Because that's the real issue that most skeptics have been questioning of late.
We already know that we produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism, and that global CO2 levels are rising, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what more do we need to know before we put an end to coal and oil consumption?
How about figuring out how to feed everybody without tractors for fields and trucks for transportation? Or how to keep people from freezing to death in winter when more than 1/2 of the US electricity is generated from fossil fuels? Or maybe just avoiding a massive increase in poverty when so many resources are going to pay for more expensive types of energy and replacing huge portions of infrastructure that were designed when fossil fuels were available?
Yes, fossil fuels are finite resources and these issues have to be addressed over the long term, but it must be done in a way that is consistent with freedom, and without turning the world into a giant serfdom.
> Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that the earth's climate is ALWAYS changing (and always has been).
Also, earthquakes & tornadoes are totally not humanity's fault, so we shouldn't plan around them either.
That's exactly what we should do about climate change - plan around it. But that's not what's advocated by the AGW alarmists. Instead they are claiming that climate change can actually be stopped or reversed, if only we put some experts in charge of how everyone is allowed to use carbon. Nobody is going around claiming that some resource-controlling global bureaucracy can stop tornadoes and earthquakes.
Of course it's biased - it's all politics. This one by Ron Paul is less full of hyperbole, but the major contrast is knowing the whole history of this effort, the people involved, what Sanders did to the bill at the last minute, and then seeing this kind of bullcrap from Sanders totally praising himself and making wild untrue claims about what HIS version of the bill does and failing to mention what he did was basically sell out to the elites.
Frank and Sanders are demonstrated black hearts and liars.
Examples? That's news to me. Sanders, in particular, has been extremely consistent. They're both very open in stating their opinions.
The most recent example is Sander's treatment of the Audit the Fed bill. Check out Sander's praise for himself regarding it, then go read the real story of the bill. Kind of looks like he's full of it, doesn't it?
Because otherwise we will have "Teachers" teaching kids about how Jesus rode around on dinosaurs and how the gays are the products of Satan.
Dude, that's insane hyperbole. We're talking about public schools. Teachers aren't allowed to say "Jesus" at all, and gays have their own club, advocacy group, and pretty much all the literature.
A good thought, but the elections that place people in position to make decisions on local affairs aren't run completely locally now. If you think so, look at the last "local" election and see how much money or staff came from districts outside of yours. There are groups of all political and social stripes with axes to grind and money to spend.
The difference is that at the state and local level, individual citizens and small, volunteer groups with very little money can actually influence the process. That's not true at the federal level at all, but it is VERY true at the local level.
If you tried getting involved a little bit you would realize that. I have talked state legislators that told me they changed their vote on a bill after receiving just 5 letters. And that's at the state level. Local is even easier. Show up at the local county board or city council meeting a few times in a row, and the members will generally not only listen and consider your opinion, some will actually seek it out. They want to know what their constituents' views are on issues. Working around the corrupt ones is actually quite easy.
And members, aside from Paul, of those two parties with plans of their own are fairly common. Particularly, Republican incumbents and/or candidates for federal office with plans that involve dismantling large parts of the US federal government are easier to find than those without such plans.
Yes, there are a lot of politicians that will lie about what they will do in office (or make excuses about why they didn't do it before, but after the next election they will). The difference is that Ron Paul's voting record actually matches what he says.
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.
Sure, others have plans, and talk a decent talk, but they simply cannot be trusted. Ron Paul has been consistent and honest, one of the very few currently in office that you can say that about (probably Kucinich is another). Frank and Sanders are demonstrated black hearts and liars.
I think you're confused. The EPA is not on the list. Besides, most companies simply make their product meet the strictest standard of all the states, and sell that product everywhere. While that is NOT true of emission standards for cars (California emission standards being currently the strictest), it IS true of most other products, like dishwasher detergent and other consumables.
Interesting how you neglect to mention the deaths of police and innocent civilians caused by the purveyors of recreational drugs.
Because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Those are not actions sanctioned by the state (although the state's very prohibitionist stance on recreational drugs has certainly precipitated the environment in which black marketeers become violently defensive of their activities).
So when the police have to deal with these gangs that do so using heavily armed, highly trained units.
I won't excuse the actions of the state when they have created the very atmosphere of violence they are claiming to combat.
If you don't want to get shot when an SRU shows up then don't pull a gun.
That doesn't help most of the time, and especially when you aren't given an opportunity to identify the group that's invading your home before they open fire on you.
I do not see how the use of radar expands the US anti-terrorism powers.
It doesn't (it's hard to imagine how they could be expanded further). It expands surveillance powers, whatever the excuse. And it does so at the expense of freedom and 4th amendment protections.
When executing a warrant all reasonable tools should be used.
The police state in the US is WAY beyond using anything resembling that kind of restraint. They are now accepting collateral deaths of police and innocent civilians as justified to combat recreational drug use. Expansion of those powers in the name of fighting "lone wolf terrorists" is a frightening prospect.
Detective Larry Wilson of the Plano, Texas, police force, said it has been common for police to use thermal imaging on houses without first obtaining a warrant, and that will change.
But he says the police in his department and others he's trained around the country have been instructed not to use the devices without having first obtained probable cause through other means. So he says the ruling should not greatly affect current police use of infrared cameras on homes.
"Whenever we're doing an indoor grow operation investigation we've already established the necessary probable cause prior to doing the thermal imaging," said Wilson. "Now the only step that's going to be added is to get an affidavit and get a judge to do that and issue a warrant."
So, far from being banned, they're using them as much as they always have.
Like IR cameras, it would soon be banned from doing illegal searches.
Those aren't banned at all. They just can't use the results of car-based cameras as evidence in court. They still use the ones in helicopters to conduct raids, and I'm sure they use them in plenty of other circumstances, too.
Of course, all they need these days is a grant from DHS and a claim that they are looking for "terrorists", and they can do whatever they want. No court even needed, once they ship you off to Gitmo.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
does it really matter? we are talking about the military using this to find people behind walls to they can kill them more effectively.
Really? You really think that's all this is going to be used for? How naive.
The natives are becoming restless, they need stuff like this to quell a rebellion, flush out the leaders, and protect the establishment. They've already started rolling out unmanned drones for use by the police. They could start deploying the armed versions whenever they want.
The cliche of, "owes you a living" seems to emanate from the pea tarty; regularly, but no one else supports that argument.
Oh, really? So, everyone now thinks that it's okay now to expect to be provided a living. I didn't know that had changed. It's something I always heard from my father (a WW2 veteran) since the 1970's. I guess the entitlement mentality has completely displaced the service to community and country standards.
Whatever your rant about whatever group or subset people you are referring to as "pea tarty" is such a broad generalization of nobody that allows you to spew hatred at whoever you want is such an ambiguous rant at nothing that can be substantially applied to reality that there's no response necessary.
Your post is full of nothing but Democratic talking points, so I'm not sure why I would even respond to it.
You say you "still support" a 1%'er tax hike, without any justification for why (envy?). Your statist talking points don't even address the fact that the 1% pay about 30% of the federal taxes while earning 18% of the income.
I'm not impressed by anybody's plan for better and more efficient slave factories.
The US is NOT a democracy - it's a democratic Republic. It actually works very well everywhere except at the Federal level, because the Federal government has entrenched (yes, FASCIST) policies and far too much power both over its own people and in foreign relations. I can't support ANYTHING that will supply even MORE power to it.
You've just perpetuated exactly the same false equivalency I pointed out in my post, without even addressing anything I said.
And if you think there are 34 million people in the US sheltered from the shitty economy, you're completely full of shit. Nor is there anywhere close to 3.4 million people making 500 times the amount of their workers, that's bullshit.
There are plenty of people in the lower 90% that could achieve a Harvard or other Ivy League degree, its just inaccessible for them unless they happen to suck the right cock for a scholarship.
I guess Obama sucked the right ones, then, he was certainly in the lower 90% during his college years. I guess he's still doing it, too.
Furthermore, if we are talking about the 1%: these guys aren't the risk takers, they aren't the job creators, they aren't the innovators. They are like Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan since 1995. He's seen his overall compensation between 9 million and 30 million all the while returning what to shareholders? Nothing. JPM the stock, which joe worker might rely upon either as a single equity or as part of an index fund has remained absolutely flat returning a paltry dividend only.
You have fully epitomized the problem with class warfare - you've decided that the wealthiest 1% are all like the wealthiest 0.00001%!
Here's a wake-up call for you. The vast majority of the "1% 'ers" you hate are hard workers, and provide a huge benefit to the economy. It's too bad they actually don't make the kind of money you think they do, because if they did then their income alone would put the GDP of the US at about $51 Trillion - almost 4 times the actual GDP.
So let's tax the hell out of the top 1% so the Federal government will be awash in cash. That would be good for all the poor and middle class, right? Balance things out, wouldn't it? Well, no. The ones that would actually benefit from that would be those 0.00001% like the JPM CEO, and the Goldman Sachs execs, (including the ones that now have powerful administrative positions in the Federal government), and all the others at the very top that you keep confusing with the actual working people that float in and out of the "top earner" category. Because it's not going to shift the power down, it would shift it even further upward.
This is how the US fascist system works. People really need to get a clue about this, because those 3.4 million people in the US working hard and succeeding are the only ones hampering the total control of the entire system that the 5,000 or so elitists at the very top would really like to have.
Considering that we seem to hit the limit of earth is term of raw consumption
I don't think so... But it would probably be beneficial to start putting more emphasis on finding ways to obtain extraterrestrial resources. We really could start doing that now, if there was a simple solution to the problem of the Earth's gravity well.
It's amazing how the majority of economists seem to be entirely oblivious (whether out of ignorance or willfully, I don't know) to the fact that in the end, the economy is a giant life support machine that produces things for consumers. Yes, investment plays an important role in the bowels of the beast, but investment only makes sense when there are potential customers with disposable income. Aggregate demand is what it's all about in the end.
Sort of. What you're entirely missing in your simplistic view is the role of productivity. That is, how much time people need to devote to productive tasks in order to support themselves in their lifestyle. As productivity increases, so does the potential leisure time. That potential leisure time can also be used to collect excess resources (a.k.a. "savings" or "capital"). What it all comes down to is time out of your day. The more time you have that's not spent providing necessities the more value you have gained. Demand for consumer goods is only part of the equation. The other is demand for labor-saving tools, technology, and know-how.
I believe the "Angry White People Crowd" are at the "tea party" meeting down the street. Those people seem obsessed with a value system that seems to contradict itself after every sentence. But one thing is definite with the tea party, and that is death to everyone. I have seen to much death to agree with the tea party. And the logistics of living to be over 100, and maintain our population growth, is to go to a space faring culture.
Yea, because a value system that demands that the world owes you a living doesn't contradict itself at all. Neither does demanding accountability from someone else then refusing to clean up your own mess.
See, this whole premise from the summary "What about retirement"? And wondering how long a "working life" you have to put in before retirement, well, it's all wrong-headed thinking in the first place. It's the attitude of an indentured servant. You're practically sitting there acting like you're not free until you end your commitment to your master. Indentured servitude is a thousands-year-old system, that eventually became slavery in early colonial America. And here people are accepting some modern version of it where they are now indentured to government instead of some single landowner. Why is indentured servitude now an acceptable system, just because the "master" is a big oligarchy instead of a single employer or company?
People need to stop being so dependent, and learn to seek their own potential - figure out what their talents are, what they really enjoy, then retirement is no longer something to look forward to, it's something to avoid as long as possible. If you're working for someone else, maybe you should be saving for your next career, one that you'll enjoy but may not pay as well, or may take a few years before you're earning a living at it, whatever. Don't go looking for something that's going to take care of you in old age where all your time is leisure. A life of leisure does not bring happiness, believe me. Besides, you've wasted all the best years of your life for someone else's benefit, and that's wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that's the real issue that most skeptics have been questioning of late.
We already know that we produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism, and that global CO2 levels are rising, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what more do we need to know before we put an end to coal and oil consumption?
How about figuring out how to feed everybody without tractors for fields and trucks for transportation? Or how to keep people from freezing to death in winter when more than 1/2 of the US electricity is generated from fossil fuels? Or maybe just avoiding a massive increase in poverty when so many resources are going to pay for more expensive types of energy and replacing huge portions of infrastructure that were designed when fossil fuels were available?
Yes, fossil fuels are finite resources and these issues have to be addressed over the long term, but it must be done in a way that is consistent with freedom, and without turning the world into a giant serfdom.
> Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that the earth's climate is ALWAYS changing (and always has been).
Also, earthquakes & tornadoes are totally not humanity's fault, so we shouldn't plan around them either.
That's exactly what we should do about climate change - plan around it. But that's not what's advocated by the AGW alarmists. Instead they are claiming that climate change can actually be stopped or reversed, if only we put some experts in charge of how everyone is allowed to use carbon. Nobody is going around claiming that some resource-controlling global bureaucracy can stop tornadoes and earthquakes.
Of course it's biased - it's all politics. This one by Ron Paul is less full of hyperbole, but the major contrast is knowing the whole history of this effort, the people involved, what Sanders did to the bill at the last minute, and then seeing this kind of bullcrap from Sanders totally praising himself and making wild untrue claims about what HIS version of the bill does and failing to mention what he did was basically sell out to the elites.
Frank and Sanders are demonstrated black hearts and liars.
Examples? That's news to me. Sanders, in particular, has been extremely consistent. They're both very open in stating their opinions.
The most recent example is Sander's treatment of the Audit the Fed bill. Check out Sander's praise for himself regarding it, then go read the real story of the bill. Kind of looks like he's full of it, doesn't it?
Because otherwise we will have "Teachers" teaching kids about how Jesus rode around on dinosaurs and how the gays are the products of Satan.
Dude, that's insane hyperbole. We're talking about public schools. Teachers aren't allowed to say "Jesus" at all, and gays have their own club, advocacy group, and pretty much all the literature.
A good thought, but the elections that place people in position to make decisions on local affairs aren't run completely locally now. If you think so, look at the last "local" election and see how much money or staff came from districts outside of yours. There are groups of all political and social stripes with axes to grind and money to spend.
The difference is that at the state and local level, individual citizens and small, volunteer groups with very little money can actually influence the process. That's not true at the federal level at all, but it is VERY true at the local level.
If you tried getting involved a little bit you would realize that. I have talked state legislators that told me they changed their vote on a bill after receiving just 5 letters. And that's at the state level. Local is even easier. Show up at the local county board or city council meeting a few times in a row, and the members will generally not only listen and consider your opinion, some will actually seek it out. They want to know what their constituents' views are on issues. Working around the corrupt ones is actually quite easy.
And members, aside from Paul, of those two parties with plans of their own are fairly common. Particularly, Republican incumbents and/or candidates for federal office with plans that involve dismantling large parts of the US federal government are easier to find than those without such plans.
Yes, there are a lot of politicians that will lie about what they will do in office (or make excuses about why they didn't do it before, but after the next election they will). The difference is that Ron Paul's voting record actually matches what he says.
but NEVER can come up with plans or their own
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.
Sure, others have plans, and talk a decent talk, but they simply cannot be trusted. Ron Paul has been consistent and honest, one of the very few currently in office that you can say that about (probably Kucinich is another). Frank and Sanders are demonstrated black hearts and liars.
I think you're confused. The EPA is not on the list. Besides, most companies simply make their product meet the strictest standard of all the states, and sell that product everywhere. While that is NOT true of emission standards for cars (California emission standards being currently the strictest), it IS true of most other products, like dishwasher detergent and other consumables.
Interesting how you neglect to mention the deaths of police and innocent civilians caused by the purveyors of recreational drugs.
Because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Those are not actions sanctioned by the state (although the state's very prohibitionist stance on recreational drugs has certainly precipitated the environment in which black marketeers become violently defensive of their activities).
So when the police have to deal with these gangs that do so using heavily armed, highly trained units.
I won't excuse the actions of the state when they have created the very atmosphere of violence they are claiming to combat.
If you don't want to get shot when an SRU shows up then don't pull a gun.
That doesn't help most of the time, and especially when you aren't given an opportunity to identify the group that's invading your home before they open fire on you.
I do not see how the use of radar expands the US anti-terrorism powers.
It doesn't (it's hard to imagine how they could be expanded further). It expands surveillance powers, whatever the excuse. And it does so at the expense of freedom and 4th amendment protections.
When executing a warrant all reasonable tools should be used.
The police state in the US is WAY beyond using anything resembling that kind of restraint. They are now accepting collateral deaths of police and innocent civilians as justified to combat recreational drug use. Expansion of those powers in the name of fighting "lone wolf terrorists" is a frightening prospect.
Like IR cameras, it would soon be banned from doing illegal searches.
Thought I'd follow up with this little tidbit, from a story about the SCOTUS case you're referring to:
So, far from being banned, they're using them as much as they always have.
Like IR cameras, it would soon be banned from doing illegal searches.
Those aren't banned at all. They just can't use the results of car-based cameras as evidence in court. They still use the ones in helicopters to conduct raids, and I'm sure they use them in plenty of other circumstances, too.
Of course, all they need these days is a grant from DHS and a claim that they are looking for "terrorists", and they can do whatever they want. No court even needed, once they ship you off to Gitmo.
does it really matter? we are talking about the military using this to find people behind walls to they can kill them more effectively.
Really? You really think that's all this is going to be used for? How naive.
The natives are becoming restless, they need stuff like this to quell a rebellion, flush out the leaders, and protect the establishment. They've already started rolling out unmanned drones for use by the police. They could start deploying the armed versions whenever they want.
Thank you, sir. You're encouraging me to join the "OWS" groups and help them avoid being co-opted.
Mod. Parent. UP.
But it has powerful implications for military operations, especially "urban combat situations,"
Oh, yes, that's where it will be used. No way they would EVER use it against their own people.
The cliche of, "owes you a living" seems to emanate from the pea tarty; regularly, but no one else supports that argument.
Oh, really? So, everyone now thinks that it's okay now to expect to be provided a living. I didn't know that had changed. It's something I always heard from my father (a WW2 veteran) since the 1970's. I guess the entitlement mentality has completely displaced the service to community and country standards.
Whatever your rant about whatever group or subset people you are referring to as "pea tarty" is such a broad generalization of nobody that allows you to spew hatred at whoever you want is such an ambiguous rant at nothing that can be substantially applied to reality that there's no response necessary.
Your post is full of nothing but Democratic talking points, so I'm not sure why I would even respond to it.
You say you "still support" a 1%'er tax hike, without any justification for why (envy?). Your statist talking points don't even address the fact that the 1% pay about 30% of the federal taxes while earning 18% of the income.
I'm not impressed by anybody's plan for better and more efficient slave factories.
The US is NOT a democracy - it's a democratic Republic. It actually works very well everywhere except at the Federal level, because the Federal government has entrenched (yes, FASCIST) policies and far too much power both over its own people and in foreign relations. I can't support ANYTHING that will supply even MORE power to it.
You've just perpetuated exactly the same false equivalency I pointed out in my post, without even addressing anything I said.
And if you think there are 34 million people in the US sheltered from the shitty economy, you're completely full of shit. Nor is there anywhere close to 3.4 million people making 500 times the amount of their workers, that's bullshit.
There are plenty of people in the lower 90% that could achieve a Harvard or other Ivy League degree, its just inaccessible for them unless they happen to suck the right cock for a scholarship.
I guess Obama sucked the right ones, then, he was certainly in the lower 90% during his college years. I guess he's still doing it, too.
So we should call them the party of buzzkill?
Furthermore, if we are talking about the 1%: these guys aren't the risk takers, they aren't the job creators, they aren't the innovators. They are like Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan since 1995. He's seen his overall compensation between 9 million and 30 million all the while returning what to shareholders? Nothing. JPM the stock, which joe worker might rely upon either as a single equity or as part of an index fund has remained absolutely flat returning a paltry dividend only.
You have fully epitomized the problem with class warfare - you've decided that the wealthiest 1% are all like the wealthiest 0.00001%!
Here's a wake-up call for you. The vast majority of the "1% 'ers" you hate are hard workers, and provide a huge benefit to the economy. It's too bad they actually don't make the kind of money you think they do, because if they did then their income alone would put the GDP of the US at about $51 Trillion - almost 4 times the actual GDP.
So let's tax the hell out of the top 1% so the Federal government will be awash in cash. That would be good for all the poor and middle class, right? Balance things out, wouldn't it? Well, no. The ones that would actually benefit from that would be those 0.00001% like the JPM CEO, and the Goldman Sachs execs, (including the ones that now have powerful administrative positions in the Federal government), and all the others at the very top that you keep confusing with the actual working people that float in and out of the "top earner" category. Because it's not going to shift the power down, it would shift it even further upward.
This is how the US fascist system works. People really need to get a clue about this, because those 3.4 million people in the US working hard and succeeding are the only ones hampering the total control of the entire system that the 5,000 or so elitists at the very top would really like to have.
Considering that we seem to hit the limit of earth is term of raw consumption
I don't think so... But it would probably be beneficial to start putting more emphasis on finding ways to obtain extraterrestrial resources. We really could start doing that now, if there was a simple solution to the problem of the Earth's gravity well.
It's amazing how the majority of economists seem to be entirely oblivious (whether out of ignorance or willfully, I don't know) to the fact that in the end, the economy is a giant life support machine that produces things for consumers. Yes, investment plays an important role in the bowels of the beast, but investment only makes sense when there are potential customers with disposable income. Aggregate demand is what it's all about in the end.
Sort of. What you're entirely missing in your simplistic view is the role of productivity. That is, how much time people need to devote to productive tasks in order to support themselves in their lifestyle. As productivity increases, so does the potential leisure time. That potential leisure time can also be used to collect excess resources (a.k.a. "savings" or "capital"). What it all comes down to is time out of your day. The more time you have that's not spent providing necessities the more value you have gained. Demand for consumer goods is only part of the equation. The other is demand for labor-saving tools, technology, and know-how.
I believe the "Angry White People Crowd" are at the "tea party" meeting down the street. Those people seem obsessed with a value system that seems to contradict itself after every sentence. But one thing is definite with the tea party, and that is death to everyone. I have seen to much death to agree with the tea party. And the logistics of living to be over 100, and maintain our population growth, is to go to a space faring culture.
Yea, because a value system that demands that the world owes you a living doesn't contradict itself at all. Neither does demanding accountability from someone else then refusing to clean up your own mess.
See, this whole premise from the summary "What about retirement"? And wondering how long a "working life" you have to put in before retirement, well, it's all wrong-headed thinking in the first place. It's the attitude of an indentured servant. You're practically sitting there acting like you're not free until you end your commitment to your master. Indentured servitude is a thousands-year-old system, that eventually became slavery in early colonial America. And here people are accepting some modern version of it where they are now indentured to government instead of some single landowner. Why is indentured servitude now an acceptable system, just because the "master" is a big oligarchy instead of a single employer or company?
People need to stop being so dependent, and learn to seek their own potential - figure out what their talents are, what they really enjoy, then retirement is no longer something to look forward to, it's something to avoid as long as possible. If you're working for someone else, maybe you should be saving for your next career, one that you'll enjoy but may not pay as well, or may take a few years before you're earning a living at it, whatever. Don't go looking for something that's going to take care of you in old age where all your time is leisure. A life of leisure does not bring happiness, believe me. Besides, you've wasted all the best years of your life for someone else's benefit, and that's wrong.