It matters because we could easily wind up covering our whole surface with solar cells and still not be able to electrolize enough water to get enough hydrogen to....you get the point.
And what do we do with the oxygen, anyway?
I haven't done the math, but something tells me it'd be cheaper to collect hydrogen from space in it's raw form and bring it down here then to electrolize water.
Man, back when I was hanging mufflers, I couldn't understand why my boss didn't allow telecommuting...
I agree with both of you guys, though. However, the SUV is still a choice. I chose an older celica. 25mpg vs 7mpg (from my truck). And when it's time for me to start going downtown, I intend to move a bit closer to it and ride the bus.:)
On top of what you've said, I'd like to point out that suburbia in and of itself isn't the problem either. I'm personally getting impatient for the idiots that run this county to finally run a viable light rail system, but I'm worried that people won't use it. The buses could be a lot better, too. Going into town for errands that don't require carrying a serious payload could be a lot more efficient if we just did it differently. Also, concentrating energy consumption into a few places rather than many will make it a lot easier to upgrade to new sources when they become available, and to make existing consumption more efficient.
And none of this replaces individuals thinking about their energy consumption. We can make fun of Bush's daylight savings bill all we want, but there's no arguing that someone (even if it *gasp* might have been bush) was thinking about the difference the aggregate of individuals can make in our energy impact. Why is it so hard to apply that in general to other things, like improving the insulation on houses, installing more efficient light bulbs, and turning appliances *off* when not in use?
Anyway, I got a little distracted, I just wanted to point out that reducing our dependence on automobiles doesn't automatically mean "urban renewal" and the fall of suburbia. It just means the fall of suburbans.
Two words: Reading comprehension. (I didn't say anything about evolution, because arguing over the internet is just like running in the special olympics...)
Let's see if I get this straight. You're having an idiotic argument with someone on a subject of which I have said *nothing*, when that someone says he's got a PhD. So you say that because of his username, you question his credentials (book judged by the cover). So I point out to you that *your* username is "sumdumass". And you take this personally.
The irony is very entertaining, believe me. You've been trolled good, asshat.
(No, I'm not qualified to debate with an idiot about evolution, because I'm not an idiot, and I'm well aware what my slashdot username is)
No, you don't get it at all. Damn Canadian thinks he knows everything and is completely unwilling to be swayed. Sounds like a damn Republican to me. Good bye.
Or, the simplest explanation, he wasn't lying and you're not anywhere near qualified to debate the matter with him (something that happens a lot more than the "wiki legend" you were referring to)? Nah, couldn't be.
Oh man, don't make it so easy. You don't think he's that smart because he's claiming he has a PhD in somethingorother but his slashdot moniker is 'dirty', meanwhile you're saying evolution is false under a slashdot moniker of "sumdumass".
So you're saying that I was right, and that the guy can't claim other nations are more advanced than the US without considering that those other nations have had more traumatic experiences that changes their attitudes fundamentally that the US hasn't had?
2 reasons. 1) Any objective comparison would make the US look good, and 2) living in Texas as I am, you would just say I was biased anyway.
I wasn't comparing Russia and Chechnya anyway. I was comparing Russian imperialism and American imperialism, and Russia was acting as proxy for all of europe.
Aggregating all of europe wouldn't be useful, what I want is a list of EU countries that can be compared to US states, because there are US states that have lower murder rates than even Canada. My point is that it's not fair to compare a country like Germany to the US because Germany's too small by comparison, so the comparison isn't useful nor is it intuitive. Then, after recognizing that there are states that compare favorably, depending on how you draw the comparison, it should be easily possible to recognize that you can't generalize the actions of one group of Americans to judge all Americans, we're just too diverse. Kerry won enough votes to show that many Americans were willing to elect someone who's only claim to fame was that he was "not bush". That means something. Then we elected enough Democrats to take both Houses. That, too, means something. So generalizing all of Americans as being dumb nationalists isn't accurate, and blaiming religion for it is just plain bad thinking. Some critical thought to the article (assuming it's not an April fool's prank, I didn't read it, I just thought the number was a bit higher than the last number I saw, which was near 20%) and to the conclusions drawn based on the article would go a long way.
I didn't know Spain left the war on terror after the Madrid bombings, but truth to tell, I didn't know they were involved until the Madrid bombings.:) I think the whole war on terror is more complex than the guy I was arguing with is presenting, I don't think it can be summed up as "just an irrational fear".
And one part of it is that I think the problems people have with the US are global, it's just that the US is easiest to single out right now. But it's just plain not smart to use the US as a scapegoat. Fix the US and some other country will come along and do Bad Shit. Fix the world.
Yeah, I got curious too and went looking, but I couldn't find a number for the whole EU.:/ Thanks, I was genuinely curious.:)
On Srebrenica: Give me some credit for European unity!;) Member states in the EU, afaik, haven't done anything nasty in years (at least, not as far as something that might affect the murder rate), and I was reaching for something to make the point that everything's not fine and dandy in Europe. I thought Germany had a Christian Democratic Party or something that had 1/3 representation in Parliament?
Anyway, my point in another post somewhere in this thread is actually supported by the murder rate numbers you've got. But that's if these are the only facts considered. Do you happen to have numbers for the last 200 years? (I found such numbers for parts of the US going back to 1797) My point is made if you have numbers that show a much higher murder rate for the EU states, particularly the ones that participated in WW2 (since most of the WW1 states were dismantled) before the relevant conflicts, and it gets stronger if you can show comparable murder rates before WWI, and a lower murder rate around 1800, or some other year that's inarguably before the rise of nationalism.
And yeah, until the guy said he was in Canada, my impression was that he was European. The only people I've encountered that get that vitriolic about the US have been europeans.
Heh. You are aware that the US tried your isolationist approach before and it didn't work?
Don't take this the wrong way, but the only reason Canada and Australia aren't considered "third world" is because they have engaged in good relations and a great deal of trade with the US, UK, etc. If they hadn't, they'd both be just as backwater as Iraq, Vietnam, or anyone else you'd care to name.
You can't celebrate Canada's ability to hide when the bully rears its head without acknowledging that the US goes out to face the bully. The same reasons we try to do good in the world are the same reasons we do bad in the world. What would the world look like if we didn't do the good things we do? (keeping in mind that Canada would stay on the sidelines in that world, too)
1) You have to realize, then, that pointing out where the US is fucked up is useless if by doing so you ignore where other countries are fucked up. You ignore the fact that the problems you have with the US are a global problem, not a US-only problem. Therefore, a US-only solution isn't just suboptimal, it's useless.
2) Europe as a whole tried your attitude at the close of WWI, which led directly to WW2. The US, however, tried something different at the close of WW2, and it has led to what I truly believe is a better world. Take it as you want, but you can't both complain about how your government denies psychiatric disorders that could be treated while justifying locking up child molestors and *not* treating them.
3) This is where you've completely missed the point. Rabid nationalism and prejudice caused two really nasty world wars and has quite an influence in the US involvement in Iraq. I'm saying your attitude is identical to the attitudes of the Americans around me that think we should be doing what we're doing in Iraq. It's also the same attitude that was adopted en masse during the French revolution, the founding of the German Empire, and led to 3 major, destructive wars in Europe. If you can't see how your attitude is bad, then there's nothing I can say that's going to show you.
Where's my "missing the point" button? Most of the wars I've mentioned have taken place in the last 100 years, and I mentioned several that have happened in the last 20 years. I've cited current events, even.
I guess I'll spell it out for you. The events of the 20th century traumatized Europeans to a point where they are now capable of behaving in a way that seeks peace first and foremost. Those same events had a completely different affect on the US. They provided a way for the US to be everything that's good about the US and ignore everything that's bad about it, while simultaneously holding onto it's religious viewpoint. That religious viewpoint was inherited from Europe, we didn't invent it. But the events of the 20th century have given Europe as a whole (but evidently not you) a more useful and pragmatic point of view. Nevertheless, it didn't stop certain other really nasty events that happened in Europe, as I said, within the last 20 years, so evidently you guys have some ways to go before you achieve your ideal.
What events am I talking about? It's easy to see I'm referring at least in part to the two world wars. I'm also talking about the Cold War, where the US showed the world that being the most technologically advanced nation was quite a bargaining point when dealing with totalitarian nations. We also got to do something scientific on a scale that had never been done. While we rebuilt western Europe by applying democratic and capitalistic ideals, the Soviets rebuilt eastern Europe by applying their own ideals. When you compare the two, it's pretty clear that democracy and capitalism are better than whatever the soviets were doing. Yet, Europeans already knew that unbridled capitalism was wrong and continued to search for something else. (Note that all the labor movements initiated in Europe, the American labor movement started late)
Why does it matter? I'm sure you've heard statements about knowing history and repeating it, so I don't need to throw that at you. Europe is in fundamentally a different position than the US. There is still a great deal of competition within Europe as a whole, and after that Europe has to compete in the world. The US doesn't have that at all. We have to compete in the world, but we're not competing amongst ourselves. We're not trying to show that Texas is better than Oklahoma, or whatever. At least, not at the scale where Germany is trying to win trade and has to compete against France to get it. If Texas wins trade over Florida, Florida still benefits by it. But if Germany wins trade over France, does France benefit by it?
That competition is a factor in current European development, full stop. Reread that. We don't have that competition in America, not even with our Canadian friends. Also, besides the competition, you're ignoring how much of the base that Europe is working from *now* came from the US. It's easy to say "The US is falling behind", but it's much harder to accept that in light of the fact that without trade from the US, Europe wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now. So is the US falling behind? Or is the population of Europe (4 times the population of the US) just being more productive?
And as I said, which you have not attempted to refute, there appears to be no study of Europe that actually compares Europe as a whole to the US. So you're comparing individual states that you get to pick and choose to the entire US. Try comparing just east Germany to the US, do you still get the favorable comparison you want? Compare Poland to Utah, how does that look? Now compare Poland to California. We have diversity in the US that isn't matched by any single European country. How does the percentage of Europe that believes in creationism compare to the US? What does the Pope, a European, really think?
That is possibly the most ridiculous suggestion that I've ever seen on Slashdot. My contempt for Americans (and other assorted religious fanatics, anti-intellectuals, warmongers, and basically anyone who use words that refer to liking freedom in the pejorative) is going to bring about WW3? I'd say that wars are more likely to be caused by people that are so blinded by naive patriotism that they regard any criticism of their country as a stepping stone to the apocalypse.
No, your individual contempt is going to do nothing. It's the aggregate of all of the contempt of people who agree with you that is going to do these things. But don't let historical facts such as previous world wars stand in your way. Your now self-admitted prejudices are identical in feature and how they influence your behavior to the very behavior you are complaining about in other people.
You've noted that there is at least one country on the whole planet that is worse than America in some particular way, and somehow conclude that America is the greatest nation on Earth, rather than the more reasonable conclusion that America is simply not the worst.
I'd be interested in how you drew that conclusion, seeing as how I didn't give it. If I weren't some anonymous slashdot poster, you'd know better. I want to see the same attitudes in the US changed, but I'm willing to bet that I've had more success with less hateful and condescending methods than you have. I mean, how many americans have you influenced away from the point of view you're complaining about? Now compare it to me (I live in central Texas, so there's plenty of opportunity). You can't, of course, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Now instead, let's consider what I was actually saying. I was actually pointing out where European nations have done exactly the same things you hate the US for. Do you hate Europe, then, too? What do you come up with? Oh, that Europe isn't in a position to be taking such a condescending stance about America, and that in fact you can't even say that all of europe has this stance. NOt without lying, at least. Because the so-called coalition of the willing contains European nations. The real problem here is that many of us here in America have our own brothers and sisters, friends and countrymen going off to fight a war we don't think should be fought in the first place. And you're not helping. We want the US to be better than it is, but people like you who try to point to Europe's long history of being nothing but good citizens in the world are part of the problem. Be part of the solution. You judge the people when you should judge the behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard is like a race of aliens, and these WoWGlider people, well, they're Neo.
Nah, you could still play Armagetron Advanced, where people think it's cheating to bind two keys to one turn. Only it's not. :)
It matters because we could easily wind up covering our whole surface with solar cells and still not be able to electrolize enough water to get enough hydrogen to....you get the point.
And what do we do with the oxygen, anyway?
I haven't done the math, but something tells me it'd be cheaper to collect hydrogen from space in it's raw form and bring it down here then to electrolize water.
Man, back when I was hanging mufflers, I couldn't understand why my boss didn't allow telecommuting...
I agree with both of you guys, though. However, the SUV is still a choice. I chose an older celica. 25mpg vs 7mpg (from my truck). And when it's time for me to start going downtown, I intend to move a bit closer to it and ride the bus. :)
On top of what you've said, I'd like to point out that suburbia in and of itself isn't the problem either. I'm personally getting impatient for the idiots that run this county to finally run a viable light rail system, but I'm worried that people won't use it. The buses could be a lot better, too. Going into town for errands that don't require carrying a serious payload could be a lot more efficient if we just did it differently. Also, concentrating energy consumption into a few places rather than many will make it a lot easier to upgrade to new sources when they become available, and to make existing consumption more efficient.
And none of this replaces individuals thinking about their energy consumption. We can make fun of Bush's daylight savings bill all we want, but there's no arguing that someone (even if it *gasp* might have been bush) was thinking about the difference the aggregate of individuals can make in our energy impact. Why is it so hard to apply that in general to other things, like improving the insulation on houses, installing more efficient light bulbs, and turning appliances *off* when not in use?
Anyway, I got a little distracted, I just wanted to point out that reducing our dependence on automobiles doesn't automatically mean "urban renewal" and the fall of suburbia. It just means the fall of suburbans.
I'd punch you in the nose, but I think it's abusive to hit children.
I'd also punch the GP in the nose...
Then I'd punch the GGP in the nose...
...because I'm an ass-murderer!
(Can we all lighten up and remember where we are for a minute? Must we take shit so personally?)
Don't worry, if Al Gore and them are right, the world is going to be quite a bit deeper any day now.
So, better times are coming. :)
Actually, Windows XP and all the other flavors I've used are emotionally abusive, as is the company that produces them.
I find that in general, the free software community is not emotionally abusive.
Two words: Reading comprehension. (I didn't say anything about evolution, because arguing over the internet is just like running in the special olympics...)
Let's see if I get this straight. You're having an idiotic argument with someone on a subject of which I have said *nothing*, when that someone says he's got a PhD. So you say that because of his username, you question his credentials (book judged by the cover). So I point out to you that *your* username is "sumdumass". And you take this personally.
The irony is very entertaining, believe me. You've been trolled good, asshat.
(No, I'm not qualified to debate with an idiot about evolution, because I'm not an idiot, and I'm well aware what my slashdot username is)
No, you don't get it at all. Damn Canadian thinks he knows everything and is completely unwilling to be swayed. Sounds like a damn Republican to me. Good bye.
Or, the simplest explanation, he wasn't lying and you're not anywhere near qualified to debate the matter with him (something that happens a lot more than the "wiki legend" you were referring to)? Nah, couldn't be.
Wee-haw. I just wanted to point you this way: Post you didn't get notified because it was in response to a response to your post.
Oh man, don't make it so easy. You don't think he's that smart because he's claiming he has a PhD in somethingorother but his slashdot moniker is 'dirty', meanwhile you're saying evolution is false under a slashdot moniker of "sumdumass".
All I can say to that is Fuck Slashdot.
So you're saying that I was right, and that the guy can't claim other nations are more advanced than the US without considering that those other nations have had more traumatic experiences that changes their attitudes fundamentally that the US hasn't had?
Thanks! :) That's exactly what I was saying!
2 reasons. 1) Any objective comparison would make the US look good, and 2) living in Texas as I am, you would just say I was biased anyway.
I wasn't comparing Russia and Chechnya anyway. I was comparing Russian imperialism and American imperialism, and Russia was acting as proxy for all of europe.
Aggregating all of europe wouldn't be useful, what I want is a list of EU countries that can be compared to US states, because there are US states that have lower murder rates than even Canada. My point is that it's not fair to compare a country like Germany to the US because Germany's too small by comparison, so the comparison isn't useful nor is it intuitive. Then, after recognizing that there are states that compare favorably, depending on how you draw the comparison, it should be easily possible to recognize that you can't generalize the actions of one group of Americans to judge all Americans, we're just too diverse. Kerry won enough votes to show that many Americans were willing to elect someone who's only claim to fame was that he was "not bush". That means something. Then we elected enough Democrats to take both Houses. That, too, means something. So generalizing all of Americans as being dumb nationalists isn't accurate, and blaiming religion for it is just plain bad thinking. Some critical thought to the article (assuming it's not an April fool's prank, I didn't read it, I just thought the number was a bit higher than the last number I saw, which was near 20%) and to the conclusions drawn based on the article would go a long way.
I didn't know Spain left the war on terror after the Madrid bombings, but truth to tell, I didn't know they were involved until the Madrid bombings. :) I think the whole war on terror is more complex than the guy I was arguing with is presenting, I don't think it can be summed up as "just an irrational fear".
And one part of it is that I think the problems people have with the US are global, it's just that the US is easiest to single out right now. But it's just plain not smart to use the US as a scapegoat. Fix the US and some other country will come along and do Bad Shit. Fix the world.
Yeah, I got curious too and went looking, but I couldn't find a number for the whole EU. :/ Thanks, I was genuinely curious. :)
On Srebrenica: Give me some credit for European unity! ;) Member states in the EU, afaik, haven't done anything nasty in years (at least, not as far as something that might affect the murder rate), and I was reaching for something to make the point that everything's not fine and dandy in Europe. I thought Germany had a Christian Democratic Party or something that had 1/3 representation in Parliament?
Anyway, my point in another post somewhere in this thread is actually supported by the murder rate numbers you've got. But that's if these are the only facts considered. Do you happen to have numbers for the last 200 years? (I found such numbers for parts of the US going back to 1797) My point is made if you have numbers that show a much higher murder rate for the EU states, particularly the ones that participated in WW2 (since most of the WW1 states were dismantled) before the relevant conflicts, and it gets stronger if you can show comparable murder rates before WWI, and a lower murder rate around 1800, or some other year that's inarguably before the rise of nationalism.
And yeah, until the guy said he was in Canada, my impression was that he was European. The only people I've encountered that get that vitriolic about the US have been europeans.
I guess you forgot about the Cold War.
Meanwhile, everybody else knows the origin is pwned, from a typo in some stupid game in the 90s, and it was previously a very common typo anyway.
Nevertheless, I prefer prawned, as in "You've been prawned!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!! 111!111!!!!111!!111"
Holy shit, that actually worked? Can I get modded funny for no particular reason?
Heh. You are aware that the US tried your isolationist approach before and it didn't work?
Don't take this the wrong way, but the only reason Canada and Australia aren't considered "third world" is because they have engaged in good relations and a great deal of trade with the US, UK, etc. If they hadn't, they'd both be just as backwater as Iraq, Vietnam, or anyone else you'd care to name.
You can't celebrate Canada's ability to hide when the bully rears its head without acknowledging that the US goes out to face the bully. The same reasons we try to do good in the world are the same reasons we do bad in the world. What would the world look like if we didn't do the good things we do? (keeping in mind that Canada would stay on the sidelines in that world, too)
1) You have to realize, then, that pointing out where the US is fucked up is useless if by doing so you ignore where other countries are fucked up. You ignore the fact that the problems you have with the US are a global problem, not a US-only problem. Therefore, a US-only solution isn't just suboptimal, it's useless.
2) Europe as a whole tried your attitude at the close of WWI, which led directly to WW2. The US, however, tried something different at the close of WW2, and it has led to what I truly believe is a better world. Take it as you want, but you can't both complain about how your government denies psychiatric disorders that could be treated while justifying locking up child molestors and *not* treating them.
3) This is where you've completely missed the point. Rabid nationalism and prejudice caused two really nasty world wars and has quite an influence in the US involvement in Iraq. I'm saying your attitude is identical to the attitudes of the Americans around me that think we should be doing what we're doing in Iraq. It's also the same attitude that was adopted en masse during the French revolution, the founding of the German Empire, and led to 3 major, destructive wars in Europe. If you can't see how your attitude is bad, then there's nothing I can say that's going to show you.
Where's my "missing the point" button? Most of the wars I've mentioned have taken place in the last 100 years, and I mentioned several that have happened in the last 20 years. I've cited current events, even.
I guess I'll spell it out for you. The events of the 20th century traumatized Europeans to a point where they are now capable of behaving in a way that seeks peace first and foremost. Those same events had a completely different affect on the US. They provided a way for the US to be everything that's good about the US and ignore everything that's bad about it, while simultaneously holding onto it's religious viewpoint. That religious viewpoint was inherited from Europe, we didn't invent it. But the events of the 20th century have given Europe as a whole (but evidently not you) a more useful and pragmatic point of view. Nevertheless, it didn't stop certain other really nasty events that happened in Europe, as I said, within the last 20 years, so evidently you guys have some ways to go before you achieve your ideal.
What events am I talking about? It's easy to see I'm referring at least in part to the two world wars. I'm also talking about the Cold War, where the US showed the world that being the most technologically advanced nation was quite a bargaining point when dealing with totalitarian nations. We also got to do something scientific on a scale that had never been done. While we rebuilt western Europe by applying democratic and capitalistic ideals, the Soviets rebuilt eastern Europe by applying their own ideals. When you compare the two, it's pretty clear that democracy and capitalism are better than whatever the soviets were doing. Yet, Europeans already knew that unbridled capitalism was wrong and continued to search for something else. (Note that all the labor movements initiated in Europe, the American labor movement started late)
Why does it matter? I'm sure you've heard statements about knowing history and repeating it, so I don't need to throw that at you. Europe is in fundamentally a different position than the US. There is still a great deal of competition within Europe as a whole, and after that Europe has to compete in the world. The US doesn't have that at all. We have to compete in the world, but we're not competing amongst ourselves. We're not trying to show that Texas is better than Oklahoma, or whatever. At least, not at the scale where Germany is trying to win trade and has to compete against France to get it. If Texas wins trade over Florida, Florida still benefits by it. But if Germany wins trade over France, does France benefit by it?
That competition is a factor in current European development, full stop. Reread that. We don't have that competition in America, not even with our Canadian friends. Also, besides the competition, you're ignoring how much of the base that Europe is working from *now* came from the US. It's easy to say "The US is falling behind", but it's much harder to accept that in light of the fact that without trade from the US, Europe wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now. So is the US falling behind? Or is the population of Europe (4 times the population of the US) just being more productive?
And as I said, which you have not attempted to refute, there appears to be no study of Europe that actually compares Europe as a whole to the US. So you're comparing individual states that you get to pick and choose to the entire US. Try comparing just east Germany to the US, do you still get the favorable comparison you want? Compare Poland to Utah, how does that look? Now compare Poland to California. We have diversity in the US that isn't matched by any single European country. How does the percentage of Europe that believes in creationism compare to the US? What does the Pope, a European, really think?
No, your individual contempt is going to do nothing. It's the aggregate of all of the contempt of people who agree with you that is going to do these things. But don't let historical facts such as previous world wars stand in your way. Your now self-admitted prejudices are identical in feature and how they influence your behavior to the very behavior you are complaining about in other people.
I'd be interested in how you drew that conclusion, seeing as how I didn't give it. If I weren't some anonymous slashdot poster, you'd know better. I want to see the same attitudes in the US changed, but I'm willing to bet that I've had more success with less hateful and condescending methods than you have. I mean, how many americans have you influenced away from the point of view you're complaining about? Now compare it to me (I live in central Texas, so there's plenty of opportunity). You can't, of course, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Now instead, let's consider what I was actually saying. I was actually pointing out where European nations have done exactly the same things you hate the US for. Do you hate Europe, then, too? What do you come up with? Oh, that Europe isn't in a position to be taking such a condescending stance about America, and that in fact you can't even say that all of europe has this stance. NOt without lying, at least. Because the so-called coalition of the willing contains European nations. The real problem here is that many of us here in America have our own brothers and sisters, friends and countrymen going off to fight a war we don't think should be fought in the first place. And you're not helping. We want the US to be better than it is, but people like you who try to point to Europe's long history of being nothing but good citizens in the world are part of the problem. Be part of the solution. You judge the people when you should judge the behavior.