So is Valador run by Sicilians or people from New Jersey? Sounds like they got the protectionism racket nicely transformed for tech subcontracting work.
^ That, and much more. His use of lawyers here, in a replay of Bush's stunt to authorize and justify torture, is incredibly disturbing, even moreso than the power play itself.
No, of course not: "illegal" is a subset of "unethical", since the laws and rules are an attempt to codify those ethics that (usually) have the greatest consensus. It doesn't in any way diminish the value of ethics that aren't codified as such.
I'm not sure what you intended by pointing it out.
If his intentions are really that ethical and noble, then why try to circumvent the relevant powers granted to Congress? Why try (once again) to silently re-write the balance of power and establish a new de facto rule?
He is not being transparent, and that isn't the only thing wrong with his behavior in this situation. He's using lawyers, just like Bush, to try to justify his improper behavior. And there's more.
"Perhaps it should be that all urgent legislation must have a sunset clause for 6-12 months."
Ummm, you mean like the Patriot Act? You know how that's been turning out. I'm not disagreeing with the intent, but the implementation needs a little work....
This demonstrates how Obama's presidential behavior is in reality not significantly better than the behavior of Bush. He talked a very different game, but in practice he winds up making the same sort of unethical choices as Bush. Political parties are irrelevant when they both breed and foster this same bad behavior.
I don't agree that process is sustainable. You think that what's removed is trivial and unimportant to sustainability and long-term - multi-generational - soil fertility, and I disagree; I think it all matters and is non-trivial, which is precisely why ecological processes have evolved the way they have. Also, not to nitpick *too* much but hydrocarbons and 'carbos' aren't actually energy, they're potential energy... which is why we use them as food and fuel to release actual energy.
I should echo your reply to another hapless fellow from the other day in which the situation was reversed... but I think just by mentioning it my point is made.:-)
Of course if we weren't (ab)using so much synthetic fertilizer - and weren't overpopulating the planet - then perhaps the rivers and lakes wouldn't be so awash in nirtrogen? Just a thought....
For the time being we do. If Peak Oil comes and goes, will we favor making fertilizer, plastics, or fuel with what's left? Where do we make those 'budget cuts'? They're gonna hurt.
So what will be left from crop harvests to fold back into the soil and preserve some bare shred of soil fertility if we even harvest the "inedible by-products"? Why do people overlook soil in the lifecycle? Soil contains chemicals, which plants take up and use to construct themselves; if you remove the entire plant and don't fold something truly equivalent back into the soil, then over time the soil becomes depleted of chemicals needed to sustain the process.
I interpret the effect of those same facts differently than you do, and might say you're (dis)missing some other important ones. I doubt if we're gonna wind up reaching agreement here in this context. It's all speculative regardless of who later proves to have estimated wrong now.
Paul Gilding says: "We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we're not stupid."
I beg to differ. History demonstrates just how stupid we are collectively, because collectively the ones that aren't stupid tend to get silenced or drowned-out, especially when "tough" controversial choices like this one are at issue. Better minds than mine long ago estimated the truly sustainable limit at half a billion; if that's even vaguely accurate then we're waaaay past the sustainable maximum, and have been well before the 21st Century arrived.
What you're talking about as a solution is NOT a browser, but rather platform independence. You can achieve that without a browser, and in the specific case of the desktop paradigm preferably without a browser. You're also promoting the "cloud" and web apps as a solution apparently without comprehending the very BAD things that will happen if those become entrenched.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even check your own link? IT'S NOT THERE!
TFA didn't actually say that: the children phrase was apparently added by the GP poster... for some reason.
Ummm... Google has a cache.
So is Valador run by Sicilians or people from New Jersey? Sounds like they got the protectionism racket nicely transformed for tech subcontracting work.
Outsourcing is like water: it flows downhill, and the landscape changes. China isn't the base of the hill any more.
This is why outsourcing is not a bad thing. It's the global economy attempting to equalize itself. Don't ban it, don't fight it, embrace it.
He manufactured the "evidence" that convinced Congress to approve war. That's worse.
^ That, and much more. His use of lawyers here, in a replay of Bush's stunt to authorize and justify torture, is incredibly disturbing, even moreso than the power play itself.
No, of course not: "illegal" is a subset of "unethical", since the laws and rules are an attempt to codify those ethics that (usually) have the greatest consensus. It doesn't in any way diminish the value of ethics that aren't codified as such.
I'm not sure what you intended by pointing it out.
If his intentions are really that ethical and noble, then why try to circumvent the relevant powers granted to Congress? Why try (once again) to silently re-write the balance of power and establish a new de facto rule?
He is not being transparent, and that isn't the only thing wrong with his behavior in this situation. He's using lawyers, just like Bush, to try to justify his improper behavior. And there's more.
Ummm, you mean like the Patriot Act? You know how that's been turning out. I'm not disagreeing with the intent, but the implementation needs a little work....
This demonstrates how Obama's presidential behavior is in reality not significantly better than the behavior of Bush. He talked a very different game, but in practice he winds up making the same sort of unethical choices as Bush. Political parties are irrelevant when they both breed and foster this same bad behavior.
I would hope he actually meant LESS than unlikely. I would also hope that next time the editors spot the mistake and correct it.
... meth.
I don't agree that process is sustainable. You think that what's removed is trivial and unimportant to sustainability and long-term - multi-generational - soil fertility, and I disagree; I think it all matters and is non-trivial, which is precisely why ecological processes have evolved the way they have. Also, not to nitpick *too* much but hydrocarbons and 'carbos' aren't actually energy, they're potential energy... which is why we use them as food and fuel to release actual energy.
I should echo your reply to another hapless fellow from the other day in which the situation was reversed... but I think just by mentioning it my point is made. :-)
Dunno. I might know if my paternal branch of the family had remained in farming.
Cellulose != lignin. Lignin is a much nastier polymer to digest.
Of course if we weren't (ab)using so much synthetic fertilizer - and weren't overpopulating the planet - then perhaps the rivers and lakes wouldn't be so awash in nirtrogen? Just a thought....
Oh, and of course synthetic fertilizers only replace the Big Three chemicals. All the others that a plant might need suffer attrition.
For the time being we do. If Peak Oil comes and goes, will we favor making fertilizer, plastics, or fuel with what's left? Where do we make those 'budget cuts'? They're gonna hurt.
(I know, you were being sarcastic.)
So what will be left from crop harvests to fold back into the soil and preserve some bare shred of soil fertility if we even harvest the "inedible by-products"? Why do people overlook soil in the lifecycle? Soil contains chemicals, which plants take up and use to construct themselves; if you remove the entire plant and don't fold something truly equivalent back into the soil, then over time the soil becomes depleted of chemicals needed to sustain the process.
Holy crap, cereal full of shape-shifters? Kellogg's doesn't make that, do they? And you EAT that?
I interpret the effect of those same facts differently than you do, and might say you're (dis)missing some other important ones. I doubt if we're gonna wind up reaching agreement here in this context. It's all speculative regardless of who later proves to have estimated wrong now.
I beg to differ. History demonstrates just how stupid we are collectively, because collectively the ones that aren't stupid tend to get silenced or drowned-out, especially when "tough" controversial choices like this one are at issue. Better minds than mine long ago estimated the truly sustainable limit at half a billion; if that's even vaguely accurate then we're waaaay past the sustainable maximum, and have been well before the 21st Century arrived.
What you're talking about as a solution is NOT a browser, but rather platform independence. You can achieve that without a browser, and in the specific case of the desktop paradigm preferably without a browser. You're also promoting the "cloud" and web apps as a solution apparently without comprehending the very BAD things that will happen if those become entrenched.