What about a crackpot capitalist country that refuses to sign treaties on anti-personnel mines, war crimes, and CO2 emissions?
They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to force others to give them cheap labour.
All the countries of the world are "capitalist" in the sense that they use currency, and people have differing amounts of currency. A monetary-less country would be absolute anarchy. My cousin and uncle (his dad) have lectured me on how people should only have to work if they want to for the betterment of humanity. now that is crackpot!
Which is perfectly rational. The develloping countries have some catching up to do, wheras the U.S. has a leg up and has already polluted more than any other nation.
Then why even have them sign the treaty? Why not just say "We're going to screw ourselves over so they can overtake us economically"?
BTW, it's physically impossible for even just China to live at the US standard of living: There's literally not enough metal to build the required number of cars. So, you would rather have the whole world live in semi-poverty? Remember, that would probably mean no internet for you to post on.
Generally CEOs are paid more because they have the potential to make the company more money. However, most people will agree that this has gotten out of hand lately, especially where that high salary is negotiated before they even start the job, and is honored after they leave due to their screwing said company.
How the heck we fix this, other that uber-socialistic practices, is beyond me.:/
It can create more jobs at the expense of the industry. However, the industry can also just move out of said country, to China or India where they can do whatever the hell they please.
As I've said before, Europe doesn't face this problem (as easily, or immediately) due to their labor protection laws.
People buy Hummers in Europe too doofus. And if oil is too cheap, so be it. Air is cheap too, but we don't tax fat people for breathing more because it creates more CO2.
We need gas at $5 a gallon for a year or two to change those habits. In the process, $5 gas will also bring sanity to commuting patterns and solve the problem of building new roads. And it won't be the end of the world, our economy will survive and adapt the way it did in the late 1970s.
Let me guess. You're either a financial dependent on your parents, or you don't make 10 bucks an hour?
There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy".
Cool! Let's look at your logic, and play "follow the money"
In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure,
Yes, there would be vast capital expenditures to update many existing systems. But remember, "Follow the Money!" Where does updated transportation come from? Taxes, in some cases, and restrictions on vehicle emissions in others. Making vehicles or other equipment emit fewer emissions costs money in R&D, and manufacturing changes. Billions of dollars of overhead to attain the same performance, but with reduced carbon use.
it would improve efficiency,
Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.
it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses),
This is assuming the plan of action involves alternative fuel sources. Nuclear is an example of this, despite being controversial in itself, and possibly causing immense damage itself in the event of an unlikely accident.
and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.
True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.
Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.
I disagree. Everyone suffers finacial losses when the government requires massive changes in the infrastructure of the country. BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.
then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.
How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.
I agree that it would be nice to cut carbon emissions. But the argument remains China/India/etc may be able to spend a minimal amount of money to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.
Overall this would create an incentive for companies to move to developing nations. If you think your jobs are being outsourced now, you'd have another thing coming. And don't argue that it hasn't affected Europe; France is just showing an example of protectionist labor laws that exist in Europe.
Really, who's to say that Venus hasn't cooled over the years? Sure, CO2 may keep it quite hot, but it doesn't necessitate that the planet is getting warmer
It's just another term that's misused in libby propoganda. Nothing to see here, move along, report to Minitru for re-education.
Sorry, I read it like 10 years ago in HS:/ Maybe I should consult Wikipedia before making such an arse of myself, oh god of whatever i'm tired blah fucking future in laws i want to not deal with
No, actually. It's about colonizing the Moon. The main character is an old scientist/tech type, who does maintenance, more or less, on the big moon computer. Mind you, back then, computers were very very large, with relays and vacuum tubes. The computer becomes so large, it becomes sentient, and only reveals itself to this one man.
It's a great read, so I won't give away the plot. Though I think you could find more info in wikipedia or something, if you wanted to.
This could be perfect for the future when we send long slow payloads between different places. Who cares if a load of bearings takes 5 years to reach Mars from the Moon and Earth? It's like sending something UPS Ground: it's cheaper, and it'll get there eventually.
I've always thought that tunneling is the obvious way to build a moon base.
I know, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein was a great book. As people know, SF starts a lot of great ideas...
Re:Less challenges on the moon?
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The moon has problems with being used as a base, this is true. But, you have to look at all the pros and cons.
The moon is close. Astronauts, vehicles, resupplies, or emergency equipment can reach the moon in a much shorter time span than Mars. Heck, even communications reach the moon in a couple seconds. Also, gravity is lower on the Moon, so launches from the Moon won't take all that much effort.
Mars possibly has more water resources to utilize. The thin atmosphere doesn't help much overall, other than blocking a few micrometeorites from causing damage. There is also dust on Mars, but probably not as harsh as that on the Moon, as it's been exposed to wind erosion for a long time now, and is assumed to be rounded in shape. Mars days also are a benefit, as opposed to the Moon, which rotates only as it orbits the Earth.
My opinion, though it matters not? I say we need to dig on the Moon. Expensive though it may be, going underground protects you from radiation meteors, and solar flare material.
Just for fun, I tried to run some company macros in OO. They didn't work at all. I hadn't expected them to of course, but I was just curious. Does anyone know if any macros work between MS and Open offices?
Basically the whole issue ended up being about timing.
When he decided to leave employ of the IAC to start his own venture, his authorization at that point to use the computer did not belong to him. Though he may have physically retained the computer, and had all access to it, he did not have legal rights to its contents.
At that point, he was a competitor to IAC, possibly with information on his person about IAC that a competitor should not.
IAC wondered what he had, and whether he was misusing this laptop for his own benefit, which would break all kinds of laws. They wanted to take a look at said laptop, and see if he'd used it or seen anything he shouldn't have recently.
This employee then accessed the laptop and deleted all kinds of stuff, akin to shredding documents Enron or Watergate style. He then returns the laptop to IAC, his former employer and now competitor.
Unsurprisingly, former employee is now sued, though his conviction is by a tenuous interpretation of a law.
You are recalling the story of someone taking TWO of these cards, soldering the heck out of them, and getting a faster total connection. however, it required a laptop with two pcmcia slots on top of each other, the company had to take your computer for a while to do this, and you ended up paying for two subscriptions, one for each card. Oh, and you voided warranties and all that happy stuff.
Can you provide backup on this? Right now, Verizon offers "Unlimiited" internet access via their "Airpass" and Sprint offers their service for 39.99 per month up to 40MB, then $0.01 per kB after that, maxing out the price when you reach the $99.99 level, but not charging for data transfer after that. I haven't read the fine print though, and that's what'd kill.
Remember when Windows XP came out, oh so many years ago? They decided to support Bluetooth at that time as their default wireless network, rather than 802.11b? While I realize that there are people who use Bluetooth, I'm not thinking that it's a very large number, at least compared to 802.11
Personally, I'd like to see people offering video in Theora format. Online, or in cheap promo packages... whatever. I realize it won't be a new HD/DVD format, but it'd sure be nice to see more of.
Over 100%? If Microsoft has somehow managed to have it's software generate over 100% of its profit, it deserves it! It's finally pioneering into new territory! Huzzah! It has done what no other company has done before!
Well, considering that the xbox, among many other MS projects, loses money consitently, and Office and the OS profits make enough to both fund those projects, and create an overall profit, then yes, they do make over 100% of their profits with these products. Though, the 2x parent's wording should have been clearer if they so deigned to use that phrase.
Slashdot Mirror
What about a crackpot capitalist country that refuses to sign treaties on anti-personnel mines, war crimes, and CO2 emissions? They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to force others to give them cheap labour.
All the countries of the world are "capitalist" in the sense that they use currency, and people have differing amounts of currency. A monetary-less country would be absolute anarchy. My cousin and uncle (his dad) have lectured me on how people should only have to work if they want to for the betterment of humanity. now that is crackpot!
Which is perfectly rational. The develloping countries have some catching up to do, wheras the U.S. has a leg up and has already polluted more than any other nation.
Then why even have them sign the treaty? Why not just say "We're going to screw ourselves over so they can overtake us economically"?
BTW, it's physically impossible for even just China to live at the US standard of living: There's literally not enough metal to build the required number of cars. So, you would rather have the whole world live in semi-poverty? Remember, that would probably mean no internet for you to post on.
Generally CEOs are paid more because they have the potential to make the company more money. However, most people will agree that this has gotten out of hand lately, especially where that high salary is negotiated before they even start the job, and is honored after they leave due to their screwing said company.
How the heck we fix this, other that uber-socialistic practices, is beyond me. :/
Those billions of dollars do not disappear. Think about it.
No, but their use and the benefits from them don't benefit other things. What other things, we have no idea: it's the friggin' future.
Coffee isn't really a foodstuff. If they could eat it themselves, I'm pretty damn sure they would
You sir are an idiot. Do you read those newspapers about Bat-boy too?
Wow. What an awesome troll you are :D
It can create more jobs at the expense of the industry. However, the industry can also just move out of said country, to China or India where they can do whatever the hell they please.
As I've said before, Europe doesn't face this problem (as easily, or immediately) due to their labor protection laws.
People buy Hummers in Europe too doofus. And if oil is too cheap, so be it. Air is cheap too, but we don't tax fat people for breathing more because it creates more CO2.
We need gas at $5 a gallon for a year or two to change those habits. In the process, $5 gas will also bring sanity to commuting patterns and solve the problem of building new roads. And it won't be the end of the world, our economy will survive and adapt the way it did in the late 1970s.
Let me guess. You're either a financial dependent on your parents, or you don't make 10 bucks an hour?
There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy".
Cool! Let's look at your logic, and play "follow the money"
In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure,
Yes, there would be vast capital expenditures to update many existing systems. But remember, "Follow the Money!" Where does updated transportation come from? Taxes, in some cases, and restrictions on vehicle emissions in others. Making vehicles or other equipment emit fewer emissions costs money in R&D, and manufacturing changes. Billions of dollars of overhead to attain the same performance, but with reduced carbon use.
it would improve efficiency,
Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.
it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses),
This is assuming the plan of action involves alternative fuel sources. Nuclear is an example of this, despite being controversial in itself, and possibly causing immense damage itself in the event of an unlikely accident.
and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.
True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.
Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.
I disagree. Everyone suffers finacial losses when the government requires massive changes in the infrastructure of the country. BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.
then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.
How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.
I agree that it would be nice to cut carbon emissions. But the argument remains China/India/etc may be able to spend a minimal amount of money to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.
Overall this would create an incentive for companies to move to developing nations. If you think your jobs are being outsourced now, you'd have another thing coming. And don't argue that it hasn't affected Europe; France is just showing an example of protectionist labor laws that exist in Europe.
Bang Brothers porn site is 315, not far behind! Dang, I should buy some of that stock!
Really, who's to say that Venus hasn't cooled over the years? Sure, CO2 may keep it quite hot, but it doesn't necessitate that the planet is getting warmer
It's just another term that's misused in libby propoganda. Nothing to see here, move along, report to Minitru for re-education.
The closest to this pattern (screw.eu, ihate.eu, etc) is beerfor.eu
Not that I'll register it of course
Sorry, I read it like 10 years ago in HS :/ Maybe I should consult Wikipedia before making such an arse of myself, oh god of whatever i'm tired blah fucking future in laws i want to not deal with
No, actually. It's about colonizing the Moon. The main character is an old scientist/tech type, who does maintenance, more or less, on the big moon computer. Mind you, back then, computers were very very large, with relays and vacuum tubes. The computer becomes so large, it becomes sentient, and only reveals itself to this one man.
It's a great read, so I won't give away the plot. Though I think you could find more info in wikipedia or something, if you wanted to.
This could be perfect for the future when we send long slow payloads between different places. Who cares if a load of bearings takes 5 years to reach Mars from the Moon and Earth? It's like sending something UPS Ground: it's cheaper, and it'll get there eventually.
I've always thought that tunneling is the obvious way to build a moon base.
I know, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein was a great book. As people know, SF starts a lot of great ideas...
The moon has problems with being used as a base, this is true. But, you have to look at all the pros and cons.
The moon is close. Astronauts, vehicles, resupplies, or emergency equipment can reach the moon in a much shorter time span than Mars. Heck, even communications reach the moon in a couple seconds. Also, gravity is lower on the Moon, so launches from the Moon won't take all that much effort.
Mars possibly has more water resources to utilize. The thin atmosphere doesn't help much overall, other than blocking a few micrometeorites from causing damage. There is also dust on Mars, but probably not as harsh as that on the Moon, as it's been exposed to wind erosion for a long time now, and is assumed to be rounded in shape. Mars days also are a benefit, as opposed to the Moon, which rotates only as it orbits the Earth.
My opinion, though it matters not? I say we need to dig on the Moon. Expensive though it may be, going underground protects you from radiation meteors, and solar flare material.
Just for fun, I tried to run some company macros in OO. They didn't work at all. I hadn't expected them to of course, but I was just curious. Does anyone know if any macros work between MS and Open offices?
They're terrorists too! Send them off to Gitmo, I say.
Basically the whole issue ended up being about timing.
When he decided to leave employ of the IAC to start his own venture, his authorization at that point to use the computer did not belong to him. Though he may have physically retained the computer, and had all access to it, he did not have legal rights to its contents.
At that point, he was a competitor to IAC, possibly with information on his person about IAC that a competitor should not.
IAC wondered what he had, and whether he was misusing this laptop for his own benefit, which would break all kinds of laws. They wanted to take a look at said laptop, and see if he'd used it or seen anything he shouldn't have recently.
This employee then accessed the laptop and deleted all kinds of stuff, akin to shredding documents Enron or Watergate style. He then returns the laptop to IAC, his former employer and now competitor.
Unsurprisingly, former employee is now sued, though his conviction is by a tenuous interpretation of a law.
You are recalling the story of someone taking TWO of these cards, soldering the heck out of them, and getting a faster total connection. however, it required a laptop with two pcmcia slots on top of each other, the company had to take your computer for a while to do this, and you ended up paying for two subscriptions, one for each card. Oh, and you voided warranties and all that happy stuff.
Can you provide backup on this? Right now, Verizon offers "Unlimiited" internet access via their "Airpass" and Sprint offers their service for 39.99 per month up to 40MB, then $0.01 per kB after that, maxing out the price when you reach the $99.99 level, but not charging for data transfer after that. I haven't read the fine print though, and that's what'd kill.
Remember when Windows XP came out, oh so many years ago? They decided to support Bluetooth at that time as their default wireless network, rather than 802.11b? While I realize that there are people who use Bluetooth, I'm not thinking that it's a very large number, at least compared to 802.11
Personally, I'd like to see people offering video in Theora format. Online, or in cheap promo packages... whatever. I realize it won't be a new HD/DVD format, but it'd sure be nice to see more of.
Over 100%? If Microsoft has somehow managed to have it's software generate over 100% of its profit, it deserves it! It's finally pioneering into new territory! Huzzah! It has done what no other company has done before!
Well, considering that the xbox, among many other MS projects, loses money consitently, and Office and the OS profits make enough to both fund those projects, and create an overall profit, then yes, they do make over 100% of their profits with these products. Though, the 2x parent's wording should have been clearer if they so deigned to use that phrase.
The US has only had one bachelor as a President? And if you've been here on /. very long...