I think Linux's problems with being suitable for users at this point boils down to hardware support issues, and as well the compability issues with applications they use on Windows, and the fact that the more Ubuntu's developers try to make user interface user friendly, the more user unfriendly it becomes because they do not understand that removing features and customizability, and whacked out user interface design does not make things easier to use. The more Ubuntu morons have tried to mess with the user interface, the worse it has become, Unity is as bad as Windows 8, it is a jumbled confusing mess.
The huge mistake of some in the Linux community is that if they make a user interface so idiotic only an idiot can use it, it will make Linux popular, is a huge mistake. Instead what we end up with a user interface which is totally unuseable and infexible for everyone. In fact the more people such as Ubuntu have tried to mess around with the user interfaces, the worst, the more perplexing and unuseable they have become. The Obsession with minimalism is a disease and it has made it so even I cannot figure out easily how things work, its as if it has become sort of a puzzle. The fact is for a user interface to be useable it needs to be very feature rich, very flexible with lots of settings and features. The useability is in layout, in puting the more frequently used features up front, in categorization and in putting more advanced things in advanced screens and so on. What we have ended up with on Unity is an utterly confusion and unuseable, inflexible user interface that is basically useless because it assumes users are idiots, added to the dismal hardware support on Linux and the inability of users to run many Windows applications. The result is an operating system that is very user unfriendly.
The Windows 8 UI is atrocious and probably will kill Microsoft, as well as Microsofts announcements they are going to screw over users from upgrading from older versions of Windows by deleting their settings. I think people would have to be insane to consider upgrading to Windows 8 considering the UI is unuseable and a disaster and so on. Microsoft is really committing suicide with this and is basically telling its users "fuck you" and deterring users who would actually buy an upgrade.
I would like to say Linux is a better choice, but Ubuntu has the same problems with its atrocious Unity interface. Yes, it can be disabled, but that sort of misses the point that Ubuntu is supposed to be user friendly, most users when encountering Unity will just give up on Linux right away as this is what they will think Linux is like, its those first impressions.
The start menu and task bar model "just works", is easy to use, makes sense, etc. It is clear, it is simple, it is not too obtrusive, it is categorized and easy to find things and so on. There are just things which you cannot improve on, where things have gotten to such a point of perfection that messing with it can only make it worse. I think start menu and task bar is such a point of perfection and trying to mess with it invariably makes things worse. Both Microsoft and Ubuntu appear obsessed with novelty, for change for the sake of change, which is very bad design motivation. They are more concerned with trying to be edgy than they are about being concerned with what the users need.
Eh? Linux edits MS Word documents well with Libreoffice. The really weak areas are games, and a huge number of specialized apps from web and graphics development. Most Linux tools really cannot match the Adobe stuff.
This is why we should abolish the H3B program.It will force companies to actually start investing in American workers again. They can do it, on the job training, apprentiships. With millions of out of work americans we can easily get these people into corporations in on the job training and apprentiships, we would actually start to rebuild our middle class and reduce the poverty levels, creating a more highly skilled population.
Furthermore, we need to stop the brain drain from other countries. The highly skilled labor from destination countries needs to stay in those countries to help those countries develop economically. They need doctors, engineers and innovaters in those countries.
I am convinced the H3B program needs to be abolished. I stand 100% opposed to immigration. I am instead for industrial aid to third world countries to allow them to develop their own industries with their own population.
The H1B program should be eliminated. Only corporations love it because it allows them to import slave third world labor. Look, this is outrageous when we are importing these people when we have so many Americans in IT who cannot find work. It is infuriating that while so many Americans cannot find work we are importing workers. Furthermore, there are plenty more americans can be quickly trained to do the kinds of IT jobs that corporations need, I think we need to have more apprentiships and on the job training programs.
Another reason that H1B programs should be eliminated is for the benefit of the source country, to stop the brain drain. These countries need highly skilled people to innovate there and build their economy. The US already has plenty of human resources and does not need more.
I am all for helping the third world develop its own industry through international industrial aid for those countries. I am opposed to all immigration as it tends to harm both the source and destination countries.
I also think we need to preserve the unique qualities of the populations of a country and for countries to develop their own industrial know how and capabilities, and as well their own cultures and preserve the unique ethnic nature of countries. Immigration threatens unique countries and cultures with dilution. It is not a good solution to anything, its a problem.
The right solution is for highly skilled workers to remain in their own countries and help develop their own countries industrially, if needed with industrial development aid.
You need to stay in your country and make it better, reform it. Thats the only way it will progress and improve. People who see problems with their country are exactly the kind of people the country needs to be able to improve itself and initiate changes. So, my answer is, if you see a problem with your country, start a campaign to fix its problems and you will be of much greater benefit to your country and will be doing far more to improve the lives of the people there. You will be making good use of your life to help the country where you were born improve.
I am opposed to legal immigration. Instead, I am for industrial and educational programs in third world countries that develop those countries industries and skills bases. key to this is stopping the brain drain that threatens the development of third world countries by draining them of the skill bases that they need to develop their industries.
Immigration is harmful for the destination countries where it swamps the local population, and the source countries which lose their skills and people they need to develop. Immigration is also harmful to countries unique cultures and populations which we need to preserve rather than to dilute. I prefer to see us make sure that smart minds in countries develop their technologies and patents in their home country, develop industries there that helps develop their economies and improves life in those countries. I am in support of that and am strongly opposed to immigration.
You also forgot to mention the brain drain which severely damages the country they come from. I am opposed to immigration since it is bad for the country they leave and bad for the one they come to. I support developmental programs in third world countries which help the people of those countries innovate and add to their own countries success and resources. I also think we need to stop immigration to preserve the unique populations and cultures of different countries as well. This involves improving economic conditions in all regions of the world through more development of the economies in third world countries.
my opposition to immigration comes from economic reasons and as well respect for the unique cultures of different countries which we do not want to dilute. I think we need to find solutions whereby innovaters from a country remain in their country adn develop their patents and inventions in that country and can help drive employment and economic development in those countries. Immigration is harmful because it drains the labor and brain resources a country needs to develop itself. As well, for the destination country, it is harmful since it swamps the existing population. A better vision for the future is to discourage immigration adn instead focus on countries developing their own indigenous industris and culture, products for their own use and as well for export which they can exchange for imports.
I support programs that provide for educational systems in the third world and industrial and agricultural development there. When these countries train their own people, scientists, doctors, these need remain in that country to help the country develop itself. if we want these third world countries to improve we need to stop immigration from them so that they retain their personell resources.
I stand totally opposed to immigration and I instead support international aid and development facilities.
i will actually fully and whole heartedly disagree. The effects of the brain drain on third world countries is just destructive. What we need to do desperately to help third world countries is stop all immigration coming from them and instead develop some sort of program that will help them develop theirn own schools and laboratories and industries which will increase those countries assetts and well being.
I think countries need to develop their own populations to establish the skill bases they need to economically develop through education systems and research labs and industrial development financing. I am opposed to immigration as we want countries to develop their own unique cultures and to develop their own economies run by their native born populations, to become economically successful. I would like to see countries everywhere obtain a high level of economic functionality and I strongly oppose immigration.
The message on limiting population growth is a message for third world countries only. If anything in Europe we need to increase the population growth rate for indigenous populations there as it is too low.
The fertility rate in the USA is indeed higher and is according to statistics around Replacement level. However, nearly all population growth in the US is coming from immigration.
We need to in reality stop immigration into the USA and instead work on the economics models some to allow for the economy to function at a certain fertility rate we want to target.
I have made the points against immigration. The arguments in the parent article is evidence that we need to develop our own talents in the US through access to college education and better management of the economy.
In addition, immigrants who develop patents and so on need to stay in their often poor home countries and develop their inventions and corporations there to add to the success and employment of their people in their own countries. We need to stop the brain drain that is stymies the third world. I am in support of international research aid that would establish schools and laboratories for developing industry and technology in third world countries.
People need to go back to the countries from where they are from and work on making their own countries a better place to live.
The limits to population growth message is one for the third world where nearly all the population growth is occuring. There is actually a need in europe to increase the indigenous reproduction levels as they are too low.
This parent article is not making a sound argument for immigration. This is an argument for better US education including free college to develop our own talent. Secondly, if these immigrants are so talented, they need to stay in their often poor countries and develop their patents and innovations there, and I do agree that the international community should provide some aid for making that happen. This will add to their native countries success which they desperately need. We need to stop the brain drain as much as we need to stop flooding countries like the US with foreigners and focus on developing our own people.
I am sick and tired of hearing the same old lies and propoganda in support of immigration. The fact is i cannot think of a good reason for immigration. The above alternatives are far better and will have better effects on improving countries as good places to live for their people.
I am in complete agreement with you. It makes perfect sense what you said and is not the least bit crazy. The US is a mature country and has a lot of people we can educate to fill all of the job openings we have. We need to tell corporations to help educate and hire these people.
I think you are on the money here. The US has plenty of people already to fill these tech jobs and it has educational systems it can develop to do it. What is actually happening as well is that this is basically destroying US society. if anything we should zero-line the immigration quota and develop our own talent and capabilities. This will alleviate our unemployment issued and rebuild our middle class. The immigration is also bad for countries these immigrants leave, where their skills are needed in their home countries. The "brain drain".
Secondly,I think we need to stop making the US unrecocognisable. The US is a mature country and does not need immigration, nor do we owe anything to these immigrants. They need to go back to their home countries and fix their own countries problems, and stop coming here.
PS: it Rep. Shelby of Alabama (R) who wanted to lock in SLS funding, represents the district in Alabama where the SLS is built, so it was pure pork barrel. It was in fact Obama and Democrats who stopped the SLS lock in and continued work on the CCP, because the SLS was primed to turn into another white elephant.
The launch technology should be based on science and technocracy rather than based on the good old boys networks of Republican politicians who are given kickbacks by corporations.
This is really frightening. Many of the existing large contractors such as Boeing and those for the Space Shuttle are those who are largely to blame for the huge costs of American space technology that has really threatened the US space industry and its ability to compete with the Russians and the French/ESA.
People often blame NASA for the mess that was the shuttle, which was a very expensive launch vehicle to operate. The shuttle should have been abandoned years before and replaced with better technology, but the companies that manufactured the shuttle just loved it because it for the VERY REASON that it was a space craft that was far more expensive than a space craft needed to be. Corporations got wealthy because the US had a very inefficient launch platform.
People often blame NASA for the mess that was the shuttle, which was a very expensive launch vehicle to operate. But, this is misplaced, many do not understand that NASA does not really build the shuttle but it is contracted to private companies, and NASA itself was getting increasingly little capability to actually stop the shuttle and replace it with something better, because the funding is being controlled by Congress who is bought off by the companies that built the shuttle. This is why blaming NASA for the shuttle white elephant is nonsense from people who dont understand much about how things work, because Congress is to blame. Congress made efforts to lock in funding to the SLS programs which are completely uncompetitive as a kickback to large corporations that give kickbacks to congress members, usually Republicans. Shelby of Alabama (Republican) for instance tried to pass bills that would have locked in funding for SLS even though it is a mostly unworkable vehicle that seems to duplicate the massive inefficiencies of the shuttle program. This means that decisions about the space program were being attempted to be made by politicians based on bribery from corporations rather than based on science.
There were probably a lot of people in NASA who wanted to find a cheaper way to do launches, but due to the fact that it is controlled by Republican pork barrel in Congress, NASA has been under a toxic and politicized miasma imposed on it from congress.
In regards to CCP, I think that what we are seeing again is congressional meddling in these affairs which seems designed to once again to retard the US space industry by locking us into expensive technologies from the likes of Boeing. I believe all of the CCP programs really ought to continue to be funded, it sure is a hell of a lot better of a value than the wars in iraq and afghanistan.
You forget these "private rockets" are almost fully funded with government grants at this point.
It is true that Space X seems to have a had a lot of leeway to try some new ideas. It may be that at NASA, engineers have not been given enough leeway to try new ideas, perhaps due to the politicians and congress which may be more dictated by corporate political affiliations, such as the insistence that scientists only use a certain technology on a rocket project, such as Space Shuttle technology, rather than thinking outside of the box. Not that I am saying that this technology is bad, but there are questions as to how much NASA is driven by politics rather than engineering and science. When driven by politics, we can end up with much more expensive and difficult to develop systems that are not the best we can use.
with the immense problems the USA has with poverty and homelessness (problems the GOP in particular wishes to ignore), spending a billion dollars on a city no one will live in is a good idea? I think not. This project has waste, boondoggle and white elephant all over it. This makes the GSA scandal look like efficiency in comparison. I think we all, as a Democrat, have every right to make sure that government money is actually being spent properly such as to help the poor. And thats what Democrats are really all about, the GOP spends trillion dollars on wars and ghost towns and then attacks the truly beneficial things like Medicare and Social security, then after filling the govenrment with corruption, the GOP uses the corruption they created as an further attack on all of the positive things that government does such as to provide a life saving safety net for the poor.
Combined with the fact that many people have little idea about Tech and what they actually need. Someone probably was suckered by a salesman into buying these, because, they didnt know any better. They didnt know you could use some used PCs from 2002 which are perhaps available for free, or at most some $200 barebones systems, running Linux, with dual NICs costing $20 or so, would do the job just fine.
We need good regulations. That is the civilized way to deal with issues. Not mob rule and going and blowing things up. You sound like some sort of a "libertarian" who doesnt like any civilized laws and so on to try to get a hold of our problems, but you would be the first to take to your guns and start shooting the place up when you think something needs to be fixed. Such a mentality of extremes.
By the way we are stepping forward, in a civilized way. You act like violence is the only way to solve problems. Thats a conservative way of thinking. Regulations, laws and rules is how we solve problems non violently. But it seems like the GOP, this is the hypocrisy, they are against moderate forms of problem resolution like regulations, but they are the first to run for the bombs when they see a problem that bothers them. It seems like they go between two extremes, doing nothing about problems or are on a full blown bomb throwing war.
To really address climate change we need to get accurate information to the people and that mean we need independant media outlets that report scientific information, not outlets that are controlled by wealthy corporations that have an axe to grind. The problem today in the USA is due to the fact that due to Conservative ideologies themselves it is not a Democracy, wealthy special interests such as corporations control the media and the information that people recieve and use that control to manipulate people into supporting agendas that benefit the wealthy but harm everything else, without people even knowing that is what they are doing. We need a media that simply reports facts and the consequences of decisions, not tries to white wash and ignore them when convenient. The Media through advertising is funded by corporations if not directly owned by commercial corporations. These corporations have one overriding goal, to make profits for the owners of the corporation. it is not to help the community or protect the environment. Corporations will do anything they can get away with, if they are allowed to pollute a river, they will. the only way to protect the river and those who drink its water is make regulations.
Corporations such as oil companies have huge profits to protect. The interests of environmentalists are in human welfare and the future of this planet. No environmentalist wants global warming, we wish it were not so. Conservatives have problems with seperating what they want from what is possible. Environmentalists wish we didnt have a problem with global warming but we have to look at things objectively, if there is a problem with global warming there is, and we cannot try to distort or deny things because we dont like to face them. We have to look at facts, no matter how unpleasant they are, and do what is best for protecting our planet and human, animal and environmental health.
The reason fossil fuels are well known to cause climate change is the effect is, practically permenant since we are raising the level of the CO2. The CO2 will STILL BE THERE after we stop burning fossil fuels, even after we have depleted every bit of coal and oil, it will be in the atmosphere for a long time. The idea that wind farms would cause warming is absurd, since wind farms could displace Co2 consumption they would reduce it by reducing Co2 emissions. The effect of reducing or eliminating CO2 would have a far greater positive impact than any negative of wind. The effet of Co2 is permenant and irreversible. A Wind farm can be turned on and off at will.
Another reason for these renewables is they are renewable, climate change is happening but the fact tht solar and wind are renewable alone makes them better choices than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be depleted, first hitting peak and then decling, hence peak oil. THAT is an absolute, gauranteed physical certainty. It is hard to precisely estimate how much longer fossil fuels will last but they WILL run out. And sooner than later. Since data on how much is in the ground is imprecise there is uncertaintly in the precise amount but we have a general idea. Its like you have an hourglass and you can see that the top half of the hourglass is a certain size, but you dont know how far it is filled with sand, because the top half is opaque, but you can see how much has poured into the bottom half and how long it has been pouring in there, thus a rate of depletion,, you know that there is a finite amount of sand in the top half and that it is emptying out, and you can see by the rate it is emptying that the sand will be depleted not too far from now, even though you do not know exactly when, you know it will happen and it is not that far away. The "cornucopians" who think thje earth has an unlimited amount of fossil fuels and that basically we can do anything, that the laws of nature dont matter, that we can if we want generate infinite amounts of fossil fuel energy, basic physics be damned, well, they are basically saying that since we cannot see the amount of sand in the top half of the hourglass that since we cannot make a precise measurement that therefore we might as well just assume the amount of sand is infinite. This is despite thje fact that the top half of the hourglass is of a finite size, the sand is pouring out quickly and already a lot has poured out.
Basically the cornucopias, they are living in a fantasy world, insisting the top half of the hourglass contains an infinite amount of sand, are in denial about the dire state of affairs and the fact we are headed towards practical depletion of fossil fuels.
The fact is he is wrong, there has been significant warming already due to global warming. Also he could be wrong about affects, there have been a lot of disasters and the frequency and trends could be increasing. The problem with human perception is that unless something happens immediately, it is not happening. Climate change will be a gradual trend, its not like we go to bed one day and everything is okay and the next day its a total disaster. With gradual worsening change, lets say 2% per year, people often end up seeing the new situation as the "new normal" and "just the way things are". For instance, the level of malnutrition has increased drastically to 1 billion, but because the rate of change has been 1% per year or whatever, it happens overnight, for many people this has just become the new background, the new normal, just the way things are. The earthquakes get news coverage and are immediately recognized as a disaster because it lies withim peoples short memory span, but, a longer term trend which takes centueries to occur, like malnutrition. All people see is the 1% change per annum, not the big picture of the really long term drastic changes. Humans have caused drastic changes to the earth in the past 100 years, vast areas of wildlife habitat have been destroyed, vast amounts of resources have been consumed, the CO2 level has increased greatly, and so on.
The blame for this squarely lies on the Republicans which control Florida's Legislature. To understand what is going on here Florida Legislature has been cutting funding for all universities and therefore are leaving schools with not enough funding to operating, leaving difficult tuition and funding choices. UF would not have made these cuts had their funding not had taken a massive hit. If the media did its job and tracing this back to Republican policies it would be something that people would remember at the polls. Don't like attacks on our schools so we can give more tax breaks to billionaires who move jobs overseas? Maybe time to vote Democratic.
Most countries highly prize computer science and technology, that the US seems to no longer be able to afford to develop a skills base for being a leader in technology. While other countries are increasing their investments in technology education we are cuting them. This indicates the Republicans path they have the US on to a third world future.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Linux's problems with being suitable for users at this point boils down to hardware support issues, and as well the compability issues with applications they use on Windows, and the fact that the more Ubuntu's developers try to make user interface user friendly, the more user unfriendly it becomes because they do not understand that removing features and customizability, and whacked out user interface design does not make things easier to use. The more Ubuntu morons have tried to mess with the user interface, the worse it has become, Unity is as bad as Windows 8, it is a jumbled confusing mess.
The huge mistake of some in the Linux community is that if they make a user interface so idiotic only an idiot can use it, it will make Linux popular, is a huge mistake. Instead what we end up with a user interface which is totally unuseable and infexible for everyone. In fact the more people such as Ubuntu have tried to mess around with the user interfaces, the worst, the more perplexing and unuseable they have become. The Obsession with minimalism is a disease and it has made it so even I cannot figure out easily how things work, its as if it has become sort of a puzzle. The fact is for a user interface to be useable it needs to be very feature rich, very flexible with lots of settings and features. The useability is in layout, in puting the more frequently used features up front, in categorization and in putting more advanced things in advanced screens and so on. What we have ended up with on Unity is an utterly confusion and unuseable, inflexible user interface that is basically useless because it assumes users are idiots, added to the dismal hardware support on Linux and the inability of users to run many Windows applications. The result is an operating system that is very user unfriendly.
The Windows 8 UI is atrocious and probably will kill Microsoft, as well as Microsofts announcements they are going to screw over users from upgrading from older versions of Windows by deleting their settings. I think people would have to be insane to consider upgrading to Windows 8 considering the UI is unuseable and a disaster and so on. Microsoft is really committing suicide with this and is basically telling its users "fuck you" and deterring users who would actually buy an upgrade.
I would like to say Linux is a better choice, but Ubuntu has the same problems with its atrocious Unity interface. Yes, it can be disabled, but that sort of misses the point that Ubuntu is supposed to be user friendly, most users when encountering Unity will just give up on Linux right away as this is what they will think Linux is like, its those first impressions.
The start menu and task bar model "just works", is easy to use, makes sense, etc. It is clear, it is simple, it is not too obtrusive, it is categorized and easy to find things and so on. There are just things which you cannot improve on, where things have gotten to such a point of perfection that messing with it can only make it worse. I think start menu and task bar is such a point of perfection and trying to mess with it invariably makes things worse. Both Microsoft and Ubuntu appear obsessed with novelty, for change for the sake of change, which is very bad design motivation. They are more concerned with trying to be edgy than they are about being concerned with what the users need.
Eh? Linux edits MS Word documents well with Libreoffice. The really weak areas are games, and a huge number of specialized apps from web and graphics development. Most Linux tools really cannot match the Adobe stuff.
This is why we should abolish the H3B program.It will force companies to actually start investing in American workers again. They can do it, on the job training, apprentiships. With millions of out of work americans we can easily get these people into corporations in on the job training and apprentiships, we would actually start to rebuild our middle class and reduce the poverty levels, creating a more highly skilled population.
Furthermore, we need to stop the brain drain from other countries. The highly skilled labor from destination countries needs to stay in those countries to help those countries develop economically. They need doctors, engineers and innovaters in those countries.
I am convinced the H3B program needs to be abolished. I stand 100% opposed to immigration. I am instead for industrial aid to third world countries to allow them to develop their own industries with their own population.
The H1B program should be eliminated. Only corporations love it because it allows them to import slave third world labor. Look, this is outrageous when we are importing these people when we have so many Americans in IT who cannot find work. It is infuriating that while so many Americans cannot find work we are importing workers. Furthermore, there are plenty more americans can be quickly trained to do the kinds of IT jobs that corporations need, I think we need to have more apprentiships and on the job training programs.
Another reason that H1B programs should be eliminated is for the benefit of the source country, to stop the brain drain. These countries need highly skilled people to innovate there and build their economy. The US already has plenty of human resources and does not need more.
I am all for helping the third world develop its own industry through international industrial aid for those countries. I am opposed to all immigration as it tends to harm both the source and destination countries.
I also think we need to preserve the unique qualities of the populations of a country and for countries to develop their own industrial know how and capabilities, and as well their own cultures and preserve the unique ethnic nature of countries. Immigration threatens unique countries and cultures with dilution. It is not a good solution to anything, its a problem.
The right solution is for highly skilled workers to remain in their own countries and help develop their own countries industrially, if needed with industrial development aid.
You need to stay in your country and make it better, reform it. Thats the only way it will progress and improve. People who see problems with their country are exactly the kind of people the country needs to be able to improve itself and initiate changes. So, my answer is, if you see a problem with your country, start a campaign to fix its problems and you will be of much greater benefit to your country and will be doing far more to improve the lives of the people there. You will be making good use of your life to help the country where you were born improve.
I am opposed to legal immigration. Instead, I am for industrial and educational programs in third world countries that develop those countries industries and skills bases. key to this is stopping the brain drain that threatens the development of third world countries by draining them of the skill bases that they need to develop their industries.
Immigration is harmful for the destination countries where it swamps the local population, and the source countries which lose their skills and people they need to develop. Immigration is also harmful to countries unique cultures and populations which we need to preserve rather than to dilute. I prefer to see us make sure that smart minds in countries develop their technologies and patents in their home country, develop industries there that helps develop their economies and improves life in those countries. I am in support of that and am strongly opposed to immigration.
You also forgot to mention the brain drain which severely damages the country they come from. I am opposed to immigration since it is bad for the country they leave and bad for the one they come to. I support developmental programs in third world countries which help the people of those countries innovate and add to their own countries success and resources. I also think we need to stop immigration to preserve the unique populations and cultures of different countries as well. This involves improving economic conditions in all regions of the world through more development of the economies in third world countries.
my opposition to immigration comes from economic reasons and as well respect for the unique cultures of different countries which we do not want to dilute. I think we need to find solutions whereby innovaters from a country remain in their country adn develop their patents and inventions in that country and can help drive employment and economic development in those countries. Immigration is harmful because it drains the labor and brain resources a country needs to develop itself. As well, for the destination country, it is harmful since it swamps the existing population. A better vision for the future is to discourage immigration adn instead focus on countries developing their own indigenous industris and culture, products for their own use and as well for export which they can exchange for imports.
I support programs that provide for educational systems in the third world and industrial and agricultural development there. When these countries train their own people, scientists, doctors, these need remain in that country to help the country develop itself. if we want these third world countries to improve we need to stop immigration from them so that they retain their personell resources.
I stand totally opposed to immigration and I instead support international aid and development facilities.
i will actually fully and whole heartedly disagree. The effects of the brain drain on third world countries is just destructive. What we need to do desperately to help third world countries is stop all immigration coming from them and instead develop some sort of program that will help them develop theirn own schools and laboratories and industries which will increase those countries assetts and well being.
I think countries need to develop their own populations to establish the skill bases they need to economically develop through education systems and research labs and industrial development financing. I am opposed to immigration as we want countries to develop their own unique cultures and to develop their own economies run by their native born populations, to become economically successful. I would like to see countries everywhere obtain a high level of economic functionality and I strongly oppose immigration.
The message on limiting population growth is a message for third world countries only. If anything in Europe we need to increase the population growth rate for indigenous populations there as it is too low.
The fertility rate in the USA is indeed higher and is according to statistics around Replacement level. However, nearly all population growth in the US is coming from immigration.
We need to in reality stop immigration into the USA and instead work on the economics models some to allow for the economy to function at a certain fertility rate we want to target.
I have made the points against immigration. The arguments in the parent article is evidence that we need to develop our own talents in the US through access to college education and better management of the economy.
In addition, immigrants who develop patents and so on need to stay in their often poor home countries and develop their inventions and corporations there to add to the success and employment of their people in their own countries. We need to stop the brain drain that is stymies the third world. I am in support of international research aid that would establish schools and laboratories for developing industry and technology in third world countries.
People need to go back to the countries from where they are from and work on making their own countries a better place to live.
The limits to population growth message is one for the third world where nearly all the population growth is occuring. There is actually a need in europe to increase the indigenous reproduction levels as they are too low.
This parent article is not making a sound argument for immigration. This is an argument for better US education including free college to develop our own talent. Secondly, if these immigrants are so talented, they need to stay in their often poor countries and develop their patents and innovations there, and I do agree that the international community should provide some aid for making that happen. This will add to their native countries success which they desperately need. We need to stop the brain drain as much as we need to stop flooding countries like the US with foreigners and focus on developing our own people.
I am sick and tired of hearing the same old lies and propoganda in support of immigration. The fact is i cannot think of a good reason for immigration. The above alternatives are far better and will have better effects on improving countries as good places to live for their people.
Wrong. American rocket technology was based on Nazi technology. Project paperclip.
I am in complete agreement with you. It makes perfect sense what you said and is not the least bit crazy. The US is a mature country and has a lot of people we can educate to fill all of the job openings we have. We need to tell corporations to help educate and hire these people.
I think you are on the money here. The US has plenty of people already to fill these tech jobs and it has educational systems it can develop to do it. What is actually happening as well is that this is basically destroying US society. if anything we should zero-line the immigration quota and develop our own talent and capabilities. This will alleviate our unemployment issued and rebuild our middle class. The immigration is also bad for countries these immigrants leave, where their skills are needed in their home countries. The "brain drain".
Secondly,I think we need to stop making the US unrecocognisable. The US is a mature country and does not need immigration, nor do we owe anything to these immigrants. They need to go back to their home countries and fix their own countries problems, and stop coming here.
PS: it Rep. Shelby of Alabama (R) who wanted to lock in SLS funding, represents the district in Alabama where the SLS is built, so it was pure pork barrel. It was in fact Obama and Democrats who stopped the SLS lock in and continued work on the CCP, because the SLS was primed to turn into another white elephant.
The launch technology should be based on science and technocracy rather than based on the good old boys networks of Republican politicians who are given kickbacks by corporations.
This is really frightening. Many of the existing large contractors such as Boeing and those for the Space Shuttle are those who are largely to blame for the huge costs of American space technology that has really threatened the US space industry and its ability to compete with the Russians and the French/ESA.
People often blame NASA for the mess that was the shuttle, which was a very expensive launch vehicle to operate. The shuttle should have been abandoned years before and replaced with better technology, but the companies that manufactured the shuttle just loved it because it for the VERY REASON that it was a space craft that was far more expensive than a space craft needed to be. Corporations got wealthy because the US had a very inefficient launch platform.
People often blame NASA for the mess that was the shuttle, which was a very expensive launch vehicle to operate. But, this is misplaced, many do not understand that NASA does not really build the shuttle but it is contracted to private companies, and NASA itself was getting increasingly little capability to actually stop the shuttle and replace it with something better, because the funding is being controlled by Congress who is bought off by the companies that built the shuttle. This is why blaming NASA for the shuttle white elephant is nonsense from people who dont understand much about how things work, because Congress is to blame. Congress made efforts to lock in funding to the SLS programs which are completely uncompetitive as a kickback to large corporations that give kickbacks to congress members, usually Republicans. Shelby of Alabama (Republican) for instance tried to pass bills that would have locked in funding for SLS even though it is a mostly unworkable vehicle that seems to duplicate the massive inefficiencies of the shuttle program. This means that decisions about the space program were being attempted to be made by politicians based on bribery from corporations rather than based on science.
There were probably a lot of people in NASA who wanted to find a cheaper way to do launches, but due to the fact that it is controlled by Republican pork barrel in Congress, NASA has been under a toxic and politicized miasma imposed on it from congress.
In regards to CCP, I think that what we are seeing again is congressional meddling in these affairs which seems designed to once again to retard the US space industry by locking us into expensive technologies from the likes of Boeing. I believe all of the CCP programs really ought to continue to be funded, it sure is a hell of a lot better of a value than the wars in iraq and afghanistan.
You forget these "private rockets" are almost fully funded with government grants at this point.
It is true that Space X seems to have a had a lot of leeway to try some new ideas. It may be that at NASA, engineers have not been given enough leeway to try new ideas, perhaps due to the politicians and congress which may be more dictated by corporate political affiliations, such as the insistence that scientists only use a certain technology on a rocket project, such as Space Shuttle technology, rather than thinking outside of the box. Not that I am saying that this technology is bad, but there are questions as to how much NASA is driven by politics rather than engineering and science. When driven by politics, we can end up with much more expensive and difficult to develop systems that are not the best we can use.
with the immense problems the USA has with poverty and homelessness (problems the GOP in particular wishes to ignore), spending a billion dollars on a city no one will live in is a good idea? I think not. This project has waste, boondoggle and white elephant all over it. This makes the GSA scandal look like efficiency in comparison. I think we all, as a Democrat, have every right to make sure that government money is actually being spent properly such as to help the poor. And thats what Democrats are really all about, the GOP spends trillion dollars on wars and ghost towns and then attacks the truly beneficial things like Medicare and Social security, then after filling the govenrment with corruption, the GOP uses the corruption they created as an further attack on all of the positive things that government does such as to provide a life saving safety net for the poor.
Combined with the fact that many people have little idea about Tech and what they actually need. Someone probably was suckered by a salesman into buying these, because, they didnt know any better. They didnt know you could use some used PCs from 2002 which are perhaps available for free, or at most some $200 barebones systems, running Linux, with dual NICs costing $20 or so, would do the job just fine.
We need good regulations. That is the civilized way to deal with issues. Not mob rule and going and blowing things up. You sound like some sort of a "libertarian" who doesnt like any civilized laws and so on to try to get a hold of our problems, but you would be the first to take to your guns and start shooting the place up when you think something needs to be fixed. Such a mentality of extremes.
By the way we are stepping forward, in a civilized way. You act like violence is the only way to solve problems. Thats a conservative way of thinking. Regulations, laws and rules is how we solve problems non violently. But it seems like the GOP, this is the hypocrisy, they are against moderate forms of problem resolution like regulations, but they are the first to run for the bombs when they see a problem that bothers them. It seems like they go between two extremes, doing nothing about problems or are on a full blown bomb throwing war.
To really address climate change we need to get accurate information to the people and that mean we need independant media outlets that report scientific information, not outlets that are controlled by wealthy corporations that have an axe to grind. The problem today in the USA is due to the fact that due to Conservative ideologies themselves it is not a Democracy, wealthy special interests such as corporations control the media and the information that people recieve and use that control to manipulate people into supporting agendas that benefit the wealthy but harm everything else, without people even knowing that is what they are doing. We need a media that simply reports facts and the consequences of decisions, not tries to white wash and ignore them when convenient. The Media through advertising is funded by corporations if not directly owned by commercial corporations. These corporations have one overriding goal, to make profits for the owners of the corporation. it is not to help the community or protect the environment. Corporations will do anything they can get away with, if they are allowed to pollute a river, they will. the only way to protect the river and those who drink its water is make regulations.
Corporations such as oil companies have huge profits to protect. The interests of environmentalists are in human welfare and the future of this planet. No environmentalist wants global warming, we wish it were not so. Conservatives have problems with seperating what they want from what is possible. Environmentalists wish we didnt have a problem with global warming but we have to look at things objectively, if there is a problem with global warming there is, and we cannot try to distort or deny things because we dont like to face them. We have to look at facts, no matter how unpleasant they are, and do what is best for protecting our planet and human, animal and environmental health.
The reason fossil fuels are well known to cause climate change is the effect is, practically permenant since we are raising the level of the CO2. The CO2 will STILL BE THERE after we stop burning fossil fuels, even after we have depleted every bit of coal and oil, it will be in the atmosphere for a long time. The idea that wind farms would cause warming is absurd, since wind farms could displace Co2 consumption they would reduce it by reducing Co2 emissions. The effect of reducing or eliminating CO2 would have a far greater positive impact than any negative of wind. The effet of Co2 is permenant and irreversible. A Wind farm can be turned on and off at will.
Another reason for these renewables is they are renewable, climate change is happening but the fact tht solar and wind are renewable alone makes them better choices than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be depleted, first hitting peak and then decling, hence peak oil. THAT is an absolute, gauranteed physical certainty. It is hard to precisely estimate how much longer fossil fuels will last but they WILL run out. And sooner than later. Since data on how much is in the ground is imprecise there is uncertaintly in the precise amount but we have a general idea. Its like you have an hourglass and you can see that the top half of the hourglass is a certain size, but you dont know how far it is filled with sand, because the top half is opaque, but you can see how much has poured into the bottom half and how long it has been pouring in there, thus a rate of depletion,, you know that there is a finite amount of sand in the top half and that it is emptying out, and you can see by the rate it is emptying that the sand will be depleted not too far from now, even though you do not know exactly when, you know it will happen and it is not that far away. The "cornucopians" who think thje earth has an unlimited amount of fossil fuels and that basically we can do anything, that the laws of nature dont matter, that we can if we want generate infinite amounts of fossil fuel energy, basic physics be damned, well, they are basically saying that since we cannot see the amount of sand in the top half of the hourglass that since we cannot make a precise measurement that therefore we might as well just assume the amount of sand is infinite. This is despite thje fact that the top half of the hourglass is of a finite size, the sand is pouring out quickly and already a lot has poured out.
Basically the cornucopias, they are living in a fantasy world, insisting the top half of the hourglass contains an infinite amount of sand, are in denial about the dire state of affairs and the fact we are headed towards practical depletion of fossil fuels.
The fact is he is wrong, there has been significant warming already due to global warming. Also he could be wrong about affects, there have been a lot of disasters and the frequency and trends could be increasing. The problem with human perception is that unless something happens immediately, it is not happening. Climate change will be a gradual trend, its not like we go to bed one day and everything is okay and the next day its a total disaster. With gradual worsening change, lets say 2% per year, people often end up seeing the new situation as the "new normal" and "just the way things are". For instance, the level of malnutrition has increased drastically to 1 billion, but because the rate of change has been 1% per year or whatever, it happens overnight, for many people this has just become the new background, the new normal, just the way things are. The earthquakes get news coverage and are immediately recognized as a disaster because it lies withim peoples short memory span, but, a longer term trend which takes centueries to occur, like malnutrition. All people see is the 1% change per annum, not the big picture of the really long term drastic changes. Humans have caused drastic changes to the earth in the past 100 years, vast areas of wildlife habitat have been destroyed, vast amounts of resources have been consumed, the CO2 level has increased greatly, and so on.
The blame for this squarely lies on the Republicans which control Florida's Legislature. To understand what is going on here Florida Legislature has been cutting funding for all universities and therefore are leaving schools with not enough funding to operating, leaving difficult tuition and funding choices. UF would not have made these cuts had their funding not had taken a massive hit. If the media did its job and tracing this back to Republican policies it would be something that people would remember at the polls. Don't like attacks on our schools so we can give more tax breaks to billionaires who move jobs overseas? Maybe time to vote Democratic.
Most countries highly prize computer science and technology, that the US seems to no longer be able to afford to develop a skills base for being a leader in technology. While other countries are increasing their investments in technology education we are cuting them. This indicates the Republicans path they have the US on to a third world future.