The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."
Whether it is "a) fine or b) illegal," one thing is rather certain: "adding short clips from various movies" is probably a rather poor (asinine, and lazy) way to go about "illustrating... points." Perhaps they should reconsider the entire initiative, regardless of the legality of the matter. There are almost certainly better ways of illustrating points other than relying on the crutch of rummaging through the intellectual rubbish heap that is Hollywood.
We called up T-mobile twice and claim the possibility of phone cloning. Both representatives hung up on me, thinking I was trying to con them or something. Any advice to what this could be?
I suggest you call them and tell them that you did not make the calls in question (contest the calls). It's not your job to figure out what is going on, only to point out that a problem exists. Your mobile provider probably has some internal mechanism designed to investigate and resolve these matters (and the poor saps who usually answer the phone are probably not part of it, so just tell them your symptoms and they'll probably forward the information to the right people).
People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens.
What about the freedom of citizens to not be spammed by (potentially abusive) phone calls? Or do those freedoms not apply to people we don't like?
People really can't seem to be able to fight an intellectual battle in an honest and clean way. What is wrong with setting up websites which discuss the matter in an elevated manner and then letting individuals use that information as they please instead of micromanaging willing participants in schemes of dubious merit? Concentrating all the phone calls in one day seems puerile at best and reminiscent of a DoS attack at worst.
I think the point was that since this is either caused by A) nature, or B) us, perhaps we should start working on B just in case it isn't A.
That line of reasoning can be used to support preemptive wars or wars based on less than certain intelligence. Do you support those things? If not, how do you reconcile your two positions?
If there are that many people that desperate to get into a university, the obvious question would be, why don't they just open more schools?"
Maybe because in the real world resources are finite? Yes, in a free market situation, where the price that people were willing to pay would be higher than the marginal cost of production, more would be sold, and high profit margins would encourage even more people to enter the market, satisfying even more demand; however, education is (probably) highly subsidized, and as such, every additional student or school opened costs even more money. There is also the matter of very good or even decent teachers being a finite resources. Add in the matter of prestige (everyone wants to get placed in a top school), and the fact that it doesn't make much sense to graduate a lot more people than the demand for jobs (unless you want to depress wages by increasing unemployment or think that these people will be entrepreneurs who will in the future generate even more jobs), and the fact that graduating more sub-par students in addition to the best of the best is not really necessary or all that beneficial and you will come to realize that the decision is rather rational.
The Nazis thought as you do. The Nazis? What the devil? Can you address any of the points that I made instead of engaging in pejoratives and puerile ad hominem attacks?
It's pretty clear where you stand: "crapping out children" is what you think of 3rd world nations. If two adults have more children than they can provide for, I consider that cruel and irresponsible, and I would certainly refer to it as I did. If they can provide for them, that is another matter altogether, now, isn't it.
Now, since you claim that it is clear to you from my post that I am a member or supporter of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazi Party) perhaps you could point to where in my post I advocate any of the policies specific to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. It should be fairly easy to do since it is so clear and obvious to you. I'll start you off with some of their platform: 1) Genocide 2) Internal Strife 3) Total War 4) Totalitarian control over the economy 5) Totalitarian control over the individual 6) Racial Purity 7) Racial Warfare 8) (Ironically enough) Relegating the majority of women to the primary role of breeders, to crap out little Germans to die in the War
Go on now. I expect your well documented reply, demonstrating that I support those policies listed above. After all, "it's pretty clear where [I] stand," so it should be rather easy to prove these points.
The fat cats in Hollywood mostly produce money, which gets used to plan the next project, build houses, buy cars, buy food, and throw parties. They don't produce money (unless they are illegally printing currency). They are performing services which people for some reason value, and give them money in exchange. Hollywood does not produce energy, and is therefore a net consumer thereof.
Most of these activities consume some miniscule amount of electricity, For very large values of "minuscule." You are concerned about energy loss on PS2s but don't care about the gluttonous and grotesque waste of energy going on in Hollywood, while they hypocritically preach how the plebeians should consume less? Tell me, how many private jet flights from Los Angeles to New York does it take to waste as much energy as is required to power all PS2s in the world in standby for one year? What percentage of the world's PS2s could be powered in standby for one year with the amount of energy wasted by a prominent Hollywood member in one day? Do you even know? Do you even care?
People in third world countries rarely produce twelve children, as they have limited ability to access modern medicine and birth puts the mother at some risk to her life. I have already addressed this point (as well as many of the others, and others still) here.
Desire for large families are the norm in third world countries, but so are high rates of infant mortality, death by treatable disease, and death by industrial / farming accidents. All that human suffering, all that human waste, and for what? Because some adults have not been educated or are unwilling to practice safe sex. I addressed the point in more depth in the post that I linked to above. Please read it.
In the end, we haven't seen Africa outnumber China even though China has a governmental imposed limit on child birth and Africa does not impose such limits. The standard of living in (most of) China is better than in (most of) the third world. As for government limits on child birth in China, China went from having approximately 2.5 times the population of Germany at the beginning of the century to 15 times the population of Germany today. The one child policy was implemented in China in 1979. Furthermore, there is much disinformation about the one child policy in the West; for example, you can simply pay a fine and have another child. The fertility rate in China today is 1.8 which is still a lot higher than Europe, Australia, or Canada. Supporting link.
Birth in a third world country doesn't require the use of electricity, Electricity? We were talking about energy in general, not electricity specifically. Anyways, the food required to support the ever increasing number of people in developing countries definitely does require a lot of energy and electricity. A human being anywhere consumes a lot of energy and resources.
even if electricity is used for child birth, it would hardly be considered wasted electricity, unless you have become so detached from humanity that you consider 3rd world inhabitants such non-people that they should be tabulated like cattle or sheep. I don't understand your logic. "Tabulated like cattle of sheep"? Because I want people in developing countries to engage in protected sex so that they have less children so that the children that they have have more resources at their disposal so that they live better lives? I am such a bastard... No, my friend, it is you who is detached. Detached from the reality that the Earth cannot support an ever increasing population at high standard of living. Ever done one of those tests where you are told how many Earths would be required if all of today's population were to have the same standard living that you enjoy? My parents only had one child. They used all the resources at thei
I also had this to add in the above post but I reached the hard coded post length limit:
For a case study, let us examine China, the best known country for reducing its population growth. At the beginning of the century, the population of China was approximately 2.5 the size of Germany. Due to Mao's imbecilic ideas (including encouraging everyone to have more children), the population of China skyrocketed. All the while, Mao's economic policy lowered the average standard of living (also see Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution). Today, China's population stands at 15 times that of Germany. It was only once the one child policy was implemented (even though it is not implemented as well or as throughly as people tend to think) and the market was liberalized (freed), that the standard of living started improving. Huge increases in population are beneficial mostly if one is interested in fighting wars or creating empires (and thereby increasing the resources at your disposal). For increasing standards of living, huge, rapid, increases in population sizes as is happening in the developing world do not tend to work very well. Of course, you don't want to depopulate your population rapidly or considerably either, as is currently happening in the West, especially if you want to run a socialist system such as social security, which requires the current generation to directly support the previous, instead of having the previous support itself through its own investment. In fact, the need for workers (in my case highly skilled) to offset the rapid decline in population and maintaing social programs is why I am living where I am (and perhaps you as well), and why Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and the US are experiencing huge surges in immigrant populations.
I had some more stuff to add, but I suppose this shall suffice.
The point was that these energy leaks are totally unnecessary. It's not a controversial subject -- almost nobody would argue that it would be nice to have fewer leaked energy. If you truly want to stop the waste of energy, reducing the energy leaks of PS2s is hardly an efficient way to go about it (in the grand scheme of energy waste).
I'm sure there are probably many MORE conservative/Republican/oil-wealthy/corporate "fatcats" out there as well (you were trying to make a selective attack on "liberals" right?). Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. I'll admit that I don't have any data as to how much energy each of those segments wastes/consumes. The point is that at least most of the elements that you mentioned do not tell me to reduce my consumption (which is such a infinitesimal fraction of theirs) while jetting around the country wasting more energy that I could in my entire life if I actually tried. But if you must know, I hold all elite elements of American society in contempt.
As for the people in third world countries, I'm embarrassed than an obviously educated person such as yourself would compare energy leaks in rich-people's houses to family size in third world countries. I did not compare those two to each other. I merely pointed out that those are two things (at opposite ends of certain scales) which waste a lot more energy that all the PS2s in the world.
That is blatantly racist, elitist, and pretty much wrong. I do not follow your logic. Please elaborate.
I came from a 3rd world country, one of two children. I came from a 2nd world country (there is such a thing, look it up if you don't believe me). One of one children. Nice to meet you. The fact that your parents did not have 12 children probably played a role in you becoming more educated and potentially immigrating to the West. Each family has access to a finite amount of resources (provided by the two primary providers, the mother and the father). Increasing the number of children reduces the amount of resources per child (unless of course the child can produce (at an early age) more than it takes in, which in most of today's countries is not the case).
We were fortunate, as are you and most Western families. If Westerners were crapping out children at the same rate that a lot of people in the third world are, we would hardly be as fortunate. The amount of resources is finite. Dividing that finite amount by a larger amount of people results in a lower number (obviously undesirable). This could of course be mitigated if the people born of large families made significant advancements in science and technology, leading to better and more efficient resource use; however, empirical evidence seems to indicate that most people born of large families do not amount to much and their contributions to science and technology usually do not offset the increase in resource consumption.
It has been shown over and over again, that family size often does not follow "rational" patters that should in theory correlate with wealth. Perhaps because nobody takes it upon themselves to educate people in these matters.
In fact, more often it correlates with religion, No doubt. Following your link we see that Muslim (and to a lesser extent African Roman Catholic) countries dominates the top fertility list.
need for able-bodied workers, A lot of the countries in question are unable to feed themselves and need the West to send them food to maintain their population size. It does not seem that the increase in able-bodied workers has helped much. There is an explination in macroeconomic theory of this, which says that a proportional increase in both labour and capital is required to just maintain the same standard of living. Increases in standard of living are usually accomplished by increases in efficiency (technology).
they tried to invade the US! Their no better then terrorists! why if they had their way we would still be droping nukes on those sons of bitches!.
You may not be aware of this, but aside from attacking the US, the Imperial Japanese committed a lot of war crimes in China, Korea, the Philippines, and a lot of other places that they had invaded. Ever heard of Unit 731? How about the Rape of Nanking. How about Comfort women? Read more and educate your self, please, if not for yourself, than for the sake of all those who suffered.
To its defense Amazon is only attempting this with nonperishables like peanut butter, potato chips, and canned soup implying that there's no refrigeration required--ordinary warehouse shelves will do fine."
Well, in that case, it isn't different from what Amazon was doing before hand, now is it? Amazon to Sell Stuff Online, Film at 11.
Oil comes from dirty Arabs.
Some oil, yes. (Assuming you are living in the US,) not as much as you probably thing though, unless Canada and Mexico are now Arab countries. And that doesn't even take into account the domestically produced oil.
Dirty Arabs are terrorists.
Some of them, yes. A lot of terrorists are also Persian/Iranian, Pakistani, Indian Muslim, Afghan (not Arabs for those who don't know), Indonesian, Chechen, Somali, Sudanese, etc. It's not their "Arabness" that binds most terrorists; it's something else, and if you think really hard, you may be able to figure out what it is. On another note, most terrorists are in fact not dirty -- especially as a lot of them lived very lavish life styles before they decided to try to kill people (and a lot of them even after).
If you play the Xbox360 you are supporting terrorism.
To a certain extent, yes. To a certain extent, you are also supporting the People's Republic of China, which is currently rearming in an attempt to take Taiwan (Republic of China) by military force. To a certain extent, you are also supporting a lot of other bad things.
/Fox News told me so
I doubt it. And I have no idea what the "/" at the beginning of that sentence is supposed to indicate.
P.S. I realize the parent was supposed to be some sort of joke. I just didn't find it very funny.
That's an annual leak of 1.8 terawatts.
Actually, it would be 1.8 terrawatt hours (assuming the same rate of usage). 1 W = 1 J/s. "An annual leak of 1.8 terawatts" makes about as much sense as "an annual distance traveled of 180 km/h." For the record, 1 kWh = 1000 W * 1 h = 1000 J/s * 3600 s = 3600000 J = 3.6 megajoules.
And what's the impact on the environment of generating that energy?
A lot smaller than the impact on the environment of having all those fatcats in Hollywood living their lavish lifestyle. A lot smaller than the impact on the environment of people in third world countries having 12 children per family (especially after a few generations, after exponential growth takes place e.g. in 3 generations: 12^3=1728 vs. 1.3^3=2.197 (approximate average European fertility rate -- children per woman)). A lot smaller than a lot of other things you don't seem to care much about.
From the writeup: Even more importantly is the question of whether your console might be costing you money while you sleep. Preposterous you say? Actually quite the opposite!
From TFA: Let's take a look at how much power video game consoles require while in standby/off mode.
Console Energy Leakage kWh Wasted Each Year Annual Cost
Playstation 1 0.1W 1.752 kWh $0.26
Playstation 2 2W 17.52 kWh $2.63
Xbox 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
Xbox 360 2W 17.52 kWh $2.63
Gamecube 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
Dreamcast 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
USD 2.63 per year for something that cost over USD 300! Oh the humanity!
So even in pefect (sic) world where everyone is counted, we will still have a lot of crap on tv because there are a lot of stupid people in the world that find comfort in watching the same old crap they have always watched. Heck sometimes I think those people are threatened when a new show like firefly comes on. they just
Oh, boohoo. Television is a medium for illiterates to receive instant gratification. If you think you are too good for that, go to your local library.
Perhaps then the demographics will represent the hip, happening and geeky crowd as well as whatever boring old fogies Nielson represents.
I'm no expert in the matter, but if Nielson is doing its job properly, they would be using a representative sample of the population of T.V. viewers (of which you and your friends are but a small fraction) or a representative sample of the population of T.V. viewers willing to pay for stuff (of which you and your friends may be an even smaller fraction).
Then again I'm not 'Merican, so I have no idea why good shows get cancelled *cough*Firefly*cough*. I just know that they do, and the dumb ones remain
I'm not a "'Merican" (great, even more illiteracy) either, but it seems rather peculiar that you would insult the very people who produced the entertainment you so enjoyed to begin with.
If you truly want to know why "good shows get cancelled," the explanation is rather simple. In a free market, you make money by giving people what they want. Ideally, you want to give as many people as possible things that they really want (and are therefore willing to pay high prices). I would wager that not that many people wanted to watch Firefly, and those that did, did not value it high enough to pay a sufficient price to make it worthwhile.
P.S. If you truly want decent sci-fi, I suggest you stop being intellectually lazy and visit your local library.
If the RIAA were to put out something like this, it would be (rightly) referred to as propaganda. Does propaganda automatically become acceptable if you support the message being propagandized? Is such a thing really "a great link to send to your friends as an introduction to the issue"? Inquiring minds want to know.
The conclusion was made based on six politically sensitive keywords. A search on yahoo.cn resulted in 97% pro-Beijing results compared to 83% on google.cn and 78% on msn.cn."
Go Microsoft! Then again, perhaps their incompetence is showing...
It's a pretty common tactic. Ignore the actual content, and just attack the messenger.
Very common. In fact, I would wager you use it as well (as does almost every other human being). Allow me to demonstrate:
s/Liberal/Nazi (I am in no way trying to equate the two; this is merely an academic exercise to indicate that if we change the source in question, you would react quite differently.): "Dietrich proudly wears the label of Nazi And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously a partisian Nazi as well. No need to consider what he said. Don't think about it, just reflexively discount it. If he knew anything about anything, he would be a non-Nazi."
So you see, dear reader, you are (probably) guilty of the very same thing.
As writers for ACM report, the skill-sets required for jobs have grown over time. Academia has responded to the evolution with novel programs recruiting women and integrating IT into MBA programs.
Is it just me, or is this quite the nonsequitur? I can see integrating IT into MBA programs as a potential solution, but how does recruiting women into IT adress the problem? Clicking on the "recruiting women" link leads to an article titled "CMU uses game maker's characters to interest girls in computer programming" which is one of the most condescending ideas I have ever come across.
My apology. I assumed there was some sort of friendly rivalry going on between digg and slashdot, although with all that bile and vitriol I've just experienced, I guess not. I also found it interesting the the Slashdot post claimed "Found on linkfilter." which is a pretty obscure site that I've never heard of (and I don't think many others have as well; it doesn't even have a wikipedia entry). Furthermore, if you compare and contrast the date stamps on both the linkfilter and digg, you'll notice that the digg post predates the linkfilter post.
Why don't i just visit all the websites on the internet every day? Then i wouldnt have to bother with the inconvenience of browsing slashdot.
With one of those newfangled "RSS/Atom" readers, it's quite easy to keep yourself appraised of quite a few websites. If you still find yourself strapped for time, perhaps you could reschedule some of the time that is currently allocated to flaming innocent people on slashdot, to reading more websites instead.
I didn't mean to question what you know. I was just stating the actual source. But it was actually a rather recent event (3 or 4 weeks ago, I believe) so I can see how not everyone would know it.
I understand that Colbert used the joke at that event (coincidentally, I read a transcript of it shortly after it happened); however, I was under the impression that before that (quite a bit before, when I still watched the Daily Show) John Stewart has made a similar (same) joke; of course, at the point, it was a throwaway line, and it does not seem to have been popularised before the media event featuring Colbert. Again, I may be wrong, and my mind may be playing tricks on me.
But my main qualm is that if you know he's joking when he states "reality has a well-known liberal bias," then you know he actually KNOWS reality has no liberal bias.
Sometimes people say jokingly what they believe to be true, but do not have the courage to simply assert. Frankly though, my complaint was that I had heard that joke too many times.:P
I beg your pardon, but communism was supposed to be ruled in "communes" / communities, that would set its own agenda and its own decisions about local things.
And when I played the lottery, I was supposed to win... Regardless, the "communes" would have acted like tiny states, still "regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior."
Nowhere is it stated that for communism everything had to be centrally organized by a power-hungry and self-serving elite.
And nowhere does it state that when I drop a rock, it has to move toward the ground, and yet, no matter how many times I try, it keeps happening.
Communism has been functioning well in small communities,
Where people engage in it voluntarily and nobody is forced at gunpoint to do anything. If you want to set up your own commune, no one is stopping you. Certainly not capitalism.
Everything is shared, maximizing efficiency in a situation where not everybody has everything they need.
Interesting that not everybody has everything that they need. How many communes have made advancements to science or technology?
Native Indians had little or no concept of ownership of land, animals, tools and many other things.
And look at how much they advanced science, technology, medicine, philosophy, and so on. Furthermore, since they had no concept of ownership of land, I guess they didn't feel all that bad when Europeans started settling land. After all, you can't lose something you don't own to begin with. Interesting that even though they had no concept of ownership (according to you), they still had conflicts.
It is inherently connected with a deep sense of community, fellowship and trust. Something which is impossible after a bloody revolution, or just by plotting red areas on a map. Something which is ONLY possible by spiritual means and a common spiritual bond.
I can agree with you here.
You have been brainwashed / misinformed about communism.
I lived under (statist) communism. I guess it's unfortunate that my first hand experience "brainwashed me".
the ego of man can justify anything to force his own will upon others, either for self-gratification or for misdirected belief in the "greater good
Funny that you should mention that, as that really is how I feel about all the (statist) communists I have come across thus far in my life.
Unfortunately, people nowadays lack the very foundation to understand that a society can be ruled, not based on fear and force, but through trust, love and compassion.
If you and like-minded individuals want to willingly associate with each other and voluntarily attempt to create such a society, then you have my full support. If, however, in the name of "trust, love and compassion," you exert violence or the threat of violence against me, you shall not find me as cooperative.
P.S. If your voluntary non-violent commune really does work out, try to track me down. If I see results, I may be persuaded to join you.:P
Slashdot Mirror
The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."
... points." Perhaps they should reconsider the entire initiative, regardless of the legality of the matter. There are almost certainly better ways of illustrating points other than relying on the crutch of rummaging through the intellectual rubbish heap that is Hollywood.
Whether it is "a) fine or b) illegal," one thing is rather certain: "adding short clips from various movies" is probably a rather poor (asinine, and lazy) way to go about "illustrating
We called up T-mobile twice and claim the possibility of phone cloning. Both representatives hung up on me, thinking I was trying to con them or something. Any advice to what this could be?
I suggest you call them and tell them that you did not make the calls in question (contest the calls). It's not your job to figure out what is going on, only to point out that a problem exists. Your mobile provider probably has some internal mechanism designed to investigate and resolve these matters (and the poor saps who usually answer the phone are probably not part of it, so just tell them your symptoms and they'll probably forward the information to the right people).
People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens. What about the freedom of citizens to not be spammed by (potentially abusive) phone calls? Or do those freedoms not apply to people we don't like? People really can't seem to be able to fight an intellectual battle in an honest and clean way. What is wrong with setting up websites which discuss the matter in an elevated manner and then letting individuals use that information as they please instead of micromanaging willing participants in schemes of dubious merit? Concentrating all the phone calls in one day seems puerile at best and reminiscent of a DoS attack at worst.
I think the point was that since this is either caused by A) nature, or B) us, perhaps we should start working on B just in case it isn't A.
That line of reasoning can be used to support preemptive wars or wars based on less than certain intelligence. Do you support those things? If not, how do you reconcile your two positions?
If there are that many people that desperate to get into a university, the obvious question would be, why don't they just open more schools?"
Maybe because in the real world resources are finite? Yes, in a free market situation, where the price that people were willing to pay would be higher than the marginal cost of production, more would be sold, and high profit margins would encourage even more people to enter the market, satisfying even more demand; however, education is (probably) highly subsidized, and as such, every additional student or school opened costs even more money. There is also the matter of very good or even decent teachers being a finite resources. Add in the matter of prestige (everyone wants to get placed in a top school), and the fact that it doesn't make much sense to graduate a lot more people than the demand for jobs (unless you want to depress wages by increasing unemployment or think that these people will be entrepreneurs who will in the future generate even more jobs), and the fact that graduating more sub-par students in addition to the best of the best is not really necessary or all that beneficial and you will come to realize that the decision is rather rational.
The Nazis thought as you do.
The Nazis? What the devil? Can you address any of the points that I made instead of engaging in pejoratives and puerile ad hominem attacks?
It's pretty clear where you stand: "crapping out children" is what you think of 3rd world nations.
If two adults have more children than they can provide for, I consider that cruel and irresponsible, and I would certainly refer to it as I did. If they can provide for them, that is another matter altogether, now, isn't it.
Now, since you claim that it is clear to you from my post that I am a member or supporter of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazi Party) perhaps you could point to where in my post I advocate any of the policies specific to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. It should be fairly easy to do since it is so clear and obvious to you. I'll start you off with some of their platform:
1) Genocide
2) Internal Strife
3) Total War
4) Totalitarian control over the economy
5) Totalitarian control over the individual
6) Racial Purity
7) Racial Warfare
8) (Ironically enough) Relegating the majority of women to the primary role of breeders, to crap out little Germans to die in the War
Go on now. I expect your well documented reply, demonstrating that I support those policies listed above. After all, "it's pretty clear where [I] stand," so it should be rather easy to prove these points.
The fat cats in Hollywood mostly produce money, which gets used to plan the next project, build houses, buy cars, buy food, and throw parties.
They don't produce money (unless they are illegally printing currency). They are performing services which people for some reason value, and give them money in exchange. Hollywood does not produce energy, and is therefore a net consumer thereof.
Most of these activities consume some miniscule amount of electricity,
For very large values of "minuscule." You are concerned about energy loss on PS2s but don't care about the gluttonous and grotesque waste of energy going on in Hollywood, while they hypocritically preach how the plebeians should consume less? Tell me, how many private jet flights from Los Angeles to New York does it take to waste as much energy as is required to power all PS2s in the world in standby for one year? What percentage of the world's PS2s could be powered in standby for one year with the amount of energy wasted by a prominent Hollywood member in one day? Do you even know? Do you even care?
People in third world countries rarely produce twelve children, as they have limited ability to access modern medicine and birth puts the mother at some risk to her life.
I have already addressed this point (as well as many of the others, and others still) here.
Desire for large families are the norm in third world countries, but so are high rates of infant mortality, death by treatable disease, and death by industrial / farming accidents.
All that human suffering, all that human waste, and for what? Because some adults have not been educated or are unwilling to practice safe sex. I addressed the point in more depth in the post that I linked to above. Please read it.
In the end, we haven't seen Africa outnumber China even though China has a governmental imposed limit on child birth and Africa does not impose such limits.
The standard of living in (most of) China is better than in (most of) the third world.
As for government limits on child birth in China, China went from having approximately 2.5 times the population of Germany at the beginning of the century to 15 times the population of Germany today. The one child policy was implemented in China in 1979. Furthermore, there is much disinformation about the one child policy in the West; for example, you can simply pay a fine and have another child. The fertility rate in China today is 1.8 which is still a lot higher than Europe, Australia, or Canada. Supporting link.
Birth in a third world country doesn't require the use of electricity,
Electricity? We were talking about energy in general, not electricity specifically. Anyways, the food required to support the ever increasing number of people in developing countries definitely does require a lot of energy and electricity. A human being anywhere consumes a lot of energy and resources.
even if electricity is used for child birth, it would hardly be considered wasted electricity, unless you have become so detached from humanity that you consider 3rd world inhabitants such non-people that they should be tabulated like cattle or sheep.
I don't understand your logic. "Tabulated like cattle of sheep"? Because I want people in developing countries to engage in protected sex so that they have less children so that the children that they have have more resources at their disposal so that they live better lives? I am such a bastard...
No, my friend, it is you who is detached. Detached from the reality that the Earth cannot support an ever increasing population at high standard of living. Ever done one of those tests where you are told how many Earths would be required if all of today's population were to have the same standard living that you enjoy? My parents only had one child. They used all the resources at thei
I also had this to add in the above post but I reached the hard coded post length limit:
For a case study, let us examine China, the best known country for reducing its population growth. At the beginning of the century, the population of China was approximately 2.5 the size of Germany. Due to Mao's imbecilic ideas (including encouraging everyone to have more children), the population of China skyrocketed. All the while, Mao's economic policy lowered the average standard of living (also see Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution). Today, China's population stands at 15 times that of Germany. It was only once the one child policy was implemented (even though it is not implemented as well or as throughly as people tend to think) and the market was liberalized (freed), that the standard of living started improving. Huge increases in population are beneficial mostly if one is interested in fighting wars or creating empires (and thereby increasing the resources at your disposal). For increasing standards of living, huge, rapid, increases in population sizes as is happening in the developing world do not tend to work very well. Of course, you don't want to depopulate your population rapidly or considerably either, as is currently happening in the West, especially if you want to run a socialist system such as social security, which requires the current generation to directly support the previous, instead of having the previous support itself through its own investment. In fact, the need for workers (in my case highly skilled) to offset the rapid decline in population and maintaing social programs is why I am living where I am (and perhaps you as well), and why Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and the US are experiencing huge surges in immigrant populations.
I had some more stuff to add, but I suppose this shall suffice.
The point was that these energy leaks are totally unnecessary. It's not a controversial subject -- almost nobody would argue that it would be nice to have fewer leaked energy.
If you truly want to stop the waste of energy, reducing the energy leaks of PS2s is hardly an efficient way to go about it (in the grand scheme of energy waste).
I'm sure there are probably many MORE conservative/Republican/oil-wealthy/corporate "fatcats" out there as well (you were trying to make a selective attack on "liberals" right?).
Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. I'll admit that I don't have any data as to how much energy each of those segments wastes/consumes. The point is that at least most of the elements that you mentioned do not tell me to reduce my consumption (which is such a infinitesimal fraction of theirs) while jetting around the country wasting more energy that I could in my entire life if I actually tried. But if you must know, I hold all elite elements of American society in contempt.
As for the people in third world countries, I'm embarrassed than an obviously educated person such as yourself would compare energy leaks in rich-people's houses to family size in third world countries.
I did not compare those two to each other. I merely pointed out that those are two things (at opposite ends of certain scales) which waste a lot more energy that all the PS2s in the world.
That is blatantly racist, elitist, and pretty much wrong.
I do not follow your logic. Please elaborate.
I came from a 3rd world country, one of two children.
I came from a 2nd world country (there is such a thing, look it up if you don't believe me). One of one children. Nice to meet you. The fact that your parents did not have 12 children probably played a role in you becoming more educated and potentially immigrating to the West. Each family has access to a finite amount of resources (provided by the two primary providers, the mother and the father). Increasing the number of children reduces the amount of resources per child (unless of course the child can produce (at an early age) more than it takes in, which in most of today's countries is not the case).
We were fortunate, as are you and most Western families.
If Westerners were crapping out children at the same rate that a lot of people in the third world are, we would hardly be as fortunate. The amount of resources is finite. Dividing that finite amount by a larger amount of people results in a lower number (obviously undesirable). This could of course be mitigated if the people born of large families made significant advancements in science and technology, leading to better and more efficient resource use; however, empirical evidence seems to indicate that most people born of large families do not amount to much and their contributions to science and technology usually do not offset the increase in resource consumption.
It has been shown over and over again, that family size often does not follow "rational" patters that should in theory correlate with wealth.
Perhaps because nobody takes it upon themselves to educate people in these matters.
In fact, more often it correlates with religion,
No doubt. Following your link we see that Muslim (and to a lesser extent African Roman Catholic) countries dominates the top fertility list.
need for able-bodied workers,
A lot of the countries in question are unable to feed themselves and need the West to send them food to maintain their population size. It does not seem that the increase in able-bodied workers has helped much. There is an explination in macroeconomic theory of this, which says that a proportional increase in both labour and capital is required to just maintain the same standard of living. Increases in standard of living are usually accomplished by increases in efficiency (technology).
they tried to invade the US! Their no better then terrorists! why if they had their way we would still be droping nukes on those sons of bitches!.
You may not be aware of this, but aside from attacking the US, the Imperial Japanese committed a lot of war crimes in China, Korea, the Philippines, and a lot of other places that they had invaded. Ever heard of Unit 731? How about the Rape of Nanking. How about Comfort women? Read more and educate your self, please, if not for yourself, than for the sake of all those who suffered.
To its defense Amazon is only attempting this with nonperishables like peanut butter, potato chips, and canned soup implying that there's no refrigeration required--ordinary warehouse shelves will do fine."
Well, in that case, it isn't different from what Amazon was doing before hand, now is it? Amazon to Sell Stuff Online, Film at 11.
Energy comes from oil.
/Fox News told me so
Some energy, yes.
Oil comes from dirty Arabs.
Some oil, yes. (Assuming you are living in the US,) not as much as you probably thing though, unless Canada and Mexico are now Arab countries. And that doesn't even take into account the domestically produced oil.
Dirty Arabs are terrorists.
Some of them, yes. A lot of terrorists are also Persian/Iranian, Pakistani, Indian Muslim, Afghan (not Arabs for those who don't know), Indonesian, Chechen, Somali, Sudanese, etc. It's not their "Arabness" that binds most terrorists; it's something else, and if you think really hard, you may be able to figure out what it is. On another note, most terrorists are in fact not dirty -- especially as a lot of them lived very lavish life styles before they decided to try to kill people (and a lot of them even after).
If you play the Xbox360 you are supporting terrorism.
To a certain extent, yes. To a certain extent, you are also supporting the People's Republic of China, which is currently rearming in an attempt to take Taiwan (Republic of China) by military force. To a certain extent, you are also supporting a lot of other bad things.
I doubt it. And I have no idea what the "/" at the beginning of that sentence is supposed to indicate.
P.S. I realize the parent was supposed to be some sort of joke. I just didn't find it very funny.
That's an annual leak of 1.8 terawatts.
Actually, it would be 1.8 terrawatt hours (assuming the same rate of usage). 1 W = 1 J/s. "An annual leak of 1.8 terawatts" makes about as much sense as "an annual distance traveled of 180 km/h." For the record, 1 kWh = 1000 W * 1 h = 1000 J/s * 3600 s = 3600000 J = 3.6 megajoules.
And what's the impact on the environment of generating that energy?
A lot smaller than the impact on the environment of having all those fatcats in Hollywood living their lavish lifestyle. A lot smaller than the impact on the environment of people in third world countries having 12 children per family (especially after a few generations, after exponential growth takes place e.g. in 3 generations: 12^3=1728 vs. 1.3^3=2.197 (approximate average European fertility rate -- children per woman)). A lot smaller than a lot of other things you don't seem to care much about.
From the writeup: Even more importantly is the question of whether your console might be costing you money while you sleep. Preposterous you say? Actually quite the opposite!
From TFA:
Let's take a look at how much power video game consoles require while in standby/off mode.
Console Energy Leakage kWh Wasted Each Year Annual Cost
Playstation 1 0.1W 1.752 kWh $0.26
Playstation 2 2W 17.52 kWh $2.63
Xbox 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
Xbox 360 2W 17.52 kWh $2.63
Gamecube 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
Dreamcast 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
USD 2.63 per year for something that cost over USD 300! Oh the humanity!
A more interesting article would have covered how much energy it takes to actually produce each console (embodied energy).
So even in pefect (sic) world where everyone is counted, we will still have a lot of crap on tv because there are a lot of stupid people in the world that find comfort in watching the same old crap they have always watched. Heck sometimes I think those people are threatened when a new show like firefly comes on. they just
Oh, boohoo. Television is a medium for illiterates to receive instant gratification. If you think you are too good for that, go to your local library.
Perhaps then the demographics will represent the hip, happening and geeky crowd as well as whatever boring old fogies Nielson represents.
I'm no expert in the matter, but if Nielson is doing its job properly, they would be using a representative sample of the population of T.V. viewers (of which you and your friends are but a small fraction) or a representative sample of the population of T.V. viewers willing to pay for stuff (of which you and your friends may be an even smaller fraction).
Then again I'm not 'Merican, so I have no idea why good shows get cancelled *cough*Firefly*cough*. I just know that they do, and the dumb ones remain
I'm not a "'Merican" (great, even more illiteracy) either, but it seems rather peculiar that you would insult the very people who produced the entertainment you so enjoyed to begin with.
If you truly want to know why "good shows get cancelled," the explanation is rather simple. In a free market, you make money by giving people what they want. Ideally, you want to give as many people as possible things that they really want (and are therefore willing to pay high prices). I would wager that not that many people wanted to watch Firefly, and those that did, did not value it high enough to pay a sufficient price to make it worthwhile.
P.S. If you truly want decent sci-fi, I suggest you stop being intellectually lazy and visit your local library.
If the RIAA were to put out something like this, it would be (rightly) referred to as propaganda. Does propaganda automatically become acceptable if you support the message being propagandized? Is such a thing really "a great link to send to your friends as an introduction to the issue"? Inquiring minds want to know.
The conclusion was made based on six politically sensitive keywords. A search on yahoo.cn resulted in 97% pro-Beijing results compared to 83% on google.cn and 78% on msn.cn."
Go Microsoft! Then again, perhaps their incompetence is showing...
It's a pretty common tactic. Ignore the actual content, and just attack the messenger.
Very common. In fact, I would wager you use it as well (as does almost every other human being). Allow me to demonstrate:
s/Liberal/Nazi (I am in no way trying to equate the two; this is merely an academic exercise to indicate that if we change the source in question, you would react quite differently.):
"Dietrich proudly wears the label of Nazi And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously a partisian Nazi as well. No need to consider what he said. Don't think about it, just reflexively discount it. If he knew anything about anything, he would be a non-Nazi."
So you see, dear reader, you are (probably) guilty of the very same thing.
As writers for ACM report, the skill-sets required for jobs have grown over time. Academia has responded to the evolution with novel programs recruiting women and integrating IT into MBA programs.
Is it just me, or is this quite the nonsequitur? I can see integrating IT into MBA programs as a potential solution, but how does recruiting women into IT adress the problem? Clicking on the "recruiting women" link leads to an article titled "CMU uses game maker's characters to interest girls in computer programming" which is one of the most condescending ideas I have ever come across.
My apology. I assumed there was some sort of friendly rivalry going on between digg and slashdot, although with all that bile and vitriol I've just experienced, I guess not. I also found it interesting the the Slashdot post claimed "Found on linkfilter." which is a pretty obscure site that I've never heard of (and I don't think many others have as well; it doesn't even have a wikipedia entry). Furthermore, if you compare and contrast the date stamps on both the linkfilter and digg, you'll notice that the digg post predates the linkfilter post.
Why don't i just visit all the websites on the internet every day? Then i wouldnt have to bother with the inconvenience of browsing slashdot.
With one of those newfangled "RSS/Atom" readers, it's quite easy to keep yourself appraised of quite a few websites. If you still find yourself strapped for time, perhaps you could reschedule some of the time that is currently allocated to flaming innocent people on slashdot, to reading more websites instead.
Found on digg here. Same writeup too. For shame, Slashdot, for shame. :)
I didn't mean to question what you know. I was just stating the actual source. But it was actually a rather recent event (3 or 4 weeks ago, I believe) so I can see how not everyone would know it.
:P
I understand that Colbert used the joke at that event (coincidentally, I read a transcript of it shortly after it happened); however, I was under the impression that before that (quite a bit before, when I still watched the Daily Show) John Stewart has made a similar (same) joke; of course, at the point, it was a throwaway line, and it does not seem to have been popularised before the media event featuring Colbert. Again, I may be wrong, and my mind may be playing tricks on me.
But my main qualm is that if you know he's joking when he states "reality has a well-known liberal bias," then you know he actually KNOWS reality has no liberal bias.
Sometimes people say jokingly what they believe to be true, but do not have the courage to simply assert.
Frankly though, my complaint was that I had heard that joke too many times.
I beg your pardon, but communism was supposed to be ruled in "communes" / communities, that would set its own agenda and its own decisions about local things.
:P
And when I played the lottery, I was supposed to win... Regardless, the "communes" would have acted like tiny states, still "regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior."
Nowhere is it stated that for communism everything had to be centrally organized by a power-hungry and self-serving elite.
And nowhere does it state that when I drop a rock, it has to move toward the ground, and yet, no matter how many times I try, it keeps happening.
Communism has been functioning well in small communities,
Where people engage in it voluntarily and nobody is forced at gunpoint to do anything. If you want to set up your own commune, no one is stopping you. Certainly not capitalism.
Everything is shared, maximizing efficiency in a situation where not everybody has everything they need.
Interesting that not everybody has everything that they need. How many communes have made advancements to science or technology?
Native Indians had little or no concept of ownership of land, animals, tools and many other things.
And look at how much they advanced science, technology, medicine, philosophy, and so on. Furthermore, since they had no concept of ownership of land, I guess they didn't feel all that bad when Europeans started settling land. After all, you can't lose something you don't own to begin with. Interesting that even though they had no concept of ownership (according to you), they still had conflicts.
It is inherently connected with a deep sense of community, fellowship and trust. Something which is impossible after a bloody revolution, or just by plotting red areas on a map. Something which is ONLY possible by spiritual means and a common spiritual bond.
I can agree with you here.
You have been brainwashed / misinformed about communism.
I lived under (statist) communism. I guess it's unfortunate that my first hand experience "brainwashed me".
the ego of man can justify anything to force his own will upon others, either for self-gratification or for misdirected belief in the "greater good
Funny that you should mention that, as that really is how I feel about all the (statist) communists I have come across thus far in my life.
Unfortunately, people nowadays lack the very foundation to understand that a society can be ruled, not based on fear and force, but through trust, love and compassion.
If you and like-minded individuals want to willingly associate with each other and voluntarily attempt to create such a society, then you have my full support. If, however, in the name of "trust, love and compassion," you exert violence or the threat of violence against me, you shall not find me as cooperative.
P.S. If your voluntary non-violent commune really does work out, try to track me down. If I see results, I may be persuaded to join you.