Mentioning the rather serious noise issue on page 5 is hardly "prominent".
Incorrect. Had you read the article, you would have found that the noise issue was addressed in the section of the article concerned with the cooling system of the card - exactly where it should be.
Sorry that he didnt say more about it in the intro or conclusion page - but really, dont bother commenting about the contents of an article you have not read.
And what if they don't? I mean, it only takes one asshole to ruin the movie for 200 others. Do you really think we can make sure that its possible to get the asshole quotient of humans below 0.5% (given that right now I have it pegged around 35% overall - 60% for highschoolers).
Hehehe well said - and no, I do not think we can eliminate the problem altogether... We can, however, improve those percentages you listed a bit, dont you think? How about a reasonable 10%? (High-schoolers will never break the 50% barrier so forget about them;)
Seriously, the only cure for bad mobile phone habits is common courtesy.
Agreed. This is a societal and human problem, and should be dealt with as such. Though we hope for quick, technological fixes, problems of this nature are best corrected by - you guessed it - good parenting. Smack the kid around a bit if you have to, but people need to be taught respect at a young age. This is something far too rare in our society IMHO. (Sorry for the rant)
I am all for this, and realize that (unless they change themselves) they will eventually need to be changed by an alternate means. Whether this means using force or air-dropping Beatles CDs on their playgrounds depends on the place and circumstances. (The latter, of course, is a humerous way of saying that real change comes with the next generation).
The problem with trying to not "be dependent" on them is that it won't work - because even in 10 or 20 years the *world* will still need oil, and since oil is a fungible commodity, the middle east will be where a lot of it comes from.
You question whether it would be worthwhile to become independent of them... But flip it around - What is the advantage of being dependent on them?? There is none! Even in a time of war - even if we are justified in blowing them off the face of the earth, why on Earth do we need to need their oil? Why not *ahem* pre-emptively seperate our economic stability from this chaotic, violent, and irrational place?
And we will still need oil.
Judging by our current course of action - yes, we will still need it. This is a choice we are making - it is not set in stone, and it could be different if we wanted it to. Americans have performed, time and time again, feats of ingenuity much more impressive that this in past generations - how come this task seems so impossible for us today, yet is actively underway in places like Iceland and Germany? I guess I figured we were smarter than that...
As far as going to war with them, it is too late. Even if there wasn't a drop of oil in the middle east, we would have to stop Iraq and Iran from getting nukes, and deal with North Korea. These countries are simply so hostile to us that our own safety requires a regime change.
I am not even going to necessarily disagree with you here. Again, I am not some peace-nut who thinks we should all be like Switzerland. I still think it would be wise to cut our interests economically (and become a world-leader for an up-and-coming technology requirement to boot) at least as much as possible, while we can. Also, I dont think military action is necessary so long as UN inspectors are on the ground in Iraq, which they currently are. (credit to W. on this)
Thus we have a very different problem with the North.
Then why lump them in with the other "axis of evil" members? Why not call them "pinnacle of evil"? -- Kidding.. You make good points about NK's military ability, but I still think this is a lot of hypocrisy from our current administration.
Iraq needs to be taken down both because it is a very dangerous country with a history of killing more Muslims (by far) than any other country in history, and history of strategic miscalculations: the Iraq-Iran war, the invasion of Kuwait.
We have our strategic miscalculations as well - Vietnam for one. As long as Iraq is not invading Israel, Europe, or any of our allies, what do we care? -- Well, there is one reason why we care, and it ain't to save Kuwait. I think we do not want any one of these countries to become too powerful and to control too much of this resourceful area... Not necessarily a bad strategy, but be honest here.. We are not doing this to save Muslims.
Furthermore, given the way power politics work in the middle east, taking down and denazifying Iraq is likely to cause the remaining governments over there to be much more agreeable to our peacemaking and anti-terrorist efforts.
I hope you are right.
We could do as Europe is doing and try to feed Israel to the anti-Israeli and anti-semitic wolves in an attempt to appease the oil countries and Islamicist terrorism, but we don't. Israel is a modern western democracy, and deserving of our support.
Isreal also breaks UN resolutions just as Iraq does. Though, as I said before, I would side with Isreal over the Islamic countries, I do not see why we have blood ties to them. This is an age old conflict being played out on a new stage, and across new, arguably arbitrary borders. I feel for the people of Israel and the Palestinians, but I dont think either of their leaderships are doing either side any good. Both should take a page from the strategy book of Gandhi, IMHO.
I think that the Operating System division of MS, and perhaps the Office Products division should be treated as *natural monopolies* and regulated like a public utility and prevented from using their monopoly profits from investing in other businesses.
I agree, but perhaps think it would only be necessary that MS be broken up. Currently, they are constantly springing up new business ventures which, though all lose money, are being subsidized by the OS/Office product revenues. Ahh, it must be nice to have a never ending checkbook and to be able to take your time to get it right.
say, Boston's Big Dig
Isn't that to put in a subway or something? I thought environmentalists worshiped mass transit.
Nope - its essentially moving a 6 lane highway underground, and increasing it to 8 and 10 lanes in places... It is over-budget by billions and billions of dollars, and will do nothing to alleviate our problems as a reasonable mass-transit system would. Studies in Atlanta and other places have shown that increasing highway girth only encourages more people to take the new route, and will clog up again in 5 years time. Cars, as usual, are the cause, not the answer to our sprawl, pollution, and congestion problems.
You get a lot more value from that military than you obviously appreciate.
The courage and ability of our fighting men is something I have tremendous respect for, especially since I come from a military family (my grandfather was a 3-star general and served in WW2 and Vietnam, lost an Uncle in Vietnam, etc). I do not think they should work for peanuts, and as every veteran I have ever met has been a stand-up, honorable individual, I think they all (and yourself) deserve our respect and thanks.
However, just as times change, so I think should our military needs. The Cold War is over, and there is no justification for such a huge military budget. I have recently read on a Libertarian (aren't you a Libertarian anyway?;) website that the US military budget accounts for 37% of the world's military budget, and another 30% is attributed to Europe, South Korea, Japan, and Isreal - countries which are not a likely threat to us. Russia is the 2nd largest spender, and a war with them seems unlikely as well. Military pork spending is not much better than domestic pork spending, and a budget of 400B is plainly excessive. Its 26 times bigger than the combined military budget of our 7 most likely enemy nations!
Did you know that the Federal Government owns over 75% percent of the land in the state that I live in? We care rather a lot about their policies!
I was not aware (as I did not know where you lived;), and can understand your feelings on this matter... I suppose this is more the exception than the rule, as the majority of states in the US are not 75% covered with national forests. Overall, I feel, it is probably a good law, though can definitely see your side given the circumstances.
Cars are *orders of magnitude* (that's powers of ten) cleaner than they were thirty years ago.
And computers have advanced at a much faster rate than this! This is not a reason to stop - lets keep going and make it even better, shall we? Better smog is still smog - and the average miles per gallon is the lowest it has been since the '80s. There is much, much room for improvement. We are not getting anywhere near the power we should be for a gallon of fuel - burning it at an efficiency of something like 14%.
As far as Mexico City - yes, I was there ten days helping out after the 1985 earthquake.
You seem to have lead quite an extraordinary life, well done. (not intended to be sarcastic)
The people in Mexico are *too poor* to afford low emissions vehicles, much less alternate fuel vehicles.
Environmentalists almost universally advocate policies that would damage the poor more than the rich.
But Kyoto exempted developing nations, and this was one of the main reasons W. rejected it.
The best way to help the world overall is to push policies that would help end poverty, because well off countries have the time and money to put into environmental protection, and they also have below-replacement birth rates!
Very wisely stated and something I agree with 100%
You got me on account of the terminology... Now, anything of substance on the fact that they are melting?
BUT... the radical Islamists hate us anyway. And they are doing a lot of crazy stuff where there is no oil (Afghanistan? Algeria?).
I do not make apologies for the state of any Islamic countries. In my own personal opinion, I think they are for the most part pathetic, unwanted relics of the past... all the more reason to sever the one thing that A. gives them power and money, B. has corrupting influences on our government, C. pollutes the environment.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember the oil embargo, but Saudi Arabia was part oof that.
I remember about a year ago Iraq called for the oil producing nations to issue a meager one month boycott on oil sales to the US, on account of our alleged bias towards Israel. Not one country agreed to follow through, and indeed, Saudi Arabia vowed never to use "oil as a weapon" and would continue to supply us with oil. The Saudi people were not thrilled.
There is simply no practical way to reduce oil dependence in a time frame that has anything to do with Islamic fanaticism. So you are beating a dead horse.
I disagree. They have been fighting for longer than America has even been a country, and no doubt they will fight for a long time still, no matter what our course of action. This is still no excuse to want to limit your ties to these people, and their one staple of power over us. Of course we wont be able to cut oil dependance to fend of the *next* attack... But try thinking long-term for a change... say, 10 or 20 years from now. Lets change our relationship with these people altogether. They will have no power over us, and our more gung-ho presidents will not feel the urge to invade every ten years or so (which only increases hatred). I am not even saying lets not ever go to war with these people... Let's just limit how much of our actions are repercussions of our dependance on oil.
I don't like use being dependent on foreign oil (although we are MUCH less dependent on middle east oil than we used to be).
It is true, we are much less dependant on middle eastern oil than we used to be - and that is a Good Thing. However, they still have the largest oil reserves in the world, and therefore are strategically important to a country dependant on oil. On any particular day, we may only be importing 20% (I am not sure of the exact percentage) of our oil from the Middle East, but our actions there make it very clear we will back up, with force if necessary, our need to have access to this oil in the future. All the proof you need is on page one of every paper in the country right at this very moment. North Korea is admitting to a nuclear weapons program, is hinting at blackmailing the US by selling this technology to the highest bidder (aka bin Laden), and has stated that "sactions are an act of war." And yet, George W. considers this a "diplomatic" issue where there is no war on the near horizon. Conversely, we have found no indication of nuclear weapons in Iraq, they *already are* under sanctions, and there is no evidence that they sold technology to terrorists - and yet, W. is raising hell and moving the fleet in, while the U.N. still maintains there is no "smoking gun." Doesn't make too much sense, does it?
THe problem with using the government to deal with externalities is that government is a big, blunt instrument. After all, how many people on Slashdot are happy with how they have dealt with DRM or the Microsoft issue?
I sure as hell am not happy - but what is the alternative? Do nothing? As a staunch capitalist, what do you think should happen to MS? Do you feel that they deserve to be where they are today, and that they only got there because they had the best product? Do you feel the government should not have a role in the breakup of monopolies?
Their record on environmental protection is one of total violation of individual property rights... individual property rights (i.e. theft of value from J Random citizen)
You are certainly entitled to have this opinion, but I disagree wholeheartedly. I feel I get much more value out of the (meager) dollars spent on conservation than I do for, say, Boston's Big Dig or a military whose budget is sized to account for the possibility of fighting 2.5 wars at a time. Money allocated towards conservation is the absolute minimal - and as someone who enjoys hiking in the White Mountains of NH, for example, I know its worth every penny. I think you will find most people would agree.
radical regulations (such as Babbitt's no roads in the national forests program)
I do not feel this is radical in the slightest. Why do we need roads in national forests?
and overkill (reductions in automobile pollution were needed, but further reductions will make *no* difference in smog, for example).
This is simply incorrect. Heavy auto pollution creates smog. Reduce (better yet, eliminate, but I will not cross my fingers;) and you can only help the smog problem. The absolute worst case is that the smog does not get worse -- and what is wrong with that? Spend any time in Mexico City have we?
There is no doubt that dependence on the mideast has some problems. The question is whether there is anything we can do about it now, and the answer is: no, not in a quantitative sense that yields real qualitative results.
Ahh, so we cant do anything about it now? When can we? In 23 years? Next Monday? (Sunday is no good for me)
We have to start! Thats it! I dont want to cut ourselves off from oil today. I am pragmatic and realize that we are dependant on oil, and that just stopping cold would be a recipe for disaster. But why not start with small goals, and begin to reverse our ever-worsening addiction? It will never be the "right" time... We just have to pick a time, period.
There are no melting icecaps.
I hope you are kidding (just one example I found at the first news site I checked). The caps of Kilimanjaro will be snow-free in 20 years, and I even heard theories that the mythical Northwest passage will finally open up. Hey, would be great for commerce, right? As for no evidence - its true, we will never have black and white evidence because only time will tell. However, it is entirely reasonable that we are contributing to global warming - even George W agreed to this after getting back the results from his commissioned study. Him saying so perhaps speaks louder than all the enviro-activists in the world, given that he is not exactly a friend of the environment. (Dont give me any "Clinton is worse" crap - I think they both are equally horrible in this regard)
There is absolutely no evidence tying use of oil to dying amphibians.
Again, I have read otherwise. Just do a google search of "amphibian decline" or "amphibian car exhaust" and you will find myriad examples. Rivers, lakes, etc, are definitely polluted, both by acid rain and other pollutants, such as car exhaust, and many scientists believe pollutants to be a prime factor. Yes, disease and habitat loss are as well.
The attack is enevitable. Oil is in fact somewhat realted to Islamicist terrorism, but if you read their own propaganda...
Might I suggest you concentrate less on their (or anyone else's, for that matter) propaganda? Bin Laden himself goes on record saying he will attack us until we pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and end our bias towards Isreal. I am all for pulling out of this conflict completely, and though I definitely side with Isreal more so than I would with Islamic states, they are hardly innocent themselves. But how come we do not pull out of Saudi Arabia? How come we invaded Iraq (and may do so again)? Was it to save Kuwait? How come we do not involve ourselves militarily in the myriad wars in Africa going on right now? What is different about the Middle East versus Iraq? Hmmm....
You said yourself that broken and corrupt governments are a main reason why these bastards do what they do... What do you think the government of Saudi Arabia is? Is it *that* unreasonable for bin Laden to be pissed that the Saudi government seems to cater to the US more than the Saudi people? Do you think Karzai was the best choice for the people of Afghanistan, or for us?
I believe that the government should have a role in environmental protection, because environmental damage is also an externality (not captured in the economic costs to the damager).
Exactly. The environment is a third-party... That is exactly the sort of thing that I want government to interfere in defense of. I dont care about cigerettes, alcohol, the war on drugs, etc... The gov. IMHO has no opinion policing us from ourselves in that regard. But the environment affects us all. One persons choice should not affect me, but it does with the environment.
Sounds like a pretty standard canned anti-enviro-wacko rant... but what the heck, I'll respond with a few little points you might not have thought of an probably won't bother to read.
... you would realize that Kyoto is just a Trojan horse... a way to get us used to economic sacrifice so that the REAL changes can be done - cutbacks of 30% or more on CO2 emissions which translate, with TODAYS technology, to massive economic disaster.
Except that Kyoto would take affect over time... People need an incentive to make progress on all technologies, and alternative energies are no exception. Say, for arguements sake, that we found out today that all of the world's oil would run out in two years... I think you would be surprised at how much progress we could make within that timeframe in terms of replacing dependance on oil with alternative fuels. Therefore, the "with TODAYS technology" clause is irrelevant because we can easily improve our current (pathetic) alternative energy technology during that time. Kyoto, while not that dramatic, at least was a reversal. Only the ignorant do not see the problems associated with dependance on foriegn oil - and I can safely say that even if you don't care a bit about the environment. Read a newspaper one day and take a look at what our country is doing in the mid-east... Almost all of our problems extend from oil to some extent, 9/11 being no exception. If acid rain, rising temperatures, melting icecaps, and dying amphibians do not bother you, perhaps the next (inevitible) attack on our country will.
It is interesting that people who put out radical environmental rants tend to be anti-western. Usually this is because they haven't taken a look at how *other* societies treat the environment - which is on average with considerably less respect than we in the west do.
Read some studies explaining how much the U.S. (not the west - the United States alone) consumes compared to the rest of the world, and we can talk. Im not so much worried about Europe when we have people like Bill Clinton and George W. to deal with right at home.
The "vicious cycle of consumerism" is an unintended codeword for people exercising their economic freedoms. It is usually uttered by people who are sure they are smarter than these "consumers" - people who justify their beliefs by thinking that consumers are somehow deluded into making their choices by evil capitalist advertisers.
The person you are responding to may have an agenda - you certainly do... But ultimately this sort of arguement is pointless within the context of environmental progress. The main "switch" we need to make is to start thinking long term instead of short term. Thats it! Going "green" does not have to be bad for business. On the contrary, if the US became a world leader in the producer of alternative energy enabling technology, it would be a boon to our economy. I am a capitalist and a strong environmental advocate. They do not have to be against each other! But when you have a large, successful country dependant on a finite resource which is controlled by hostile enemies, why not start moving to the next level? Why not produce our own energy and keep the money in country *and* help our children's environment to boot?
What are the ports on the back? They appear to be RJ11 and RJ45 connections, which would imply phone and/or ethernet. Could this actually be the world's smallest laptop?
... I am no expert, but I know the current GBA has ports on the back of it, too. One of them I use to connect my GBA to my Gamecube... And I know GBAs are capable of being linked together via a cable, so that probably explains it. I pretty sure there is no added functionality to this new GBA in terms of network/internet capability.
and they are a good tool for Language/Writing/Reading if they are used properly
If you re-read my post you will find that I agree with this statement completely. Heck, almost anything can be a good tool if used properly. Computers, no doubt, can be one of the most useful tools of all, but the emphasis should still be placed on how they are used, not on just getting "computers in the classroom." A computer by itself is no more useful than a rock - both are useful tools, but without correct useage, are worthless.
As long as the focus is simply on getting "computers in the classroom" these kinds of results do not surprise me. For all the talk of quantity, I rarely, if ever, hear discussion on how computers will be used once they are in the classroom. Computers no doubt can, and should, play a roll in a child's education, but people need to remember that they are a means, not a solution.
If you really want a better education for our children we should return focus on the basics... Math - Science - Language/Writing/Reading. Computers can be used when applicable to help teach these lessons, but otherwise are not particularly necessary.
So presumably any ads could be for other kids.us sites.
Yes, but the question is, can Pepsi create a "pepsi.kids.us" site? If you want to keep it pure, you need to keep advertising (and consequently, vested interests) off of it. Keep it fun and educational.
No, I think the rediculous part is the suctiony *pop* noise the faces make when they come off...
Gentleman, gentleman... Lets not bicker and argue over which scene is more ridiculous. Each and every scene is stupid for its own reasons... to single out any one or two scenes would be to deny the truly terrible whole that is Face Off.
Just because you can do something, even to the point of making money at it, it does not mean that it is ethical or moral to do!
I dont like spammers any more than the next guy, but I think this comparison is a bit of a stretch, dont you? The obvious difference - murder is illegal and sending emails (even unsolicited) are not. If I randomly email... say... "bill@aol.com" and tell him that viagra works, is that illegal? Of course not... Now, multiply that to 10,000 different emails - is it illegal now? If it should be illegal, where is the line drawn?
There is no reason why buying preferences need to be stored indefinitely and associated with an individual.
A better way of accomplishing this - if you are putting Gerber baby food in your cart, the computer will tell you that diapers are also on sale because the two items are linked in the store's database. Or, if you are buying the latest issue of Wired, the computer would automatically assume it would be pointless to tell this customer that condoms are on sale in aisle 12.;)
My point is that advertising can be better focused without having a huge, all-knowing database.
This is just a dream, but I would love to see this: 5000 And then let the browser do the job. Either let it be, translate it to my choice, or give me both the original and in my choice in paranthesis.
It would be vital to somehow let the browser know which values are currency related and which are not... Otherwise, statements such as "Wilt Chamberlain slept with 5000 women" might be converted to a much less impressive American dollar result. - Wilt would be pissed.
I did a quick count of my "block" list - it has 89 domains being blocked... Do you know what the limit is? - 100? Just curious...
As for the other types of spam (the ones appearing to come from @hotmail.com or @yahoo.com domains) -- I dont get any! Well, I shouldnt say that... I do get some, but they are almost always automatically added to my "junk" folder. Once in a while (maybe... 2-3 times a year) there is a message in my Junk folder that I actually want, so I do make it a point to check it out before emptying it.
Maybe I am just lucky or for whatever reason my account is behaving differently than everybody else's hotmail accounts, but I can honestly say I probably only get 1-2 spam emails that make it to my inbox in a given month.
Not disagreeing you with here - I use my Hotmail account as a throwaway... Just thought it was interesting that I have so little spam problems while everyone else is ditching hotmail accounts altogether because of spam.
I use a Hotmail account as my public, "throwaway" email account - but even Hotmail can be configured so that you rarely get spam. The method is simple - whenever you get any piece of spam, add the entire domain to your "block" list. It is not good enough to block a specific address such as "netoffers3@netoffers.com" -- you must block the entire "netoffers.com" domain.
Maybe I am just lucky, but I almost never get spam anymore on my Hotmail account - an account which, I assure you, is *very* public. (I have been using this account for online transactions for years now). The only "spam" I still get are sale pitches from vendors like Amazon.com and Buy.com - domains which I do not want to block outright.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a new game genre. && I'd rather do something peaceful to reinforce my feeble humanity.
Here ya go
... the Japanese already took all of our jobs in the 80s!
Oh, wait...
Mentioning the rather serious noise issue on page 5 is hardly "prominent".
Incorrect. Had you read the article, you would have found that the noise issue was addressed in the section of the article concerned with the cooling system of the card - exactly where it should be.
Sorry that he didnt say more about it in the intro or conclusion page - but really, dont bother commenting about the contents of an article you have not read.
And what if they don't? I mean, it only takes one asshole to ruin the movie for 200 others. Do you really think we can make sure that its possible to get the asshole quotient of humans below 0.5% (given that right now I have it pegged around 35% overall - 60% for highschoolers).
;)
Hehehe well said - and no, I do not think we can eliminate the problem altogether... We can, however, improve those percentages you listed a bit, dont you think? How about a reasonable 10%? (High-schoolers will never break the 50% barrier so forget about them
Seriously, the only cure for bad mobile phone habits is common courtesy.
Agreed. This is a societal and human problem, and should be dealt with as such. Though we hope for quick, technological fixes, problems of this nature are best corrected by - you guessed it - good parenting. Smack the kid around a bit if you have to, but people need to be taught respect at a young age. This is something far too rare in our society IMHO. (Sorry for the rant)
denazify the bastards, by force if necessary.
;) website that the US military budget accounts for 37% of the world's military budget, and another 30% is attributed to Europe, South Korea, Japan, and Isreal - countries which are not a likely threat to us. Russia is the 2nd largest spender, and a war with them seems unlikely as well. Military pork spending is not much better than domestic pork spending, and a budget of 400B is plainly excessive. Its 26 times bigger than the combined military budget of our 7 most likely enemy nations!
;), and can understand your feelings on this matter... I suppose this is more the exception than the rule, as the majority of states in the US are not 75% covered with national forests. Overall, I feel, it is probably a good law, though can definitely see your side given the circumstances.
I am all for this, and realize that (unless they change themselves) they will eventually need to be changed by an alternate means. Whether this means using force or air-dropping Beatles CDs on their playgrounds depends on the place and circumstances. (The latter, of course, is a humerous way of saying that real change comes with the next generation).
The problem with trying to not "be dependent" on them is that it won't work - because even in 10 or 20 years the *world* will still need oil, and since oil is a fungible commodity, the middle east will be where a lot of it comes from.
You question whether it would be worthwhile to become independent of them... But flip it around - What is the advantage of being dependent on them?? There is none! Even in a time of war - even if we are justified in blowing them off the face of the earth, why on Earth do we need to need their oil? Why not *ahem* pre-emptively seperate our economic stability from this chaotic, violent, and irrational place?
And we will still need oil.
Judging by our current course of action - yes, we will still need it. This is a choice we are making - it is not set in stone, and it could be different if we wanted it to. Americans have performed, time and time again, feats of ingenuity much more impressive that this in past generations - how come this task seems so impossible for us today, yet is actively underway in places like Iceland and Germany? I guess I figured we were smarter than that...
As far as going to war with them, it is too late. Even if there wasn't a drop of oil in the middle east, we would have to stop Iraq and Iran from getting nukes, and deal with North Korea. These countries are simply so hostile to us that our own safety requires a regime change.
I am not even going to necessarily disagree with you here. Again, I am not some peace-nut who thinks we should all be like Switzerland. I still think it would be wise to cut our interests economically (and become a world-leader for an up-and-coming technology requirement to boot) at least as much as possible, while we can. Also, I dont think military action is necessary so long as UN inspectors are on the ground in Iraq, which they currently are. (credit to W. on this)
Thus we have a very different problem with the North.
Then why lump them in with the other "axis of evil" members? Why not call them "pinnacle of evil"? -- Kidding.. You make good points about NK's military ability, but I still think this is a lot of hypocrisy from our current administration.
Iraq needs to be taken down both because it is a very dangerous country with a history of killing more Muslims (by far) than any other country in history, and history of strategic miscalculations: the Iraq-Iran war, the invasion of Kuwait.
We have our strategic miscalculations as well - Vietnam for one. As long as Iraq is not invading Israel, Europe, or any of our allies, what do we care? -- Well, there is one reason why we care, and it ain't to save Kuwait. I think we do not want any one of these countries to become too powerful and to control too much of this resourceful area... Not necessarily a bad strategy, but be honest here.. We are not doing this to save Muslims.
Furthermore, given the way power politics work in the middle east, taking down and denazifying Iraq is likely to cause the remaining governments over there to be much more agreeable to our peacemaking and anti-terrorist efforts.
I hope you are right.
We could do as Europe is doing and try to feed Israel to the anti-Israeli and anti-semitic wolves in an attempt to appease the oil countries and Islamicist terrorism, but we don't. Israel is a modern western democracy, and deserving of our support.
Isreal also breaks UN resolutions just as Iraq does. Though, as I said before, I would side with Isreal over the Islamic countries, I do not see why we have blood ties to them. This is an age old conflict being played out on a new stage, and across new, arguably arbitrary borders. I feel for the people of Israel and the Palestinians, but I dont think either of their leaderships are doing either side any good. Both should take a page from the strategy book of Gandhi, IMHO.
I think that the Operating System division of MS, and perhaps the Office Products division should be treated as *natural monopolies* and regulated like a public utility and prevented from using their monopoly profits from investing in other businesses.
I agree, but perhaps think it would only be necessary that MS be broken up. Currently, they are constantly springing up new business ventures which, though all lose money, are being subsidized by the OS/Office product revenues. Ahh, it must be nice to have a never ending checkbook and to be able to take your time to get it right.
say, Boston's Big Dig
Isn't that to put in a subway or something? I thought environmentalists worshiped mass transit.
Nope - its essentially moving a 6 lane highway underground, and increasing it to 8 and 10 lanes in places... It is over-budget by billions and billions of dollars, and will do nothing to alleviate our problems as a reasonable mass-transit system would. Studies in Atlanta and other places have shown that increasing highway girth only encourages more people to take the new route, and will clog up again in 5 years time. Cars, as usual, are the cause, not the answer to our sprawl, pollution, and congestion problems.
You get a lot more value from that military than you obviously appreciate.
The courage and ability of our fighting men is something I have tremendous respect for, especially since I come from a military family (my grandfather was a 3-star general and served in WW2 and Vietnam, lost an Uncle in Vietnam, etc). I do not think they should work for peanuts, and as every veteran I have ever met has been a stand-up, honorable individual, I think they all (and yourself) deserve our respect and thanks.
However, just as times change, so I think should our military needs. The Cold War is over, and there is no justification for such a huge military budget. I have recently read on a Libertarian (aren't you a Libertarian anyway?
Did you know that the Federal Government owns over 75% percent of the land in the state that I live in? We care rather a lot about their policies!
I was not aware (as I did not know where you lived
Cars are *orders of magnitude* (that's powers of ten) cleaner than they were thirty years ago.
And computers have advanced at a much faster rate than this! This is not a reason to stop - lets keep going and make it even better, shall we? Better smog is still smog - and the average miles per gallon is the lowest it has been since the '80s. There is much, much room for improvement. We are not getting anywhere near the power we should be for a gallon of fuel - burning it at an efficiency of something like 14%.
As far as Mexico City - yes, I was there ten days helping out after the 1985 earthquake.
You seem to have lead quite an extraordinary life, well done. (not intended to be sarcastic)
The people in Mexico are *too poor* to afford low emissions vehicles, much less alternate fuel vehicles.
Environmentalists almost universally advocate policies that would damage the poor more than the rich.
But Kyoto exempted developing nations, and this was one of the main reasons W. rejected it.
The best way to help the world overall is to push policies that would help end poverty, because well off countries have the time and money to put into environmental protection, and they also have below-replacement birth rates!
Very wisely stated and something I agree with 100%
Kilaminjaro has glaciers, not an ice cap.
;) and you can only help the smog problem. The absolute worst case is that the smog does not get worse -- and what is wrong with that? Spend any time in Mexico City have we?
You got me on account of the terminology... Now, anything of substance on the fact that they are melting?
BUT... the radical Islamists hate us anyway. And they are doing a lot of crazy stuff where there is no oil (Afghanistan? Algeria?).
I do not make apologies for the state of any Islamic countries. In my own personal opinion, I think they are for the most part pathetic, unwanted relics of the past... all the more reason to sever the one thing that A. gives them power and money, B. has corrupting influences on our government, C. pollutes the environment.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember the oil embargo, but Saudi Arabia was part oof that.
I remember about a year ago Iraq called for the oil producing nations to issue a meager one month boycott on oil sales to the US, on account of our alleged bias towards Israel. Not one country agreed to follow through, and indeed, Saudi Arabia vowed never to use "oil as a weapon" and would continue to supply us with oil. The Saudi people were not thrilled.
There is simply no practical way to reduce oil dependence in a time frame that has anything to do with Islamic fanaticism. So you are beating a dead horse.
I disagree. They have been fighting for longer than America has even been a country, and no doubt they will fight for a long time still, no matter what our course of action. This is still no excuse to want to limit your ties to these people, and their one staple of power over us. Of course we wont be able to cut oil dependance to fend of the *next* attack... But try thinking long-term for a change... say, 10 or 20 years from now. Lets change our relationship with these people altogether. They will have no power over us, and our more gung-ho presidents will not feel the urge to invade every ten years or so (which only increases hatred). I am not even saying lets not ever go to war with these people... Let's just limit how much of our actions are repercussions of our dependance on oil.
I don't like use being dependent on foreign oil (although we are MUCH less dependent on middle east oil than we used to be).
It is true, we are much less dependant on middle eastern oil than we used to be - and that is a Good Thing. However, they still have the largest oil reserves in the world, and therefore are strategically important to a country dependant on oil. On any particular day, we may only be importing 20% (I am not sure of the exact percentage) of our oil from the Middle East, but our actions there make it very clear we will back up, with force if necessary, our need to have access to this oil in the future. All the proof you need is on page one of every paper in the country right at this very moment. North Korea is admitting to a nuclear weapons program, is hinting at blackmailing the US by selling this technology to the highest bidder (aka bin Laden), and has stated that "sactions are an act of war." And yet, George W. considers this a "diplomatic" issue where there is no war on the near horizon. Conversely, we have found no indication of nuclear weapons in Iraq, they *already are* under sanctions, and there is no evidence that they sold technology to terrorists - and yet, W. is raising hell and moving the fleet in, while the U.N. still maintains there is no "smoking gun." Doesn't make too much sense, does it?
THe problem with using the government to deal with externalities is that government is a big, blunt instrument. After all, how many people on Slashdot are happy with how they have dealt with DRM or the Microsoft issue?
I sure as hell am not happy - but what is the alternative? Do nothing? As a staunch capitalist, what do you think should happen to MS? Do you feel that they deserve to be where they are today, and that they only got there because they had the best product? Do you feel the government should not have a role in the breakup of monopolies?
Their record on environmental protection is one of total violation of individual property rights... individual property rights (i.e. theft of value from J Random citizen)
You are certainly entitled to have this opinion, but I disagree wholeheartedly. I feel I get much more value out of the (meager) dollars spent on conservation than I do for, say, Boston's Big Dig or a military whose budget is sized to account for the possibility of fighting 2.5 wars at a time. Money allocated towards conservation is the absolute minimal - and as someone who enjoys hiking in the White Mountains of NH, for example, I know its worth every penny. I think you will find most people would agree.
radical regulations (such as Babbitt's no roads in the national forests program)
I do not feel this is radical in the slightest. Why do we need roads in national forests?
and overkill (reductions in automobile pollution were needed, but further reductions will make *no* difference in smog, for example).
This is simply incorrect. Heavy auto pollution creates smog. Reduce (better yet, eliminate, but I will not cross my fingers
Excuse me - I meant to say "What is different about the Middle East versus AFRICA" ...
Nice rhetorical trick :-)
;)
Thank you
There is no doubt that dependence on the mideast has some problems. The question is whether there is anything we can do about it now, and the answer is: no, not in a quantitative sense that yields real qualitative results.
Ahh, so we cant do anything about it now? When can we? In 23 years? Next Monday? (Sunday is no good for me)
We have to start! Thats it! I dont want to cut ourselves off from oil today. I am pragmatic and realize that we are dependant on oil, and that just stopping cold would be a recipe for disaster. But why not start with small goals, and begin to reverse our ever-worsening addiction? It will never be the "right" time... We just have to pick a time, period.
There are no melting icecaps.
I hope you are kidding (just one example I found at the first news site I checked). The caps of Kilimanjaro will be snow-free in 20 years, and I even heard theories that the mythical Northwest passage will finally open up. Hey, would be great for commerce, right? As for no evidence - its true, we will never have black and white evidence because only time will tell. However, it is entirely reasonable that we are contributing to global warming - even George W agreed to this after getting back the results from his commissioned study. Him saying so perhaps speaks louder than all the enviro-activists in the world, given that he is not exactly a friend of the environment. (Dont give me any "Clinton is worse" crap - I think they both are equally horrible in this regard)
There is absolutely no evidence tying use of oil to dying amphibians.
Again, I have read otherwise. Just do a google search of "amphibian decline" or "amphibian car exhaust" and you will find myriad examples. Rivers, lakes, etc, are definitely polluted, both by acid rain and other pollutants, such as car exhaust, and many scientists believe pollutants to be a prime factor. Yes, disease and habitat loss are as well.
The attack is enevitable. Oil is in fact somewhat realted to Islamicist terrorism, but if you read their own propaganda...
Might I suggest you concentrate less on their (or anyone else's, for that matter) propaganda? Bin Laden himself goes on record saying he will attack us until we pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and end our bias towards Isreal. I am all for pulling out of this conflict completely, and though I definitely side with Isreal more so than I would with Islamic states, they are hardly innocent themselves. But how come we do not pull out of Saudi Arabia? How come we invaded Iraq (and may do so again)? Was it to save Kuwait? How come we do not involve ourselves militarily in the myriad wars in Africa going on right now? What is different about the Middle East versus Iraq? Hmmm....
You said yourself that broken and corrupt governments are a main reason why these bastards do what they do... What do you think the government of Saudi Arabia is? Is it *that* unreasonable for bin Laden to be pissed that the Saudi government seems to cater to the US more than the Saudi people? Do you think Karzai was the best choice for the people of Afghanistan, or for us?
I believe that the government should have a role in environmental protection, because environmental damage is also an externality (not captured in the economic costs to the damager).
Exactly. The environment is a third-party... That is exactly the sort of thing that I want government to interfere in defense of. I dont care about cigerettes, alcohol, the war on drugs, etc... The gov. IMHO has no opinion policing us from ourselves in that regard. But the environment affects us all. One persons choice should not affect me, but it does with the environment.
Sounds like a pretty standard canned anti-enviro-wacko rant... but what the heck, I'll respond with a few little points you might not have thought of an probably won't bother to read.
... you would realize that Kyoto is just a Trojan horse... a way to get us used to economic sacrifice so that the REAL changes can be done - cutbacks of 30% or more on CO2 emissions which translate, with TODAYS technology, to massive economic disaster.
Except that Kyoto would take affect over time... People need an incentive to make progress on all technologies, and alternative energies are no exception. Say, for arguements sake, that we found out today that all of the world's oil would run out in two years... I think you would be surprised at how much progress we could make within that timeframe in terms of replacing dependance on oil with alternative fuels. Therefore, the "with TODAYS technology" clause is irrelevant because we can easily improve our current (pathetic) alternative energy technology during that time. Kyoto, while not that dramatic, at least was a reversal. Only the ignorant do not see the problems associated with dependance on foriegn oil - and I can safely say that even if you don't care a bit about the environment. Read a newspaper one day and take a look at what our country is doing in the mid-east... Almost all of our problems extend from oil to some extent, 9/11 being no exception. If acid rain, rising temperatures, melting icecaps, and dying amphibians do not bother you, perhaps the next (inevitible) attack on our country will.
It is interesting that people who put out radical environmental rants tend to be anti-western. Usually this is because they haven't taken a look at how *other* societies treat the environment - which is on average with considerably less respect than we in the west do.
Read some studies explaining how much the U.S. (not the west - the United States alone) consumes compared to the rest of the world, and we can talk. Im not so much worried about Europe when we have people like Bill Clinton and George W. to deal with right at home.
The "vicious cycle of consumerism" is an unintended codeword for people exercising their economic freedoms. It is usually uttered by people who are sure they are smarter than these "consumers" - people who justify their beliefs by thinking that consumers are somehow deluded into making their choices by evil capitalist advertisers.
The person you are responding to may have an agenda - you certainly do... But ultimately this sort of arguement is pointless within the context of environmental progress. The main "switch" we need to make is to start thinking long term instead of short term. Thats it! Going "green" does not have to be bad for business. On the contrary, if the US became a world leader in the producer of alternative energy enabling technology, it would be a boon to our economy. I am a capitalist and a strong environmental advocate. They do not have to be against each other! But when you have a large, successful country dependant on a finite resource which is controlled by hostile enemies, why not start moving to the next level? Why not produce our own energy and keep the money in country *and* help our children's environment to boot?
What are the ports on the back? They appear to be RJ11 and RJ45 connections, which would imply phone and/or ethernet. Could this actually be the world's smallest laptop?
... I am no expert, but I know the current GBA has ports on the back of it, too. One of them I use to connect my GBA to my Gamecube... And I know GBAs are capable of being linked together via a cable, so that probably explains it. I pretty sure there is no added functionality to this new GBA in terms of network/internet capability.
... as provided by Gamespot
and they are a good tool for Language/Writing/Reading if they are used properly
If you re-read my post you will find that I agree with this statement completely. Heck, almost anything can be a good tool if used properly. Computers, no doubt, can be one of the most useful tools of all, but the emphasis should still be placed on how they are used, not on just getting "computers in the classroom." A computer by itself is no more useful than a rock - both are useful tools, but without correct useage, are worthless.
A crude Freudian analysis of your observation data indicates that you must be very lonely.
;)
As long as the focus is simply on getting "computers in the classroom" these kinds of results do not surprise me. For all the talk of quantity, I rarely, if ever, hear discussion on how computers will be used once they are in the classroom. Computers no doubt can, and should, play a roll in a child's education, but people need to remember that they are a means, not a solution.
If you really want a better education for our children we should return focus on the basics... Math - Science - Language/Writing/Reading. Computers can be used when applicable to help teach these lessons, but otherwise are not particularly necessary.
So presumably any ads could be for other kids.us sites.
Yes, but the question is, can Pepsi create a "pepsi.kids.us" site? If you want to keep it pure, you need to keep advertising (and consequently, vested interests) off of it. Keep it fun and educational.
And that's also why Face/Off was so ridiculous...
No, I think the rediculous part is the suctiony *pop* noise the faces make when they come off...
Gentleman, gentleman... Lets not bicker and argue over which scene is more ridiculous. Each and every scene is stupid for its own reasons... to single out any one or two scenes would be to deny the truly terrible whole that is Face Off.
Thoreau's doctrine: "Our life is frittered away by detail ...Simplify, Simplify."
... I think thats the point. ;)
That was easy for him to say: he sat in his cabin and wrote all day.
Just because you can do something, even to the point of making money at it, it does not mean that it is ethical or moral to do!
... say... "bill@aol.com" and tell him that viagra works, is that illegal? Of course not... Now, multiply that to 10,000 different emails - is it illegal now? If it should be illegal, where is the line drawn?
I dont like spammers any more than the next guy, but I think this comparison is a bit of a stretch, dont you? The obvious difference - murder is illegal and sending emails (even unsolicited) are not. If I randomly email
I agree, as the post you responded to indicates.
There is no reason why buying preferences need to be stored indefinitely and associated with an individual.
;)
A better way of accomplishing this - if you are putting Gerber baby food in your cart, the computer will tell you that diapers are also on sale because the two items are linked in the store's database. Or, if you are buying the latest issue of Wired, the computer would automatically assume it would be pointless to tell this customer that condoms are on sale in aisle 12.
My point is that advertising can be better focused without having a huge, all-knowing database.
This is just a dream, but I would love to see this: 5000 And then let the browser do the job. Either let it be, translate it to my choice, or give me both the original and in my choice in paranthesis.
It would be vital to somehow let the browser know which values are currency related and which are not... Otherwise, statements such as "Wilt Chamberlain slept with 5000 women" might be converted to a much less impressive American dollar result. - Wilt would be pissed.
This negates the need for a Game Boy Advance completely.
;)
I would not say "completely" --- Keep in mind the most important feature of the GBA is that its portable.
I did a quick count of my "block" list - it has 89 domains being blocked... Do you know what the limit is? - 100? Just curious...
As for the other types of spam (the ones appearing to come from @hotmail.com or @yahoo.com domains) -- I dont get any! Well, I shouldnt say that... I do get some, but they are almost always automatically added to my "junk" folder. Once in a while (maybe... 2-3 times a year) there is a message in my Junk folder that I actually want, so I do make it a point to check it out before emptying it.
Maybe I am just lucky or for whatever reason my account is behaving differently than everybody else's hotmail accounts, but I can honestly say I probably only get 1-2 spam emails that make it to my inbox in a given month.
Not disagreeing you with here - I use my Hotmail account as a throwaway... Just thought it was interesting that I have so little spam problems while everyone else is ditching hotmail accounts altogether because of spam.
I use a Hotmail account as my public, "throwaway" email account - but even Hotmail can be configured so that you rarely get spam. The method is simple - whenever you get any piece of spam, add the entire domain to your "block" list. It is not good enough to block a specific address such as "netoffers3@netoffers.com" -- you must block the entire "netoffers.com" domain.
Maybe I am just lucky, but I almost never get spam anymore on my Hotmail account - an account which, I assure you, is *very* public. (I have been using this account for online transactions for years now). The only "spam" I still get are sale pitches from vendors like Amazon.com and Buy.com - domains which I do not want to block outright.