Oh, sorry, you're right. I just had my dates wrong - 400 years old then. Still small potatoes compared to many thousands of years. (Haha, I don't have the time to look it up right now, so I'd rather avoid getting corrected again.)
Holy crap. Enough with the flawed analogies.
Again, like in your OP, you're insinuating that the Chinese are irreponsible with their pop growth - which is why I mentioned their policy of birth constraint last time. Consider that the US is only ~200 years old, and has a phenomenally large population for its age.
And YOU also JUST SAID to 'Valar', one of the other guys who also thinks your point is bullcrap, that China shouldn't pollute more than the US, because it has almost the same landmass. Which you directly contradict by asking "Who is saying they're not allowed to pollute more than the US?" YOU. Yes, YOU. Don't think that you can get away with tailoring your responses to different people just for the sake of beating them.
Finally, remember that China has >4x the people compared to the US, and that the US figure is 19.4 tons/person, while China's figure is 3.2 tons/person. Arghh.. Do you GET IT YET? Give it a rest..
Okay, now I know why you're being an ass. I think the point we're clashing on is that you don't realize your original post insinuated that the Chinese are multiplying like horny rabbits, and that they shouldn't pollute any more than the US, even though they have way more people. Which you think is a valid point, because it's supposedly how the Kyoto Treaty looks at the problem. Which seems nonsensical to me, and probably many many others...
I guess I shouldn't have said fucktwit, because I'm just baiting you to reply mindlessly.
Looks like you don't understand the situation over there - even though it's not "law" anymore, the limit is still a strong presence in urban areas -- and looking at the numbers, well, the numbers speak for themself.
And I already addressed the population part of your post. Maybe you should read before racing off to submit a witty and oh so scathing remark.
Re:We can all breathe a bit easier
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Agreeing with the other two posts about China's birth rates even being BELOW sustainable growth. They are actively enforcing a one child limit policy, and yet you're touting that the Chinese are having babies like fucking crazy, or at the very least that 1.3 billion people aren't allowed to pollute more than the us, which is more than 4x smaller? And still get modded insightful for it? You're an ignorant fucktwit.
Re:You guys still use HTTP to get this? P2P!
on
Red Hat 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
And you would still want to waste your time downloading a _potentially_ bugged iso and then md5sum it, and then have to start over?
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. But thankfully Wikipedia's response isn't that drastic. Just hope this doesn't happen again..
Wow, okay - "did not match any documents"? I can't believe no one else's caught this yet.
That's Google _Desktop_, not google online.
Oh, sorry, you're right. I just had my dates wrong - 400 years old then. Still small potatoes compared to many thousands of years. (Haha, I don't have the time to look it up right now, so I'd rather avoid getting corrected again.)
Ahahaha... oh dear god. Immmanannenenannent. Am I rite? Sorry. Please don't mod this anything.
Holy crap. Enough with the flawed analogies. Again, like in your OP, you're insinuating that the Chinese are irreponsible with their pop growth - which is why I mentioned their policy of birth constraint last time. Consider that the US is only ~200 years old, and has a phenomenally large population for its age. And YOU also JUST SAID to 'Valar', one of the other guys who also thinks your point is bullcrap, that China shouldn't pollute more than the US, because it has almost the same landmass. Which you directly contradict by asking "Who is saying they're not allowed to pollute more than the US?" YOU. Yes, YOU. Don't think that you can get away with tailoring your responses to different people just for the sake of beating them. Finally, remember that China has >4x the people compared to the US, and that the US figure is 19.4 tons/person, while China's figure is 3.2 tons/person. Arghh.. Do you GET IT YET? Give it a rest..
Okay, now I know why you're being an ass. I think the point we're clashing on is that you don't realize your original post insinuated that the Chinese are multiplying like horny rabbits, and that they shouldn't pollute any more than the US, even though they have way more people. Which you think is a valid point, because it's supposedly how the Kyoto Treaty looks at the problem. Which seems nonsensical to me, and probably many many others...
I guess I shouldn't have said fucktwit, because I'm just baiting you to reply mindlessly. Looks like you don't understand the situation over there - even though it's not "law" anymore, the limit is still a strong presence in urban areas -- and looking at the numbers, well, the numbers speak for themself. And I already addressed the population part of your post. Maybe you should read before racing off to submit a witty and oh so scathing remark.
Agreeing with the other two posts about China's birth rates even being BELOW sustainable growth. They are actively enforcing a one child limit policy, and yet you're touting that the Chinese are having babies like fucking crazy, or at the very least that 1.3 billion people aren't allowed to pollute more than the us, which is more than 4x smaller? And still get modded insightful for it? You're an ignorant fucktwit.
And you would still want to waste your time downloading a _potentially_ bugged iso and then md5sum it, and then have to start over?