfoods" is neither pleasant nor good for you.
Can we not have a "normal people's congress" on the internet or something.
The problem with The People is that it consists of, well, people. This is something revolutionary do-gooders have come face to face with many times throughout history; and ordinary people aren't highminded, good or noble, they are just average. They don't care all that much for liberty when it comes to it, they are not all that concerned about democracy or justice in general. They just want life to be relatively easy to live from day to day.
Don't you realise that your democracy and your Congress etc were once exactly the "normal people's democracy/congress"? Only, normal people don't care enough to take part, so it always ends like this, and that is the fundamental problem we have to solve.
Apart from that - what kind of ordinary people did you have in mind? What if it turned out that what a large majority really wanted was to to ban firearms? Or were in favour of something you would find intolerable - would you still want that kind of democracy? Ordinary people are not necessarily nice.
I don't agree with the sentiment, that everything on the internet is/should be a business. Wikipedia is a public service - it is the only real online encyclopedia that is free, and for most parts of good quality. Advertising would completely ruin this aspect; it would certainly open up for suspicion about the neutrality of the articles. As an example, how about the accuracy of articles about drugs, if the medical company that produces them is a major advertiser? The perception of neutrality is orders of magnitude more important for an encyclopedia than for a newspaper; how can one ensure that its information is trustworthy is there are financial interests that influence it?
... the rights of men were not granted by governments, but came from some other higher power ...
Just out of interest: what higher power? Isn't the basis of the typical, American view of "freedom" that each individual has as much freedom as they can grab with whatever means? You know, self-determination and all that - so where does "higher power" fit in? As far as I can see, invoking a higher power is no more than a voodoo ritual bolstering your own faltering self-belief by claiming that "God is on my side".
... as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
There is an interesting, logical disconnect here: You want to be allowed to grow and smoke your own pot - in my view a very reasonable wish - and you think the problem is "too much government"? I have a better explanation: it has nothing to do with how much government there is, it has everything to do with wolly thinking on the part of those in charge. Over the last decade or more it has been demonstrated again and again that there is no good, scientific reason to ban cannabis and several other drugs, when alcohol and tobacco are allowed.
So why do we have this situation? A large part of the explanation is that there are some very big and powerful financial interests tied up with the production of alcohol and tobacco; they don't want to be banned or classified and they don't want competition from other drugs that are both safer and more entertaining. So they do their damndest to keep ordinary scared about the "horrifying dangers" of using recreational drugs - "one whiff of the evil weed and you are doomed ...."
As far as I can see, the problem is not too much government power, but too little. After all, whose interest does it serve, that government doesn't have the power to pass legislation based on simple, scientific evidence?
Part of the answer is debt.
The fact that there are some that make money by charging interest is the fundamental problem of Capitalism, in my view; the reason why it can't work in the long term. This is not a new and revolutionary insight - even the early Christians recognised "usury" (orig. charging interest on loans) as one of the major sins - which, incidentally, is why Jews ended up being regarded as greedy money lenders: Jews were excluded from most other careers, but had no religious qualms about money lending.
Interest payment introduces an unproductive overhead on the economy (ie somebody is making a profit without delivering a tangible product), which in my view lies at the bottom of the constant need for economic growth. The solution, I suppose, could be to stop paying your debt, simply. Go bankrupt, let somebody else buy the company at a heavy discount; repeat a few times and it may end up being a wothwhile business.
Or society could simply decide that rent-taking is no longer allowed. Yes, yes, I know: heresy.
I always make a point out of listening to all sides of a discussion and consider criticism, even when it is tempting to dismiss it. Let us analyse your comments:
I think you inadvertently explained why so many people join the cult of global warming fanatics - fear.
I don't think there was anything inadvertent about it; there are people on both sides who are driven by fear, no doubt. Fear has its place, however, as a strong motivator; the trick is not to let the fear control your thoughts and actions. The person who is in control of their fear will work harder to find out what is the right course of actions to take, and my claim is that most climate scientists are doing exactly that.
I think your choice of words is unwarranted; to me it seems that you are trying to paint things either black or white - "you are either fanatically for or against", which is of course nonsense.
... damn society for decades (or possibly centuries) in a useless attempt to stop their exaggerated problem just to feel like they're "doing something"
Here you have decided, a priori, that it is useless to do anything - IOW, you have precluded any discussion or even consideration of the facts. And who is talking about "damning society"? The way I see it, we have a real problem on our hands, and there is little reason to doubt that we will have to change our lifestyles significantly over the coming decades. Some of the changes may seem uncomfortable: everybody will have to use far less energy, we will have to take better care of our surroundings etc, but it is not really as bad as you make it out. Most Americans, to pick an example at random, use something like 25 times as much energy per person as a person in a developing country; there must be a significant proportion of that which is waste - like energy spent on driving oversized cars, heating uninsulated houses or producing food that is simply thrown out. Cutting out waste and becoming more efficient shouldn't be too much of a hardship, I think.
And, as you say, these changes will last for decades or even centuries; but I can't see that is condemns us all to living hell.
Sorry, but your attitude seems to very much be ...
I suppose what you see depends on who you are and where you stand, to some degree. Personally, I only have one "ideology" I won't let go of: I absolutely insist that we base our actions on measurable facts and logic. You say things like "maybe there is no problem" and "why should I change my ways" - these are not facts and logic. So far, all the facts and all the logic that I have been presented with, point to the conclusion that we have a real problem and that we can do something about it. I am willing to change my lifestyle no matter what you or anybody else does and so are many other people.
You, on the other hand, seem determined to live as you've always done, come hell or high water. So whose attitude is the most selfish?
Bizarre taste in nicknames. Perhaps he is thinking of Sherlock Holmes' well known habit:
"And now, my dear Watson, it's time for a shag ..."
I think the term we are looking for here is "penis envy" ...
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
But surely you see that if it is because of what we do, it is actually more encouraging that if not; because if it is something we do, then there is a chance that we can stop doing it, but if it isn't, then we are powerless.
Also, the important thing has always been that it is happening and we have to do something. If we are causing it, then we have more options as to what we do. The big problem we have with the climate deniers is that their only interest is to stop us from doing anything that will hurt their profit or otherwise compromise their comfort zone - they don't seem to actually care about the reality of things. I mean, how can anybody hope to cooperate or reach a compromise with that sort of attitude?
Still, if the impact is going to be significantly less than previously projected, that is welcome news; however, it is not a forgone conclusion.
I'm not saying it's fair, but it's not (usually) like the prosecutor looks at Dad's tax returns before deciding whether to prosecute.
The point I was making is still valid, though: being rich mean being able to buy privileges. OK, so people don't talk overtly about being "high-born" and that sort of shit, but what is the difference, really? It has always been possible, if not common, to start out in life as a churl and end up as "his Excellency, the right honourable ..."
Class divisions simply mean that some are more equal than others.
This has nothing to do with high principles on either side; as a Dane myself I know Ekstra Bladet as an average rag a small step down from the Sun in UK. What they are after with this is not to win an important case for "Freedom and Democracy" or whatever, but to generate some cheap advertising. The group of the Danish population that is the target for Ekstra Bladet are the people who feel that "being free" is all about drinking beer, fondling their balls and bullying immigrants of a murky complexion.
The difference is- the West actually learned that this doesn't work. It was in the context of a country not very long *out* of a full class system (the Victorian "democracy" was starting out at best with almost all the power at that stage in the House of Lords - which was decidedly undemocratic), that Churchill made his famous dictum about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others.
I think you are waxing lyrical here.
First of all, the West has not actually learned anything of the sort; we may subscribe to a different view in words, but words is all it is. Otherwise, why is it that rich kids somehow don't get punished as hard as the filthy junkie when they commit the same crime (drug dealing)? Western society is as class divided as it always was; it seems almost to be something built into human nature. The only real difference is that Confucianism formalises the concept and we pretend that it isn't so.
And the effect of that is that where in Chinese thinking there tends to be a clear expectation that the rulers have the common good at heart, in the West everybody thinks that the only thing that matters is to grab as much as possible and try to get away with itin any way possible.
I am not saying that Democracy is not right, but we don't hold the patent here in the West - again, we just pretend, because it makes us feel superior. How much real democracy is there when you can only get elected president if you can somehow manage to spend in the 100s of millions of USD? It is little more than X-factor for rich people, and not even as entertaining.
This is news? Did anyone think that file sharers were making money?
Nope, the news is that somebody in the Business Community has realised that there are people in the real world who do something without a thought towards profit.
It is not without reason that those in the world of business have always been so eager to portray Communism/Socialism as The Ultimate Evil: this ideology is essentially a formalised version of altruism, and the idea that people may not all be driven by the same, basic greed implies that they haven't quite got it right. And it scares them shitless - if everybody suddenly started sharing and giving others freely, what would happen to profit and ultimately, to the power of the very rich and privileged?
On the other hand I wonder how much this differs from many people involved in politics?
You may not have high thoughts about politicians in general, but I think you are being too cynical. A large part of those in congress etc may be no better than petty criminals in the pockets of mafia-like lobbyists, but like clever parasites, they know not to overexploit their victims and destroy the moneymaking schemes they have going.
The problem with a person like Plain is not her lack of moral, but the fact that she is so appallingly stupid. Will she even be able to realise that there are times when you shouldn't blurt out some cringingly idiotic insult to another world leader? Is she capable of understanding the wider consequences of wielding presidential power? Does she even know, in any detail, what she would like to achieve, were she to become president?
I'm not sure - not that I know a lot about guns (or indeed anything) - in fact, I don't even remember the proper names of any of them, so I hope those more knowledgeable will fill in the empty spaces for me. However, I do remember seeing a documentary that among other things told about why guerrillas preferred the AK-47 (I looked that one up) over the advanced American super rifles: it is simple and robust. The American one tended to jam because of any dirt in the mechanism and was difficult to clean etc etc, whereas the Russian one kept working and was easy to take apart and clean.
The American rifle had impressive specs - superior precision, where the AK-47 would just spray bullets out in the general direction where it was pointed; but then that is more of less what you want anyway.
So this new super-duper rifle, will it actually perform to specification when you have dragged it through 10 miles of choking mud or sand?
Was "China" (ie somebody in China) behind the attack on Google? Perhaps; all governments at some level do this kind of things.
But I don't think this is anything like the main story to extract from this leak; which is much more about what American government and diplomats think, privately, about everybody else. Very revealing stuff, I think, which confirms what we all have had our suspicions about.
In their defence I'll say that what you think in private is often much less refined than what you end up saying or doing, so perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?
Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?
America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.
I am not an anti-porn crusader; I just don't like being ripped off by lame quasi-criminals, who think sex just involves a certain amount of exposed skin accompanied by robotic movements. I suspect to most people sex is a lot more: it involves genuine feelings, care for your partner, etc. Otherwise, why not just masturbate? It is so much more to the point, if an orgasm is all you are after.
I tend to advocate making a distinction between pornography and erotica (or whatever the right term should be) - if we don't demand quality, all we'll ever get is the adulterated piss that is porn.