Mostly what football teaches, though, is that you can push past whatever limitations you percieve given the dedication and time.
Don't try to sanitize it. Football teaches you to push past WHOEVER you perceive as limiting you. It teaches you to push people around, not abstract concepts like "limitations you percieve."
I've never been so sorry to share this yahoo's last name. Not only that, but I live near his district in Texas. The next time someone asks me if I'm related to him, I won't say "No."
About midway through last year I started being searched every time I went through airport security. Every time. Every airport. What did I do to deserve this? I have no clue, except I tend to express somewhat liberal views on the internet.
The same thing happened to an aquaintence at about the same time. I found out about it because we were both on a flight to Honduras with our local scuba club. That must have really sprung some alerts.:P
I don't think that if we fail to recycle now the resources will be lost forever. As you say, nothing is "lost forever." Recovery can become too expensive, however. That's the whole point of sustainability. You look to the future and design your industrial processes so that your economy can continue. You don't say "someone, sometime will be able to do it."
One day somebody is going to develop a process to take old garbage...
What a twisted line of "reasoning." Basically you're saying we shouldn't do recycling now because "some day" someone will develop a process to extract the resources from landfills? And you somehow think it's better to retrieve the resources from a randomly organized heap than to seperate them out beforehand? I think once the scarcity increases and the price climbs, the folks who will make out like bandits are those who have the resources in a nicely organized, readily available, easily utilized store.
Sure they do. So do we. It's called social engineering, psy ops, politics, whatever you like. A comment like that undercuts what is an otherwise insightful post.
So what precisely is the point of recycling? Or recycling *now*?
The same efficiency and energy consumption arguments can be made over any manufacturing process, and the problem of sustainibility is far more complex than any industrial process now in existence. If you applied that same argument to any industrial process you'd end up not having an economy. You start out with a process that is grossly inneficient, then work out the kinks. This is something private business does well, which is exactly why we need them working on the problem.
If resources become too scarce then recycling will become a viable economic alternative
Once the resource becomes too scarece then it's too late. It's exactly this kind of short sightedness that causes you to not see the point, both of recycling and of my argument.
Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller's (Penn & Teller) great show Bullshit did a great show last season on recycling.
You know, I really wish Penn and Teller would do an episode of Bullshit about themselves. Seriously doubt it, though. One common characteristic I see in self proclaimed skeptics is that they rarely apply their craft to themselves.
Sometimes I think they just have run out of ideas and just need to make filler shows. In the case of that particular episode, they were attacking a strawman the entire time. A ten year old could refute their argument. They constantly harped on the "recycling takes more energy" argument, while completely ignoring that lower energy usage is not the point of recycling. Not to mention that it's painfully obvious that, if you put effort into reusing a nonrenewable resource, you will expend energy in that effort. Duh.
In the case of sustainibility, survival drives innovation, not profit. Or, in the immortal words of Plato, "Necessity, who is the mother of invention."
It's comments like that getting modded to +5 insightful that leads to the popular perception that Slashdot's full of paranoid stoner teenagers.
Funny, I'm none of those things.
And it's comments like yours that make me tend to like the paranoid stoner teenagers much more than the alternative.
And yes, businesses who use Linux will fight back. How long and hard will they be able to fight while the rules of the game are changed to be stacked against them? How long before they give up because it's no longer profitable? Most businesses use Linux because it's "free as in beer." What happens when it becomes more expensive than the DRM'd alternative?
I mean, you gotta honestly wonder if Taco (& the others) are really actively working on this site anymore.
Ever heard of the concept of a "slow news day"? Sometimes there just isn't enough cool shit to fill a day's worth of stories. It ain't some grand cornspiracy.
You don't think Apple is going to do this too? What will happen with Linux though?
In ten years, through the DMCA, it will be illegal to have an operating system that does not enforce DRM. Anything that does not enforce DRM will be considered a circumvention.
Slashdot Mirror
I put the thing in the friggin' silverware drawer.
Problem solved! Next!
Mostly what football teaches, though, is that you can push past whatever limitations you percieve given the dedication and time.
Don't try to sanitize it. Football teaches you to push past WHOEVER you perceive as limiting you. It teaches you to push people around, not abstract concepts like "limitations you percieve."
...they want their slashdot stories back.
I've never been so sorry to share this yahoo's last name. Not only that, but I live near his district in Texas. The next time someone asks me if I'm related to him, I won't say "No."
I'll say "Hell no."
Besides which, yes it's a dumb patent, but is that MS's fault, or the patent office's?
Uh, MS took action, so yes it's their fault.
When the WTC was hit, was it America's fault or the terrorist's fault?
About midway through last year I started being searched every time I went through airport security. Every time. Every airport. What did I do to deserve this? I have no clue, except I tend to express somewhat liberal views on the internet.
:P
The same thing happened to an aquaintence at about the same time. I found out about it because we were both on a flight to Honduras with our local scuba club. That must have really sprung some alerts.
Use Maven. :)
Sovereignty? What's that?
(I was the parent post author, btw)
I don't think that if we fail to recycle now the resources will be lost forever. As you say, nothing is "lost forever." Recovery can become too expensive, however. That's the whole point of sustainability. You look to the future and design your industrial processes so that your economy can continue. You don't say "someone, sometime will be able to do it."
One day somebody is going to develop a process to take old garbage...
What a twisted line of "reasoning." Basically you're saying we shouldn't do recycling now because "some day" someone will develop a process to extract the resources from landfills? And you somehow think it's better to retrieve the resources from a randomly organized heap than to seperate them out beforehand? I think once the scarcity increases and the price climbs, the folks who will make out like bandits are those who have the resources in a nicely organized, readily available, easily utilized store.
Terrorists dont use large crowds as weapons...
Sure they do. So do we. It's called social engineering, psy ops, politics, whatever you like. A comment like that undercuts what is an otherwise insightful post.
The fact is that no ethanol maker can make a profit without that subsidy.
Gasoline could not be produced without it's government subsidy, either.
One might joke about running an automobile on this pressure alone.
One might, but it's not a joke...
If you think corporations could not influence the government to have laws changed, you are quite naive. How did you get such a low slashdot ID? :)
So what precisely is the point of recycling? Or recycling *now*?
The same efficiency and energy consumption arguments can be made over any manufacturing process, and the problem of sustainibility is far more complex than any industrial process now in existence. If you applied that same argument to any industrial process you'd end up not having an economy. You start out with a process that is grossly inneficient, then work out the kinks. This is something private business does well, which is exactly why we need them working on the problem.
If resources become too scarce then recycling will become a viable economic alternative
Once the resource becomes too scarece then it's too late. It's exactly this kind of short sightedness that causes you to not see the point, both of recycling and of my argument.
Survival drives nothing currently.
I suspect that the average Chinese villager is a bit closer to survival mode than you.
Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller's (Penn & Teller) great show Bullshit did a great show last season on recycling.
You know, I really wish Penn and Teller would do an episode of Bullshit about themselves. Seriously doubt it, though. One common characteristic I see in self proclaimed skeptics is that they rarely apply their craft to themselves.
Sometimes I think they just have run out of ideas and just need to make filler shows. In the case of that particular episode, they were attacking a strawman the entire time. A ten year old could refute their argument. They constantly harped on the "recycling takes more energy" argument, while completely ignoring that lower energy usage is not the point of recycling. Not to mention that it's painfully obvious that, if you put effort into reusing a nonrenewable resource, you will expend energy in that effort. Duh.
Profits drive innovation sadly.
In the case of sustainibility, survival drives innovation, not profit. Or, in the immortal words of Plato, "Necessity, who is the mother of invention."
It's comments like that getting modded to +5 insightful that leads to the popular perception that Slashdot's full of paranoid stoner teenagers.
Funny, I'm none of those things.
And it's comments like yours that make me tend to like the paranoid stoner teenagers much more than the alternative.
And yes, businesses who use Linux will fight back. How long and hard will they be able to fight while the rules of the game are changed to be stacked against them? How long before they give up because it's no longer profitable? Most businesses use Linux because it's "free as in beer." What happens when it becomes more expensive than the DRM'd alternative?
I mean, you gotta honestly wonder if Taco (& the others) are really actively working on this site anymore.
Ever heard of the concept of a "slow news day"? Sometimes there just isn't enough cool shit to fill a day's worth of stories. It ain't some grand cornspiracy.
...either your civil liberties or your soul, take your pick. (All on the taxpayer's dime, of course...)
You don't think Apple is going to do this too? What will happen with Linux though?
In ten years, through the DMCA, it will be illegal to have an operating system that does not enforce DRM. Anything that does not enforce DRM will be considered a circumvention.
...a solar system with... three suns!
But NOT to redistribute it.
So the owners of every HTTP proxy accessing this site should be sued?
With my current scheme, I stay healthier and it costs a grand total of $1000 on bad years.
Here in Texas you'd spend that much on deodorant if you rode a bike everywhere...