The rain forest reference was just pointing out the absurdity of expanding farm lands, while committing land to growing fuel.
And why exactly would taxing consumption be any better? Hydrocarbons once out of the ground become a diverse array of things. Who would determine the carbon content of each product on the market? Sounds like a massive massive program that is open to all kinds of politicking. When I buy a car, would every plastic item and lubricant be tallied and carefully counted?
And if the cracking process releases a bunch of that pesky carbon, does it just go unaccounted for? I really don't understand the desire for consumption taxes when taxing a wellhead is more straightforward and harder to cheat.
But this all goes to my point - the farther you get from taxing what comes out of the ground directly and applying it to alternatives, the more it just looks like shady politics.
I certainly expect so. Carbon is life friendly - oxygen is the caustic crap plants put out as waste that later lifeforms adapted to use as fuel. Really the earth is always self-balancing, the only question is whether or not it is hostile to humans. The Earth could take us or leave us, life really has no opinion on what should survive.
Anyone claiming to be sure either way is basically full of crap. Both sides are mostly opinion and world view driven. What the alarmists need to understand about deniers is that we mostly have no problems with reducing usage of oil. Most people are all for that.
The problem is that most of what is being offered up as a solution looks more like efforts to create massive world government and to legislate life itself.
There is only ONE source of carbon that is of concern, and that is oil/coal. All other carbon, be it burning trees or cow farts, is part of a self balancing biosphere.
If the concern really is just about carbon, then the solutions would be as simple as taxing well heads and coal mines, then distributing that cash back to the consuming countries to be spent on alternatives.
Tearing up rainforests to plant corn, and then burn that in our cars is not sane. It is talk of taxing animals, food, babies, and other such crap that makes people like myself cringe and eye the whole movement suspiciously.
I think that as Americans we get conditioned to sign everything and rarely think about not doing it. Every time I refuse, I get weird looks, but I've never once been denied service.
Last year I wouldn't give a dentist my SS# prior to a cleaning, and was denied service. One of the most absurd thing I have seen in ages. They wanted my SS number more than they wanted my $100 I guess.
...Though it has been hinted too, but this essentially gives machines the same footprint on the earth as living creatures. Rather than being fueled by goo that comes out of the ground, our airplanes cars and houses will becomes consumers of food. I would like to know how much a jet 'grazes' each day to operate and how much food supply it is going to consume.
"It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point."
That may be the point, but the result is a person who has every corner of his public life stamped with a neon "hate and fear me even if you don't know the details of my case". Some 20 year old accidentally sleeps with a 16 yo who misrepresents herself as 18... fucked for life.
Then you disagree with both me and Orson Wells. War of the Worlds basically was making this statement. All the technology on earth couldn't save us, only the evolution of our immune system that we paid for with a lot of dying saved us.
I don't see the doom OR gloom in seeing that all of the dying and suffering man experiences serves a purpose and isn't for nothing.
Actually, many would argue that the economy is in the state it is in due to fractional banking. Wanting more than you had yesterday isn't exclusive to America. Being able to GET it w/o earning it is, and massive fractional banking allows leveraging to make it possible.
We left the evolutionary race with the invention of antibiotics... meanwhile bacteria has been evolving steadily. Until man can create a faster and more reactive system than the human immune system to combat infections, the bacteria will eventually win. Human death is a natural part of that. If my immune system can't handle a strep infection, death is what keeps me from sharing my genetics with future generations.
Trying to stay ahead of microorganisms is a war that will get increasingly expensive and difficult for us, and will cost infectious strains nothing to wage forever. And the second we slip or fall behind, it's going to be disastrous for any of us who now share unfit genes.
Do these companies believe that somehow piracy takes away from the economy? Most people spend every penny they have as it is. The few people who actually will pay for what they pirated will only be taking money away from some other sector... which will then scream for laws to drive money back to their sector. And nothing helps the economy like more lawyers picking over our bones (sarcasm).
The only place these laws will be effective are in countries like the US... and speaking for me and my friends... we are ALREADY TAPPED OUT ON CASH.
Most people don't need insane data rates, they just need good response times. Online gamers and web browsers don't need to sustain 1.5MBPS. I'm not entirely certain why ISPs don't just lower data rates and focus efforts on responsiveness. And frankly as a P2P user, I don't even need most of the bandwidth available to me.
My life won't end if I have to wait an hour to D/L BSG rather than 10 minutes. In my uninformed opinion.
And you believe any of the candidates you are being offered will end "incompetence"? You believe you will ever be offered a candidate who would clean up this mess rather than expand it? Reagan promised to be that guy... and look what happened under him.
Therein lies the problem. Small government isn't some wacky ideal, it's the realization than any other kind of government will turn into what we have today.
Explain why ending the monopoly of a privately owned central bank is crazy? 3 or more previous incarnations were ended for the same crap we are seeing today.
Seriously. Explain yourself.
Anyone can sit back and vote no on everything.
Obviously they can't. They get a lot of lobby pressure to pass all kinds of crap. It takes real balls to say no when the herd (and money) is saying yes.
He also doesn't vote no on everything. He reads it all (unlike most in DC) and votes no if he finds it unconstitutional.
"...please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only."
Unless this was intended as flamebait, this may well conclude my Slashdot checking days. Forcing people to chose a favorite Nazi now Slashdot?
Ron Paul. I recall seeing him as one of the four in the last debate and I recall him break records in fundraising. Enough said.
Of course it doesn't add up. Tasers (cattle prods for humans) also don't kill according to their makers, and DU rounds are safe. Rubber bullets also are don't take out the eyes of Palestinian children.
If people start wearing clothing that keeps it from working, they will just turn up the volume. Anyone who develops cataracts as a result will be scorned and dismissed as lunatics, or just will be blamed for having put themselves in a position where the police had to use it on them.
The term non-lethal is just a marketing term for 'martyr-less abuse of power'.
The Betty claim you posted is wrong because it claims there is PROOF. That does not mean inclusively the opposite is true either, and that sweeteners are safe.
There is a lot of politicing involved in getting unnatural foods to market and I wouldn't be so quick to call them safe when the stakes are so high. I have several friends who stopped eating aspertame because they swore they felt reactions to it.
There is a lot of money in defending sweeteners legal status, and very little in contesting them.
As a fellow I read long ago commented on his first hand life under the Nazis... It is all part of the current trend in all western culture for government to pass ARBITRARY and INVASIVE laws that condition people to unchecked use of power.
This is utterly useless against 'terrorists', since if they even exist they would just avoid it.
This is entirely about wearing down opposition to government power. Here in the US these abuses come at us faster than we have time to get outraged about them.
Eh? How did you go from the Council on Foreign Relations to Freemasons? Is NAFTA a conspiracy theory too then? You've been reading too much tin-foil hat stuff if you can't make the distinction between current shakers and theoretical devil worshipping puppetmasters.
People still have to identify who the CFR is? I figured by now Slashdot readers would know the name, or at least know how to put 3 letters into google.
Council on Foreign Relations. If you don't know who they are get to know. It is a collection of the most powerful people (political/media/industry) on the planet funded by the likes of Rockefeller coming together to determine the future of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The rain forest reference was just pointing out the absurdity of expanding farm lands, while committing land to growing fuel.
And why exactly would taxing consumption be any better? Hydrocarbons once out of the ground become a diverse array of things. Who would determine the carbon content of each product on the market? Sounds like a massive massive program that is open to all kinds of politicking. When I buy a car, would every plastic item and lubricant be tallied and carefully counted?
And if the cracking process releases a bunch of that pesky carbon, does it just go unaccounted for? I really don't understand the desire for consumption taxes when taxing a wellhead is more straightforward and harder to cheat.
But this all goes to my point - the farther you get from taxing what comes out of the ground directly and applying it to alternatives, the more it just looks like shady politics.
I certainly expect so. Carbon is life friendly - oxygen is the caustic crap plants put out as waste that later lifeforms adapted to use as fuel. Really the earth is always self-balancing, the only question is whether or not it is hostile to humans. The Earth could take us or leave us, life really has no opinion on what should survive.
Anyone claiming to be sure either way is basically full of crap. Both sides are mostly opinion and world view driven. What the alarmists need to understand about deniers is that we mostly have no problems with reducing usage of oil. Most people are all for that.
The problem is that most of what is being offered up as a solution looks more like efforts to create massive world government and to legislate life itself.
There is only ONE source of carbon that is of concern, and that is oil/coal. All other carbon, be it burning trees or cow farts, is part of a self balancing biosphere.
If the concern really is just about carbon, then the solutions would be as simple as taxing well heads and coal mines, then distributing that cash back to the consuming countries to be spent on alternatives.
Tearing up rainforests to plant corn, and then burn that in our cars is not sane. It is talk of taxing animals, food, babies, and other such crap that makes people like myself cringe and eye the whole movement suspiciously.
Last year I wouldn't give a dentist my SS# prior to a cleaning, and was denied service. One of the most absurd thing I have seen in ages. They wanted my SS number more than they wanted my $100 I guess.
...Though it has been hinted too, but this essentially gives machines the same footprint on the earth as living creatures. Rather than being fueled by goo that comes out of the ground, our airplanes cars and houses will becomes consumers of food. I would like to know how much a jet 'grazes' each day to operate and how much food supply it is going to consume.
"It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point." That may be the point, but the result is a person who has every corner of his public life stamped with a neon "hate and fear me even if you don't know the details of my case". Some 20 year old accidentally sleeps with a 16 yo who misrepresents herself as 18... fucked for life.
Can't imagine spending my life with that albatross around my neck when I wasn't the one to shoot it.
Judging by the photos from the event and other comments, the photo was likely doctored by Google to remove the smile face.
Then you disagree with both me and Orson Wells. War of the Worlds basically was making this statement. All the technology on earth couldn't save us, only the evolution of our immune system that we paid for with a lot of dying saved us.
I don't see the doom OR gloom in seeing that all of the dying and suffering man experiences serves a purpose and isn't for nothing.
Actually, many would argue that the economy is in the state it is in due to fractional banking. Wanting more than you had yesterday isn't exclusive to America. Being able to GET it w/o earning it is, and massive fractional banking allows leveraging to make it possible.
Definitely seems like they should have asked subjects to "act like someone suspicious, who is trying to not act suspicious".
I'm sure curling your mustache and laughing diabolically doesn't require a computer to detect.
We left the evolutionary race with the invention of antibiotics... meanwhile bacteria has been evolving steadily. Until man can create a faster and more reactive system than the human immune system to combat infections, the bacteria will eventually win. Human death is a natural part of that. If my immune system can't handle a strep infection, death is what keeps me from sharing my genetics with future generations.
Trying to stay ahead of microorganisms is a war that will get increasingly expensive and difficult for us, and will cost infectious strains nothing to wage forever. And the second we slip or fall behind, it's going to be disastrous for any of us who now share unfit genes.
Do these companies believe that somehow piracy takes away from the economy? Most people spend every penny they have as it is. The few people who actually will pay for what they pirated will only be taking money away from some other sector... which will then scream for laws to drive money back to their sector. And nothing helps the economy like more lawyers picking over our bones (sarcasm).
The only place these laws will be effective are in countries like the US... and speaking for me and my friends... we are ALREADY TAPPED OUT ON CASH.
Squeeze somewhere else please.
Most people don't need insane data rates, they just need good response times. Online gamers and web browsers don't need to sustain 1.5MBPS. I'm not entirely certain why ISPs don't just lower data rates and focus efforts on responsiveness. And frankly as a P2P user, I don't even need most of the bandwidth available to me.
My life won't end if I have to wait an hour to D/L BSG rather than 10 minutes.
In my uninformed opinion.
And you believe any of the candidates you are being offered will end "incompetence"? You believe you will ever be offered a candidate who would clean up this mess rather than expand it? Reagan promised to be that guy... and look what happened under him. Therein lies the problem. Small government isn't some wacky ideal, it's the realization than any other kind of government will turn into what we have today.
Explain why ending the monopoly of a privately owned central bank is crazy? 3 or more previous incarnations were ended for the same crap we are seeing today. Seriously. Explain yourself.
Anyone can sit back and vote no on everything. Obviously they can't. They get a lot of lobby pressure to pass all kinds of crap. It takes real balls to say no when the herd (and money) is saying yes. He also doesn't vote no on everything. He reads it all (unlike most in DC) and votes no if he finds it unconstitutional.
How many of us have told a friend to vote for Ron Paul today? This shit doesn't fix itself.
Of course it doesn't add up. Tasers (cattle prods for humans) also don't kill according to their makers, and DU rounds are safe. Rubber bullets also are don't take out the eyes of Palestinian children. If people start wearing clothing that keeps it from working, they will just turn up the volume. Anyone who develops cataracts as a result will be scorned and dismissed as lunatics, or just will be blamed for having put themselves in a position where the police had to use it on them. The term non-lethal is just a marketing term for 'martyr-less abuse of power'.
The Betty claim you posted is wrong because it claims there is PROOF. That does not mean inclusively the opposite is true either, and that sweeteners are safe. There is a lot of politicing involved in getting unnatural foods to market and I wouldn't be so quick to call them safe when the stakes are so high. I have several friends who stopped eating aspertame because they swore they felt reactions to it. There is a lot of money in defending sweeteners legal status, and very little in contesting them.
As a fellow I read long ago commented on his first hand life under the Nazis... It is all part of the current trend in all western culture for government to pass ARBITRARY and INVASIVE laws that condition people to unchecked use of power. This is utterly useless against 'terrorists', since if they even exist they would just avoid it. This is entirely about wearing down opposition to government power. Here in the US these abuses come at us faster than we have time to get outraged about them.
Eh? How did you go from the Council on Foreign Relations to Freemasons? Is NAFTA a conspiracy theory too then? You've been reading too much tin-foil hat stuff if you can't make the distinction between current shakers and theoretical devil worshipping puppetmasters.
People still have to identify who the CFR is? I figured by now Slashdot readers would know the name, or at least know how to put 3 letters into google. Council on Foreign Relations. If you don't know who they are get to know. It is a collection of the most powerful people (political/media/industry) on the planet funded by the likes of Rockefeller coming together to determine the future of the world.