Let's also keep in mind the purpose of modern superhighways are military (quick movement of troops without having to worry about train scheduling) and industrial (movins stuff around to have a strong economy so you can have a top-notch military.)
The "poor" have little to do with either of those, and the highways aren't there to help the poor get around.
The poor are not the holy grail around which a government organizes itself, nor should it be.
In all seriousness, I'd argue they have a lot less fighting.
Very few of the bad guys would stand up to the police, much less well-equipped marines.
The great "Magneto" would be taken down very quickly with plastic bullets. (Of course, all X-men opponents are relatively wimpy, so that goes without saying.) Or lead ones, for that matter. Someone should invent lead bullets.
> The European Union is a wonderful concept - as > long as it's about trade, currency and business. > Not when it's about powermongering, detailed > control of the citizens' everyday lives and > political centralization, dominated by > socialistic nepotism
The British, the Romans, like my mamma always used to say, when the empire keeps the trade routes open (all roads lead to Rome) they prosper. When they turn to lording over their people, they fall apart.
That's why the people who go to the stars will be Indian and Chinese. Once they get their act together they'll have a good few hundred years before they start down the monster path of detailed control of everyday life. Europe's been out of it since WWII, and America is staring into the abyss.
I thought it was a 60-something swinger husband on All in the Family who wanted to swap his wife for Archie's. Seems he took one look at her, and knew he just had to have a hellaciously intimate, carnal evening with Edith...
I would guess the banner ad, at about 1 inch high, represents about 1/6000th of this web page of this article, which, if fully displayed, would require a monitor some 500 feet tall.
It's long gone by the time I've read a fraction of a percent.
>> even billions if the practice really takes off >> in the overpopulated 3rd world > > Why is it that the 3rd world is always thought > of as "overpopulated"?
Overpopulated in the sense that they don't keep up with food production. That is more a government issue, though, as in too much government.
> Is the problem really too many brown people?
Absolutely not. There aren't enough people on the planet, the more the better. Just keep a strongarm government that "knows what's best" out of it.
The US had catalytic converters in the 70's, and got rid of lead fuel, too. Europe still fights over whether to have them. Ever been stuck in traffic over there? Not too nice.
Europe also has the option for LPG cars (about $1,000 will get you a conversion so you can use that or normal gasoline.) The holy government over there slapped an enormous tax on the cars (not the LPG itself) such that you'd have to drive 20km per year just to break even using LPG over the normal, hideous $3.50 TAX per gallon. The moral of the story? Don't look to the government to "force" anything particularly brilliant.
With catalytic converters and cheap gas, things are mighty peachy right now in spite of the crying of chicken littles.
That's truer than you know. Witness this scenario:
Designer babies worldwide are heavily selected to be male, perhaps on a rediculous scale, say 4:1 or more. Fast forward 30 years.
You now have a young male population that has no females, and by the hundreds of millions, even billions if the practice really takes off in the overpopulated 3rd world countries with pressures to produce a male as the first baby.
Now comes some charismatic leader and, well, I hope I'm in the grave by that point.
FUSION devices DO exist, and give out more energy than they put in. They just have a lot of engineering and science ahead of them before they become possible for industrial strength output.
You forget that Americans (the elite in ivory towers, anyway) view native cultures as being equally valid. SO, if a native culture oppresses its own citizens, that is a valid thing for them to do, and we dare not critize that.
To say that X is not a right had no other meaning than saying "It's acceptable and proper that other people, at their whim, may deprive me of X and that not only do I have no say in the matter, it is improper for me to have a say in the matter."
> All they had was a wood bar in front of the
> pilot that he could grab onto in case of a
> crash.
I'm sorry, Mr. Wright. You just don't meet current FAA, NTSB, OSHA, and a dozen and a half, squared, other standards. You are disallowed from attempting this. Oh, and you might hit a bird, which might be an endangered species, so you are also prevented, even if you fix all the other issues.
Although humorous, there are some real observations historians have made pointing out that massive government intervention in daily life snuffs out the innovative spirit. A great state is produced by great men, not the other way around.
When people grow up, generation after generation, in a world where they must get two dozen permission slips to perform this or that experiment, it does have an effect on the number of innovations. Remove the profit motive, and you're really in a world of hurt.
My dad got 5 of 6 once playing birthdays. The payout, based on number of winners, was at an all time low per person for 5 of 6 and 6 of 6. This is because a ton of people play birthdays. Combinations of numbers all 31 or less are well covered by the population.
If 123456 won, you'd probably get $1.98 as a jackpot.
Would someone tell me how destroying the government of a country that supported attacking us in a world-record lack of death of civilians is us behaving irrationally? It also serves the dual purpose of showing other countries they should not support, or especially even allow, terrorist groups to train and attack from there.
When the word "No" was given by the Afghanistan government, the only thing left was military. The Taliban supposed standard international no-no-ism to military action would suffice and the US wouldn't do anything because snooty people would frown upon it.
The US taught them, and the rest of the world, otherwise.
You should probably call yourself the "Grammar and Spelling Nazi" rather than use a slash between Grammar and Spelling. The use of a slash to mean and-or (or and/or, so to speak) is considered tacky and is deprecated. So is and/or for that matter.
BTW, I'd hardly consider Switzerland's neutrality a "peaceful behavior" and honorable. Understandable, certainly, but it's like saying "I was peaceful" as you stood by and watched someone stab someone else for fear of getting stabbed yourself. That kind of "peace" is not particularly honorable, which is the opposite of the point the original poster was making.
Switzerland hunkered down and said "we won't get involved against you" to the Germans. Why conquor when you don't have to? Belgium tried staying out, but they were in the path of going around the Maginot line, oh well.
Iceland is small and out of the way and a battleship could take out their stuff at leisure, armed or not. It its strategic position as a stopping point were needed...
Ireland is like Canada. No Rooskies would be allowed to invade there whether Canada wanted them or not.
The future of Europe was a decision between the US and the USSR. As a BBC show about the superpowers 10 years ago said, "when the future of Europe is discussed, the US talks directly to the USSR, superpower to superpower."
Regarding the attitude, since most European countries have multi-kiloyear histories of a strong central government telling everyone how to behave, it's natural they should, once democratized, use that ruthless control in the form of heavy handed socialism, it's the People's Turn to Tell Everyone How To Live.
Damn, it sounds like it would have been better for the world if Germany had won the war.
Oh, wait, Hitler did use his V2's (by the thousands) to pepper London to hit civilian targets (the goal with that random a wide area) to demoralize the population. N/M
> After all, WTC victims are overwhelmingly
> citizens in a democracy, and as such had the
> power to stop their government in the atrocious
> starvation of Iraq,
Most of "you people" wanted sanctions to get him out of Kuwait. Well, we did sanctions, and kept the sanctions on all this time, AND smashed his army, and he's rebuilt it. Do you think without smashing his army and driving him out, only the sanctions would have worked? Now you'd be whining about that.
If the Saddam is diverting allowed resources for the purpose of starvation (remember, that benefits him to starve his own people, every time you talk about the poor starving Iraquis, Saddam's boner gets a little harder) then the proper course of action is...
...wait for it...
...to take him out, which the US is threatening to do now. You should be happy. You aren't, though, because being in support of the US is not allowed in your deficient world view.
>...the destruction of the only medical supply
> factory in Sudan (which meant tens of thousands
> of Sudanese people died from treatable
> diseases)
And how did the military intelligence get so messed up? If it was just an aspirin factory, so to speak, an operative should have easily been able to get near enough to it to determine its purpose. Let's swallow the other guy's "honest" account hook, line, and sinker.
> the arming of Israel,...
...against a billion people who would destroy it. I support neither religion's claim to the area as all religions are made up crap, but you won't find the Palestinians beloved in any nearby states, either, except as show pieces loved as long as they stay out.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's also keep in mind the purpose of modern superhighways are military (quick movement of troops without having to worry about train scheduling) and industrial (movins stuff around to have a strong economy so you can have a top-notch military.)
The "poor" have little to do with either of those, and the highways aren't there to help the poor get around.
The poor are not the holy grail around which a government organizes itself, nor should it be.
In all seriousness, I'd argue they have a lot less fighting.
Very few of the bad guys would stand up to the police, much less well-equipped marines.
The great "Magneto" would be taken down very quickly with plastic bullets. (Of course, all X-men opponents are relatively wimpy, so that goes without saying.) Or lead ones, for that matter. Someone should invent lead bullets.
> Plus, real people are only 6 heads tall, whereas
> those in the Marvel Universe are 7 or 8.
Those two extra "heads" aren't heads. They're breasts.
> The European Union is a wonderful concept - as
> long as it's about trade, currency and business.
> Not when it's about powermongering, detailed
> control of the citizens' everyday lives and
> political centralization, dominated by
> socialistic nepotism
The British, the Romans, like my mamma always used to say, when the empire keeps the trade routes open (all roads lead to Rome) they prosper. When they turn to lording over their people, they fall apart.
That's why the people who go to the stars will be Indian and Chinese. Once they get their act together they'll have a good few hundred years before they start down the monster path of detailed control of everyday life. Europe's been out of it since WWII, and America is staring into the abyss.
I thought it was a 60-something swinger husband on All in the Family who wanted to swap his wife for Archie's. Seems he took one look at her, and knew he just had to have a hellaciously intimate, carnal evening with Edith...
I would guess the banner ad, at about 1 inch high, represents about 1/6000th of this web page of this article, which, if fully displayed, would require a monitor some 500 feet tall.
It's long gone by the time I've read a fraction of a percent.
Hey, the post anonymously button is tilted!
>> even billions if the practice really takes off
>> in the overpopulated 3rd world
>
> Why is it that the 3rd world is always thought
> of as "overpopulated"?
Overpopulated in the sense that they don't keep up with food production. That is more a government issue, though, as in too much government.
> Is the problem really too many brown people?
Absolutely not. There aren't enough people on the planet, the more the better. Just keep a strongarm government that "knows what's best" out of it.
The US had catalytic converters in the 70's, and got rid of lead fuel, too. Europe still fights over whether to have them. Ever been stuck in traffic over there? Not too nice.
Europe also has the option for LPG cars (about $1,000 will get you a conversion so you can use that or normal gasoline.) The holy government over there slapped an enormous tax on the cars (not the LPG itself) such that you'd have to drive 20km per year just to break even using LPG over the normal, hideous $3.50 TAX per gallon. The moral of the story? Don't look to the government to "force" anything particularly brilliant.
With catalytic converters and cheap gas, things are mighty peachy right now in spite of the crying of chicken littles.
> The corporate sector is a hundred times more
> greedy and short-sighted than even the most
> ineptly run government agency.
I'd say thousands of times more, and thank the lord for that.
Oh, come on! I'm a libertarian, so I'll defend the right of people to have dangerous things, especially since dangerous only to themselves.
Think of the good side: doctors recommend dihidrogen monoxide to prevent pharangeal adhesion of analgesics, you obtuse piece of porcine flotsam.
> Oh, but they still have to worry about being naked...
That's what transparent clothes are for. Duh!
That's truer than you know. Witness this scenario:
Designer babies worldwide are heavily selected to be male, perhaps on a rediculous scale, say 4:1 or more. Fast forward 30 years.
You now have a young male population that has no females, and by the hundreds of millions, even billions if the practice really takes off in the overpopulated 3rd world countries with pressures to produce a male as the first baby.
Now comes some charismatic leader and, well, I hope I'm in the grave by that point.
FUSION devices DO exist, and give out more energy than they put in. They just have a lot of engineering and science ahead of them before they become possible for industrial strength output.
You forget that Americans (the elite in ivory towers, anyway) view native cultures as being equally valid. SO, if a native culture oppresses its own citizens, that is a valid thing for them to do, and we dare not critize that.
To say that X is not a right had no other meaning than saying "It's acceptable and proper that other people, at their whim, may deprive me of X and that not only do I have no say in the matter, it is improper for me to have a say in the matter."
> All they had was a wood bar in front of the
> pilot that he could grab onto in case of a
> crash.
I'm sorry, Mr. Wright. You just don't meet current FAA, NTSB, OSHA, and a dozen and a half, squared, other standards. You are disallowed from attempting this. Oh, and you might hit a bird, which might be an endangered species, so you are also prevented, even if you fix all the other issues.
Although humorous, there are some real observations historians have made pointing out that massive government intervention in daily life snuffs out the innovative spirit. A great state is produced by great men, not the other way around.
When people grow up, generation after generation, in a world where they must get two dozen permission slips to perform this or that experiment, it does have an effect on the number of innovations. Remove the profit motive, and you're really in a world of hurt.
My dad got 5 of 6 once playing birthdays. The payout, based on number of winners, was at an all time low per person for 5 of 6 and 6 of 6. This is because a ton of people play birthdays. Combinations of numbers all 31 or less are well covered by the population.
If 123456 won, you'd probably get $1.98 as a jackpot.
Would someone tell me how destroying the government of a country that supported attacking us in a world-record lack of death of civilians is us behaving irrationally? It also serves the dual purpose of showing other countries they should not support, or especially even allow, terrorist groups to train and attack from there.
When the word "No" was given by the Afghanistan government, the only thing left was military. The Taliban supposed standard international no-no-ism to military action would suffice and the US wouldn't do anything because snooty people would frown upon it.
The US taught them, and the rest of the world, otherwise.
You should probably call yourself the "Grammar and Spelling Nazi" rather than use a slash between Grammar and Spelling. The use of a slash to mean and-or (or and/or, so to speak) is considered tacky and is deprecated. So is and/or for that matter.
BTW, I'd hardly consider Switzerland's neutrality a "peaceful behavior" and honorable. Understandable, certainly, but it's like saying "I was peaceful" as you stood by and watched someone stab someone else for fear of getting stabbed yourself. That kind of "peace" is not particularly honorable, which is the opposite of the point the original poster was making.
Switzerland hunkered down and said "we won't get involved against you" to the Germans. Why conquor when you don't have to? Belgium tried staying out, but they were in the path of going around the Maginot line, oh well.
Iceland is small and out of the way and a battleship could take out their stuff at leisure, armed or not. It its strategic position as a stopping point were needed...
Ireland is like Canada. No Rooskies would be allowed to invade there whether Canada wanted them or not.
The future of Europe was a decision between the US and the USSR. As a BBC show about the superpowers 10 years ago said, "when the future of Europe is discussed, the US talks directly to the USSR, superpower to superpower."
Regarding the attitude, since most European countries have multi-kiloyear histories of a strong central government telling everyone how to behave, it's natural they should, once democratized, use that ruthless control in the form of heavy handed socialism, it's the People's Turn to Tell Everyone How To Live.
Damn, it sounds like it would have been better for the world if Germany had won the war.
Oh, wait, Hitler did use his V2's (by the thousands) to pepper London to hit civilian targets (the goal with that random a wide area) to demoralize the population. N/M
> After all, WTC victims are overwhelmingly
...the destruction of the only medical supply
...
> citizens in a democracy, and as such had the
> power to stop their government in the atrocious
> starvation of Iraq,
Most of "you people" wanted sanctions to get him out of Kuwait. Well, we did sanctions, and kept the sanctions on all this time, AND smashed his army, and he's rebuilt it. Do you think without smashing his army and driving him out, only the sanctions would have worked? Now you'd be whining about that.
If the Saddam is diverting allowed resources for the purpose of starvation (remember, that benefits him to starve his own people, every time you talk about the poor starving Iraquis, Saddam's boner gets a little harder) then the proper course of action is...
...wait for it...
...to take him out, which the US is threatening to do now. You should be happy. You aren't, though, because being in support of the US is not allowed in your deficient world view.
>
> factory in Sudan (which meant tens of thousands
> of Sudanese people died from treatable
> diseases)
And how did the military intelligence get so messed up? If it was just an aspirin factory, so to speak, an operative should have easily been able to get near enough to it to determine its purpose. Let's swallow the other guy's "honest" account hook, line, and sinker.
> the arming of Israel,
...against a billion people who would destroy it. I support neither religion's claim to the area as all religions are made up crap, but you won't find the Palestinians beloved in any nearby states, either, except as show pieces loved as long as they stay out.
> well, I could go on
Such awesome anecdotal evidence, too.