Stupid them for using OUR government to enforce 'their' right of way on OUR property. So the government doesn't enforce property rights? Or is their equipment our property now?
Stupid them for using OUR government to enforce 'their' monopoly on 'their' rights of way.
See above.
Stupid them for using OUR government to subsidize 'their' networks with billions of OUR tax dollars.
No, that's stupid us. But what do you expect when you give government money?
over 'their' networks. Stupid 'them' for using 'their' money to buy 'their' materials and pay people to do what 'they' asked to put in place 'their' network that we want to use.
It's us vs 'them' people, and there are more of us than there are of 'them' so let's vote to take what 'they' have got! Because 'they' aren't us and no one will ever vote to take what you have*!
Unlike long positions, though, there's unlimited downside. You can however, hedge your position with a far out of the money call. So you short at $20, but purchase a "call" (the "right to buy") at $30. This would be cheap if the stock was at $30, but limits your downside to the stock going to $30.
You can also buy a "put" (the "right to sell") at a specific price (say $20). They are more volatile though.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Nobody's saying it's the US's fault. The US is only part of the problem. But the US is responsible for a much larger amount of CO2 emissions on a per-capita basis than most countries in the world. Numbers vary, but it is either number 1 or in the top 5 for per-capita emissions. The US is also responsible for about 20% of global emissions, which is out of proportion with the size of its population, and it means that without some change in the US, changes made elsewhere aren't going to make much difference. Finally, even if annual emissions from China are just recently (2006) estimated to equal the US, it's still going to be a while at that rate before China catches up to what the US (and other industrialized countries) have already put into the atmospheric system for many decades before.
Complain about how the US is demonized, if you like, but it is still responsible for a significant chunk of the problem, and it purports to be one of the most economically vibrant countries in the world. If it can't or won't reduce CO2 emissions, then why should a developing country like China or India even try? Why should they slow down doing the same things that we in the industrial world have done for the last century or so? And this is where the argument falls apart.
This is just it. We have no moral authority to tell China to stop. But the same thing applies to those who tell us to stop. The high-profile global-warming brigade go tooling around in jets and living in huge mansions sucking up far more energy than the average American uses in a lifetime. And then tell the average American that they are wasteful pigs because their per-capita usage is out of line.
I don't know how they keep their own heads from asploding.
To put it simply, because the benefits of processes which cause pollution, accrue to the individual or groups of individuals which create the pollution, but the costs of pollution are paid by all. Duh. Basic ethics. Then why is China, a major polluter to the point where their pollution is ending up over here, exempt?
There are speed up lanes most people I see go slow in the speed up lane, then stop at the end of it. Then they try to merge. This is not in rush hour! Hey, you leave my wife out of this!
From the original post I made in this thread:
It's like saying mph isn't really a good indicator of dangerous driving. 66 mph isn't. 110 mph is. This means:
66 mph is a poor indicator of either safe/dangerous driving just as a 24 BMI is a poor indicator of general health/unhealth.
110 mph is a good indicator of dangerous driving (for the average person) just as a 30 BMI is a good indicator of dangerous health (for the average person).
Then you went ahead and said pretty much the same thing.
I apologize for my lack of clarity the first time.
I said 30 was a "pretty good" indicator of being overweight. I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't say anything about the other BMI ranges which are crap.
You completely missed my point about the Amazonian tribes.
Civilization has covered the entire planet. There are about 6 billion of us crammed on to one tiny world.
Even so, there are Amazonian tribes who have never seen someone from that civilization.
Beyond this, the vastness of space makes it look like those tribes are standing shoulder to shoulder with us in a crowded elevator.
You basic and quite arrogant assumption is that we are interesting. Yes, we have spacious and comfortable cruise ships. Thank you for making my point... they don't stop in the Amazonian jungle to meet the natives because they go to the "interesting" places.
But sure, I guess from a naive Star Trek sort of viewpoint where the only relevant species out there are humanoid and pretty much exactly like us, your madness makes sense. Why the crazy sounding vitriol? I agree there are more reasons to travel than finding resources... but not a whole lot. How many tribes deep in the Amazon go their entire lives without seeing anyone from the modern world? If we're the space equivalent of people living in huts, why SHOULD anyone want to go looking for us aside from curiosity? We would have very few (or short) visits under those circumstances... especially if FTL travel is difficult.
In fact, now that I think about it... assuming some nebulae-dwelling planet-sized life-form wants to leave everything he's ever known and travel a bazillion miles in an uncomfortable setting (imagine the life support for that!) just to meet you is the most arrogant sentiment of all!
I always put this thought experiment before people: If you had a spaceship that could instantly take you to anywhere in the universe, where would you go? To the nearest manufacturing facility to have it reproduced a couple hundred thousand times and onto robotics exploration vehicles.
These things are about as close to Asimov's robots as my toaster is to my PC. Dude, you shouldn't keep toasters so close to your PC. You know, overheating and stuff... not to mention the toast crumbs.
The project is considered a failure due to the mass number of cowardly robots forgetting to fire their weapons, instead shouting "NO DISSEMBLE!!!" This is funnier than you may have even intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupid them for using OUR government to enforce 'their' monopoly on 'their' rights of way.
See above.
Stupid them for using OUR government to subsidize 'their' networks with billions of OUR tax dollars.
No, that's stupid us. But what do you expect when you give government money?
It's us vs 'them' people, and there are more of us than there are of 'them' so let's vote to take what 'they' have got! Because 'they' aren't us and no one will ever vote to take what you have*!
*Civil liberties and privacy excepted.
You must be new around here... ever see how much energy an AC-troll post can generate?
Wouldn't you say that in response to someone who says "Well, it's nice and temperate here? So much for "global wamring"!
He's simply speaking accurately.
You can also buy a "put" (the "right to sell") at a specific price (say $20). They are more volatile though.
Complain about how the US is demonized, if you like, but it is still responsible for a significant chunk of the problem, and it purports to be one of the most economically vibrant countries in the world. If it can't or won't reduce CO2 emissions, then why should a developing country like China or India even try? Why should they slow down doing the same things that we in the industrial world have done for the last century or so? And this is where the argument falls apart.
This is just it. We have no moral authority to tell China to stop. But the same thing applies to those who tell us to stop. The high-profile global-warming brigade go tooling around in jets and living in huge mansions sucking up far more energy than the average American uses in a lifetime. And then tell the average American that they are wasteful pigs because their per-capita usage is out of line.
I don't know how they keep their own heads from asploding.
Duh indeed.
- have you heard of the
tag? (shit key? punctuation?) -no
How funny, I was reading this post and happened to see this at exactly the same time:
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct. The best kind of correct."
66 mph is a poor indicator of either safe/dangerous driving just as a 24 BMI is a poor indicator of general health/unhealth.
110 mph is a good indicator of dangerous driving (for the average person) just as a 30 BMI is a good indicator of dangerous health (for the average person).
Then you went ahead and said pretty much the same thing.
I apologize for my lack of clarity the first time.
I said 30 was a "pretty good" indicator of being overweight. I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't say anything about the other BMI ranges which are crap.
But wait, I think I already said that.
Yeah, but a BMI of 30 is a pretty good indicator of being overweight.
It's like saying mph isn't really a good indicator of dangerous driving. 66 mph isn't. 110 mph is.
Can I hold my breath for 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days?
They sell the executables to Valve for a cut of the results. Unless they sold DOSbox they had nothing to do with it.
And can it be used to power a starship drive?
You completely missed my point about the Amazonian tribes.
Civilization has covered the entire planet. There are about 6 billion of us crammed on to one tiny world.
Even so, there are Amazonian tribes who have never seen someone from that civilization.
Beyond this, the vastness of space makes it look like those tribes are standing shoulder to shoulder with us in a crowded elevator.
You basic and quite arrogant assumption is that we are interesting. Yes, we have spacious and comfortable cruise ships. Thank you for making my point... they don't stop in the Amazonian jungle to meet the natives because they go to the "interesting" places.
In fact, now that I think about it... assuming some nebulae-dwelling planet-sized life-form wants to leave everything he's ever known and travel a bazillion miles in an uncomfortable setting (imagine the life support for that!) just to meet you is the most arrogant sentiment of all!
Boy, seeing them right together like that makes what I said sound kind of well, funny.
Yes that's all well and good, but will it be efficient?