Its illegal to disrespect any picture of the royal family that includes currency.
Get drunk and smash a picture of the king, be prepared to either run or bribe the police.
So it doesn't suprise me that they do this. Not that it makes it right. For the most part though the Royal family seemed to be well thought of from the people I talked to when I was there in '04. But while being one of the wealthiest people on earth he should be ok with taking a bit of flak.
The obvious, least economically damaging, least intrusive way to handle the problem is to simply internalize the costs that CO2 emissions throw off, either by tradeable caps or a tax, and then apply the funds to mitigating the damage.
Why don't you guys just admitt that you are using the "global climate change" as a tool to push socialism/communism.
There is far better ways to lower the carbon dioxide levels that a trade cap or a tax. How about incentives rather than penalities?
Give companies or people tax breaks if they implement a "green" technology or if they can prove the they are producing less carbon dioxide.
If lowering the carbon dioxide level is SO important destroying the economy or even crippling it is NOT going to help the situation. Where do you think all the money is going to come from to implement all these neat new green technologies?
I'd be willing to bet that McCain will compromise with the left much more the Obama will ever comprise with the right.
If any one else in the world would have changed there position like that they would get immediately critised for flip flopping or it just wouldn't even get a blip in the media.
Mostly though I just like to get Obama supporters all riled... its fun. On slashdot its like fish in a barrel.
Oh, I agree. At least, in the cases where fraud on the part of the broker (which was widespread) was not a factor. The fact that the federal government has a policy that effectively subsidizes questionable, high-risk investment strategies under the euphemism of "too big to fail" is fucking ridiculous and should not be tolerated, particularly by anyone who would try and profess the virtues of the "free" market.
Agreed 100%. The markets if left alone will correct themselves. The government just needs to prosecute any one explioting the system.
I have nothing against yachts and the people that buy or produce them. My beef lies with economic policies which falsely posit that the rich are somehow more connected to the domestic economy than other demographic groups and, so, should receive tax-cuts and exemptions first. I consider such policies pure pandering as the rich are arguably less connected to the domestic economy because of their overseas investments and bank accounts. What's worse is that it strikes me as a cheap short-term political trick that artificially increases the stock market prices because of increased investment without actually improving market conditions, which ultimately leads to larger fluctuations in the market which, in the long-term, helps nobody.
I understand where you come from but the fact of the matter is that a vast majority of the tax money comes from the upper class and businesses. I support tax cuts for everyone. But cutting taxes for the middle to upper class and business spurs business growth which is good for everyone.
This whole "environmentally-friendly corn-based ethanol causes starvation" canard needs to stop. Domestic ethanol fuel production was not the only reason why worldwide food prices have gone up in recent years. One reason is that the price of oil has gone up, because it is oil which produces the nitrogen fertilizer, runs the agricultural equipment, and powers the ships and trucks that deliver the food to its ultimate destination. Food prices are very sensitive to the price of oil which has spiked dramatically in recent years. Another reason is that countries like China and India have been consuming far more meat than they ever did in the past. This indirectly causes the price of grain to rise because cattle eat grain which would have, otherwise, gone to people. The original article in The Economist that prompted this discussion made sure to preface its analysis with at least the second fact. Subsequent popular news articles did not and painted the food-shortages abroad as solely result of navel-gazing environmentalists here in the States.
Can't argue with that but I will add that it doesn't help food prices increase problem either and it really hasn't offset the cost of fuel. So why are we even bothering? Cause its green? Please... We'd be much better off spending that money researching better battery technology for vehicles.
That being said, corn-based ethanol is a dumb idea and a great example our dysfunctional political system. Corn-based ethanol is inefficient, exacerbates the increased price of food, and, ironically, is bad for the environment. The only reason it gained traction in the legislature is because it is politically expedite. The agricultural lobby is very well organized and highly funded spending tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions in this year alone. Furthermore, Iowa (the Corn-capital of the U.S., or world even) has a disproportionate amount of political power (particularly in a presidential election year) because of its early, bell-weather primary. Corn-based ethanol initiatives gave politicians a great way to pander to special interests while capitalizing on the growing public support of the environmentalism movement--all without actually listening to any serious environmental scientists or experts.
Says you.
The conservative ideals set is what made this country the power house it is, not being a welfare nanny state. Its pretty ballsy to say otherwise.
The stimulus package was introduced and passed by a democratic majority held congress. Bush just signed off on it. Democrats are just as liable as the Republicans.
In my opinion it would have been more cost effective to cut taxes across the board rather than send everyone a check.
"Similarly, we should also make permanent the tax breaks for the ultra-rich. After all, every economist knows that a millionaire buying another yacht is the single most important factor driving the economy. Products and services that people actually need like food, gas, and baby-formula are apparently acquired through some alternate currency other than money."
If you are a lender and you loan a high risk person almost a million you deserve to go out of business. Also if you don't understand what you are signing when sign your mortgage thats YOUR fault. Why should the rest of America pay for your ignorance?
Rich business owners own businesses. Businesses employ people. If there is a market for nice boats what's wrong with employing people to build the nice boats and compensating them for there work? That's how and economy works. Take that away and you'll have a stagnate North Korean style economy. I don't know about you but I like my decent paying job and being able buy nice things. So remember if you destroy that rich business man that employs you and every one else who is going to give you a paycheck? The government? Where does the government get their money? You me and that rich business owner, but you know who pays the majority of the taxes? The rich business owner does. Which is fine and the way it should be, but you must be careful not to tax him too much. If the tax burden is too difficult he won't start any more busines ventures. Less business ventures means fewer potential jobs. The more jobs the more companies have to compete with each other to get workers. The more they have to compete the more the salaries go up. Which is better for EVERYONE.
How do you lower the food prices? Stop subsidizing the ethanol plants. Thats why the food prices are so high. It takes 26 lbs or corn to make ONE gallon of ethanol. How many days would 26 lbs of corn feed someone? Stop the ethanol stop the high food prices.
Won't argue on the deficit spending, as much as I support the war on terror Bush and Congress has not controled spending. Also note that I'm really not much of a Bush fan and the Republican party is all but dead to me. I am how ever a conservative. Like it or not conservative ideals are what made this country great. Now those ideals are under fire from both parties. We're in trouble.
The war in Iraq right or wrong (personally I think we are doing some good over there, and yes was there myself) is actually dumping money into the economy and has created many jobs. Do a search for defence contracting jobs in the DC or Virgina areas there a ton of them and they pay extremely well.
Spending money on education, sure sounds like a great idea! But we already spend a ton of money on schools (look at your taxes). Maybe we should hold schools accountable for their budgets, starting with spending less on these ultra fancy buildings and football teams and more on decent books and other learning aids. Also support the teachers on maintaining order in their classrooms by allowing them to actually discipline their students. But success at school also requires support at home, do you think a child is going to do good at school if they can get failing grades and face no reprecussions from there parents? A few might yes, but they would be an exception. The fact of the matter is if you want a good education in the United States you will get one. You could spend a million dollars per child but if they don't have the will to learn they won't.
The health care system is broke because its based on a group policy system. If they went to a indivual based programs like they do with car insurance it would be much easier for everyone to get and much cheaper, especially if your employeer either helped out or paid for all of it. If it was easier to get at an individual basis the more widspread it will become the lower the rates would be and the more choices the person would have.
I agree the cost of oil needs to come down, but government subsidies isn't the way to do it. There hasn't been a new refinery built since the 70's and I would imagine there is alot more cars on the road today than there was in back then. Supply and demand my friend. Sure there probably is a stockpile of oil, its because they can refine it fast enough. Unless you are thinking of the strategic reserve, but we've always had that and thats a good thing to have.
Blaming the oil company is very misplaced, the government actually makes more per gallon of gas then the oil company. Last year the oil companies surrendered 41% of their profits to the government. The reason they make so much money is the pure scale of their business.
If you want to lower the price of gas let the oil companies do there job. Let them drill and refine. Do you think they like selling gas at $4-$5 a gallon? Basic economics will tell you no, cheaper gas means they sell more which means more money.
The futures market is artifically affecting the price as well, but I don't know enough about that to know how to fix it.
Obama is not too good to be true. He's gonna be a disaster. He was just a rookie senator that was at the right place at the right time. Mark my word if he gets a elected he will destroy this economy.
Sad part is I don't think McCain will do much better. This cap-and-trade thing is gonna not going to be kind to the American economy.
If people think the economy is bad now wait until this guy takes office. Higher taxes and higher energy costs is the only thing he's gonna bring to this country. That is not how you stimulate the economy.
Also all the new legistlation from our democratic congress (which is by the way the least popular congress in history) is just a giant welfare package under the guise of saving the planet.
I'm all for saving the planet but none of these laws actually do anything to lower the co2 levels to conciderable levels and thats according the EPA. Why not make laws that offer tax breaks as incentives to companys that produce alot of CO2 if they can show they are researching AND implementing cleaner methods. This way we get "green" technology that doesn't need government subsidies and we keep the economy strong.
Sadly no one in politics seem to be able to grasp these concepts. Enjoy your jobs while you still have them.
Well obviously an advanced race isn't going to be sending out probes to look at microbes on every backwoods planet they find. But I would imagine if they are at all curious about stuff like we are, that they would keep an eye open for any intellegent civilizations and at least do a brief study on them and catalog them.
How many animals have we cataloged here on earth? We didn't get bored after a few thousand and give us. Nope. We continue to this day in looking for new species on this planet and on others. Why? Because its interesting and we learn something.
4) We've likely only been 'advanced' enough to be interesting to talk to (if we actually are yet) for maybe a few thousand years. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of time on the galactic scale. If their nearest inhabited planet is a few hundred light years away, why would they waste resources sending a ship to say hi to some funny looking monkeys?
Why would we send probes millions of miles to say hi to some funny looking microbes?
To learn.
Nice try... Global warming, climate change what ever you want to call it, it's all bs.
The Earth warms and it cools down by nature. You can make just as legitimate claims that any warming is caused by the planet wobbling, solar activity cycles and volcanic/lack of volcanic activity.
Earth got out of the last ice age just fine and last I checked the neanderthals didn't drive Hummers.
That being said we shouldn't "poop where we lay" either. We should keep pollution down as much as we can, but we should not destroy our economies to do so. Poor countries do not care about being green, only countries such as ours and most of the 1st world countries can afford to "be green." The government (and the environment) would be much better off giving tax breaks and incentives for companies that can prove that they are researching and implementing methods to reduce pollution. This would be much easier for everyone to swallow than agreeing to something like the Kyoto Protocol which pretty much stiffles everyones economies, and makes it harder to research more efficient and cleaner technology.
Yeah buying a 747 and 50000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel won't send up a red flag or anything.
But i agree if there is a will there is a way, and nothing is hack proof
I hope China's space program takes off, that way hopefully it'll kick NASA in the butt a little and give them some competition. Although that would also give them better ICBM technology which would be bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Setup a PFSense firewall (www.pfsense.com) and install the squidguard package and a good blacklist like shallalist (www.shallalist.de/)
Then tell squidguard to block all ad and porn sites.
Its illegal to disrespect any picture of the royal family that includes currency.
Get drunk and smash a picture of the king, be prepared to either run or bribe the police.
So it doesn't suprise me that they do this. Not that it makes it right. For the most part though the Royal family seemed to be well thought of from the people I talked to when I was there in '04. But while being one of the wealthiest people on earth he should be ok with taking a bit of flak.
It doesn't. Like another poster said earlier it just moves the "carbon footprint" to the person building it.
Carbon credits for the win!
That being said I think it would be a neat project.
The obvious, least economically damaging, least intrusive way to handle the problem is to simply internalize the costs that CO2 emissions throw off, either by tradeable caps or a tax, and then apply the funds to mitigating the damage.
Why don't you guys just admitt that you are using the "global climate change" as a tool to push socialism/communism.
There is far better ways to lower the carbon dioxide levels that a trade cap or a tax. How about incentives rather than penalities?
Give companies or people tax breaks if they implement a "green" technology or if they can prove the they are producing less carbon dioxide.
If lowering the carbon dioxide level is SO important destroying the economy or even crippling it is NOT going to help the situation. Where do you think all the money is going to come from to implement all these neat new green technologies?
Do you think anyone who tasers their 10 year old, if they asked to be or not, has the proper judgement to be a state trooper?
Didn't think so.
Yes, that state trooper also used a taser on his own child (Mrs. Palin's newphew.)
You haven't been reading cnn.com then. At least 2 articles on the main page attacking Palin's experience within hours of the announcement.
Better than CNN.
I'd be willing to bet that McCain will compromise with the left much more the Obama will ever comprise with the right.
If any one else in the world would have changed there position like that they would get immediately critised for flip flopping or it just wouldn't even get a blip in the media.
Mostly though I just like to get Obama supporters all riled... its fun. On slashdot its like fish in a barrel.
Tell me SatanicPuppy how did the Kool-Aide taste?
Evolving stance? Is that the PC version of flip flopping.
Was that written by one of those automatic letter writers? You know the type that spews lines and lines of inane B.S.?
Agreed 100%. The markets if left alone will correct themselves. The government just needs to prosecute any one explioting the system.
I understand where you come from but the fact of the matter is that a vast majority of the tax money comes from the upper class and businesses. I support tax cuts for everyone. But cutting taxes for the middle to upper class and business spurs business growth which is good for everyone.
Can't argue with that but I will add that it doesn't help food prices increase problem either and it really hasn't offset the cost of fuel. So why are we even bothering? Cause its green? Please... We'd be much better off spending that money researching better battery technology for vehicles.
Ame
Says you. The conservative ideals set is what made this country the power house it is, not being a welfare nanny state. Its pretty ballsy to say otherwise.
The stimulus package was introduced and passed by a democratic majority held congress. Bush just signed off on it. Democrats are just as liable as the Republicans.
In my opinion it would have been more cost effective to cut taxes across the board rather than send everyone a check.
"Similarly, we should also make permanent the tax breaks for the ultra-rich. After all, every economist knows that a millionaire buying another yacht is the single most important factor driving the economy. Products and services that people actually need like food, gas, and baby-formula are apparently acquired through some alternate currency other than money."
If you are a lender and you loan a high risk person almost a million you deserve to go out of business. Also if you don't understand what you are signing when sign your mortgage thats YOUR fault. Why should the rest of America pay for your ignorance?
Rich business owners own businesses. Businesses employ people. If there is a market for nice boats what's wrong with employing people to build the nice boats and compensating them for there work? That's how and economy works. Take that away and you'll have a stagnate North Korean style economy. I don't know about you but I like my decent paying job and being able buy nice things. So remember if you destroy that rich business man that employs you and every one else who is going to give you a paycheck? The government? Where does the government get their money? You me and that rich business owner, but you know who pays the majority of the taxes? The rich business owner does. Which is fine and the way it should be, but you must be careful not to tax him too much. If the tax burden is too difficult he won't start any more busines ventures. Less business ventures means fewer potential jobs. The more jobs the more companies have to compete with each other to get workers. The more they have to compete the more the salaries go up. Which is better for EVERYONE.
How do you lower the food prices? Stop subsidizing the ethanol plants. Thats why the food prices are so high. It takes 26 lbs or corn to make ONE gallon of ethanol. How many days would 26 lbs of corn feed someone? Stop the ethanol stop the high food prices.
Won't argue on the deficit spending, as much as I support the war on terror Bush and Congress has not controled spending. Also note that I'm really not much of a Bush fan and the Republican party is all but dead to me. I am how ever a conservative. Like it or not conservative ideals are what made this country great. Now those ideals are under fire from both parties. We're in trouble.
Well maybe its true...
I agree on the first part.
The war in Iraq right or wrong (personally I think we are doing some good over there, and yes was there myself) is actually dumping money into the economy and has created many jobs. Do a search for defence contracting jobs in the DC or Virgina areas there a ton of them and they pay extremely well.
Spending money on education, sure sounds like a great idea! But we already spend a ton of money on schools (look at your taxes). Maybe we should hold schools accountable for their budgets, starting with spending less on these ultra fancy buildings and football teams and more on decent books and other learning aids. Also support the teachers on maintaining order in their classrooms by allowing them to actually discipline their students. But success at school also requires support at home, do you think a child is going to do good at school if they can get failing grades and face no reprecussions from there parents? A few might yes, but they would be an exception. The fact of the matter is if you want a good education in the United States you will get one. You could spend a million dollars per child but if they don't have the will to learn they won't.
The health care system is broke because its based on a group policy system. If they went to a indivual based programs like they do with car insurance it would be much easier for everyone to get and much cheaper, especially if your employeer either helped out or paid for all of it. If it was easier to get at an individual basis the more widspread it will become the lower the rates would be and the more choices the person would have.
I agree the cost of oil needs to come down, but government subsidies isn't the way to do it. There hasn't been a new refinery built since the 70's and I would imagine there is alot more cars on the road today than there was in back then. Supply and demand my friend. Sure there probably is a stockpile of oil, its because they can refine it fast enough. Unless you are thinking of the strategic reserve, but we've always had that and thats a good thing to have.
Blaming the oil company is very misplaced, the government actually makes more per gallon of gas then the oil company. Last year the oil companies surrendered 41% of their profits to the government. The reason they make so much money is the pure scale of their business.
If you want to lower the price of gas let the oil companies do there job. Let them drill and refine. Do you think they like selling gas at $4-$5 a gallon? Basic economics will tell you no, cheaper gas means they sell more which means more money.
The futures market is artifically affecting the price as well, but I don't know enough about that to know how to fix it.
Obama is not too good to be true. He's gonna be a disaster. He was just a rookie senator that was at the right place at the right time. Mark my word if he gets a elected he will destroy this economy.
Sad part is I don't think McCain will do much better. This cap-and-trade thing is gonna not going to be kind to the American economy.
If people think the economy is bad now wait until this guy takes office. Higher taxes and higher energy costs is the only thing he's gonna bring to this country. That is not how you stimulate the economy.
Also all the new legistlation from our democratic congress (which is by the way the least popular congress in history) is just a giant welfare package under the guise of saving the planet.
I'm all for saving the planet but none of these laws actually do anything to lower the co2 levels to conciderable levels and thats according the EPA. Why not make laws that offer tax breaks as incentives to companys that produce alot of CO2 if they can show they are researching AND implementing cleaner methods. This way we get "green" technology that doesn't need government subsidies and we keep the economy strong. Sadly no one in politics seem to be able to grasp these concepts. Enjoy your jobs while you still have them.
Well obviously an advanced race isn't going to be sending out probes to look at microbes on every backwoods planet they find. But I would imagine if they are at all curious about stuff like we are, that they would keep an eye open for any intellegent civilizations and at least do a brief study on them and catalog them.
How many animals have we cataloged here on earth? We didn't get bored after a few thousand and give us. Nope. We continue to this day in looking for new species on this planet and on others. Why? Because its interesting and we learn something.
4) We've likely only been 'advanced' enough to be interesting to talk to (if we actually are yet) for maybe a few thousand years. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of time on the galactic scale. If their nearest inhabited planet is a few hundred light years away, why would they waste resources sending a ship to say hi to some funny looking monkeys?
Why would we send probes millions of miles to say hi to some funny looking microbes? To learn.
Nice try... Global warming, climate change what ever you want to call it, it's all bs.
The Earth warms and it cools down by nature. You can make just as legitimate claims that any warming is caused by the planet wobbling, solar activity cycles and volcanic/lack of volcanic activity.
Earth got out of the last ice age just fine and last I checked the neanderthals didn't drive Hummers.
That being said we shouldn't "poop where we lay" either. We should keep pollution down as much as we can, but we should not destroy our economies to do so. Poor countries do not care about being green, only countries such as ours and most of the 1st world countries can afford to "be green." The government (and the environment) would be much better off giving tax breaks and incentives for companies that can prove that they are researching and implementing methods to reduce pollution. This would be much easier for everyone to swallow than agreeing to something like the Kyoto Protocol which pretty much stiffles everyones economies, and makes it harder to research more efficient and cleaner technology.
Actually this is nothing new we've been doing this for a while. I think the Discovery Channel had a show on this about a year ago.
Yeah buying a 747 and 50000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel won't send up a red flag or anything. But i agree if there is a will there is a way, and nothing is hack proof
I hope China's space program takes off, that way hopefully it'll kick NASA in the butt a little and give them some competition. Although that would also give them better ICBM technology which would be bad.
Well, do you remember Loki Games? I'm still sad about those guys going out of business. They had the highest quality software i've ever used in Linux.
In Soviet Russia, Pizza sends out for YOU!!!!!