Neatness is a coping mechanism. Like most people who build some sort of highly structured psychological edifice to cope with a perceived threat, they can't empathize with someone who does not require the same level of response.
There are actually several studies that disagree with the conclusions in TFA. However, that wasn't the point of this post.
You have to great things working for you when you are a child or young adult:
1. More active satellite cells 2. More active glial cells.
The satellite cells will help you induce hyperplasia in the muscle tissue which does not happen nearly as easily as an adult, except in the presence of exogenous hormones. You are also carrying quite a lot more serum testosterone which will prime your body for hypertrophy.
The glial cells are still numerous and active into young adulthood. They are (theoretically) responsible for the learning/programming process of the neural network in your headspace. Program the skills and the neural drive early in your life and you'll get more out of weightlifting later in life as you'll be able to engage more of the muscle in a more coherent fashion.
anyhow, stick with it as you are. Try many brief high rep routines until you have a trained the movements into your body's vocabulary. Then add a little weight and speed up the lifting. Work one or two movements per day concentrating on bar speed. Finally, if you want to get very strong, devote two or three days to maximal weights (but do your own research beforehand).
I can definitely see your argument. However, the basis for the refutation of your argument is the philosophical question, "Is it ok to encourage the production of fetuses for recycling? What are the latent repercussions of doing so?"
For instance, one of the popular pro-choice arguments is that abortion is not commonly used as a method of birth control. Instead it is a last ditch effort at preserving quality of life. However, birth and conceptions rates don't support that argument. The conception rate has gone up 30% since RvW, however the birth rate has fallen 6%.(That's a chapter in Freakonomics) That would seem to indicate it's most popular use _is_ birth control.
If you've ever worked with extremely poor and uneducated people you'll find that abortion is often seen as a birth control method, and used frequently.
I know I'm completely off-topic but I wanted to see what you thought...
Interesting. As I remember it Muhammed required extra taxes from Christian and Jews (people of the book) when he was feeling merciful, and something less savory when he was not.
I am an atheist, but it seems odd that a religion whose own founder required the death of unbelievers on several occasions and also had sex with a child is compared to a overall harmless pacifist. It's like comparing Hitler to Gandhi. Seems perverse to me.
Muhammad was a warlord. A warlord who founded a religion of peace? What need would a warlord have for his people to be pacifistic to his own motivation and conversely hold nothing but mild tolerance or animus for all others?
As a curiosity, could someone with a deeper knowledge of theology, provide a list of pacifist sects of Islam compared to pacifist sects spawned by Chistianity? Buddhism beats both of the former hands down, more than likely...
"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" Sura 48:29. "Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." Sura 9:5
There may yet another angle to this as well. Especially in the music space where distribution agreements fly around a lot. Liability. If a particular party decides to use a particular distribution channel and that channel doesn't use DRM and the music doesn't sell well, the originating studio may be able to eke out a case for incompetence, breach of contract, or some other tripe.
With class action suits like the recent one that MS lost in Iowa... One has to wonder.
Note: I have a bitter hatred toward MS and their products, but I hate class-action suits and the lawyers that profit from them even more.
It's a tit for tat game in which no one can claim to have the higher authority./*Disclaimer: I have worked in HongKong, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Paris, and Aberdeen*/
Americans are criticized for:
1. Being consumerist. Without the dynamic of consumerism the economies of many third world countries would collapse. Look at the threat posed to India by China's growing technological competence. Not to mention productivity. Per capita, the US still produces more than any one else.
2. Criminality. Sure, the 'war on drugs' have put a ton of pressure on our jails, but 30% of the people in the CA jail system are people who were criminals in another country who broke the law to come here, and then broke the law again while they were here. Our prisons would be a lot less empty if people from around the world weren't so eager to break the law to get here.
3. Wild West Swaggering Attitude. Honestly, this is a position of pride to me. I find it hilarious when my wife friend, who works for Amnesty Int'l, gets down on the US for our propensity to go it alone and do what we think is write. I hate consensus. By establishing consensus you're adopting the median of the intellects in the room. By following inspiration, you'll get colossal gaffs, but you'll also get colossal leaps of human progress. If the UN was driven and had more of a "git'r'done" attitude about political tragedies then Darfur and Palestine would be historical data, not current crises.
Incidentally, the UN didn't sign the cease-fire with Saddam. So they never had any say in whether or not we went into Iraq. The UN was appointed as a third party arbiter for inspections and negotiations, they were never designated as the enforcer of policy. Just as in legal arbitration, if you feel you have the need to rectify a situation that the arbitration cannot resolve, you can leave the arbitration and pursue more aggressive actions. In matters of state, one of those actions would be (duh-duh-duhnnnnn) war.
They are required to prove that the content is their protected works. Considering the content is digital, they should have a burden of proving 100% of the content is a usable part or whole work.
If they can't prove that the content is theirs, they have no business sending a C&D.
Similarly, if I claim a television in your home is actually mine, I have to be able to prove through serial number, receipt, etc., that the television is, in fact, mine.
It is a trivial exercise to determine whether the content is legit or not. md5sum? Proprietary compression algorithm? Tough shit, take what evidence you have and get a warrant.
The whole C&D thing is crap. It sets up copyright holders as vigilantes with next to zero accountability for abusing their power.
Just as a point of interest, the massive privatization of the military was an outgrowth of the outsourcing due to forced downsizing caused by the Clintonian military budget cuts.
It was the political and market forces of our perception of waste that caused corporate interests to be able to have such a large stake in warfare. In yesteryear, we bought beans, bullets, and bandaids from private corporations. During the 90's that began to escalate to logistics, non-combatant (Personnel Other than Grunt) jobs, such as secure communications. Now, your field contingent will be wearing cammies but your backend will be former military farmed out by Halliburton or some such to provide services that military 'used' to provide.
Was it for better or worse? Depends on how corrupt you think that politicians are. On both sides of the aisle politicians have been taking loads of cash and selling us up the river. Giving the corporate yahoos more access to the military via politician supported outsourcing seems a bit contrary to a strategy of a quickly resolved conflict.
You operate under the illusion that producing a product obligates one to income.
Not so. Imagine your product is dirt. Dirt is readily available, no one is ready to pay for small amounts of innocuous dirt. However, if you provide convenient, small, enhanced packages of dirt you will have a market e.g., Miracle-Gro. Perhaps this isn't your preference, perhaps you would like to provide extremely large amounts of dirt to distributors who sell smaller increments of enhanced dirt. Like dump trucks of topsoil for subdivisions.
There are many business models for seemingly ubiquitous resources. The problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that they have a product that may become more common than dirt but they are unwilling to change their business model to compensate. Therefore they must sponsor insane laws to enforce broken models that have already failed and will fail again.
Hrmmm... Interestingly, your compatriots don't agree. That's why states with high taxes and economic blockages that increase the cost and decrease the quality of living are seeing a decrease in their tax-paying population. Witness the exodus from the NorthEast to the SouthEast or more relevant to me, the decline in tax-paying population in CA. Their population is growing but the number of tax paying citizens is decreasing... an excellent example of people voting regarding obnoxious policies and behavior. They moved.
You have that power over localities. States that have the most appeal to your particular political tastes will attract people with similar motivations and act as a disincentive to those that are not compatible.
I read the other replies to your post and I find it funny that 3 out of the 4 were people that have no idea why people might not like the Green agenda, but they sure do have an axe to grind with their preconceived notions of the Republican party.
As a Republican, let me present a few points:
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies. Examples include Paul Erhlich, Rachel Carlson, Al Gore (with much support by the scientific community.) and whoever that guy was who predicted the worst hurricane season in 50 yrs for 2006.
2.The argument is hardly, if ever, presented in a logical, coherent manner. Usually, it consists of a list of demands that (coincidentally?) line up with socialists and communists. See: the Kyoto protocol. It attempts to impose an aggressively progressive tax code on emissions, and consumption. If we don't like progressive taxes already, what makes you think that we'd like that sort of 'productivity punishment' applied to our country?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back. In Oklahoma, your chances of those panels paying for themselves are very probably slim. Gets worse as you go north. For the American SouthWest, they are probably a good investment.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds. (Maybe the birds will figure out that the windmill farm isn't such a great place to hang out.) Ted Kennedy opposed a windmill farm off of Martha's Vineyard as it would've obstructed their view.
So, if the environmentalists got together and started presenting tenable solutions to our problems, then they might get more reception. For me, I understand that there's global warming, might be anthropogenic, might not... (not's seem to be getting slimmer) but until someone proposes a real idea on how to deal... we'll just deal in the way we always have. Adapt.
Note: One of our saving graces could've been nuclear power, but the greenies shot that down too. Sucks that South Africa is using american developed technology in a pebble bed reactor. Look at the CA power crisis, while part of it was caused by collusion on the part of energy traders, it was enabled by CA's stance on building new plants. In fact, the newest power plant to provide CA with power was just built in NV. NIMBY-ism has killed several things that could make the world a more efficient place, but finding a backyard to put "it" in is rather difficult.
Ummmm, right... That's a good plan. Economically present yourself to the international community for castration. IF they want to propose rules, then present a flat playing field where no-one derives an economic, political, or strategic advantage, or it's not a tenable solution.
Having worked with and around many sex workers(strippers)... I was a bouncer/floorguy/doorman for a few of the largest strip clubs in Vegas, as well as one very low-end dive in LA. Most of them are at least slightly damaged.
What causes this damage? Who knows, but a lot of them have intimacy issues. Could it have something to do with being overly intimate for long periods of time with strangers? Low self-value? They'll act their shit doesn't stink until you establish a control channel, and then they debase themselves very quickly.
My wife is a former model and stripper. She's done the whole Playmate thing and been a super-highly paid stripper. She's a tough cookie and that past is behind her, but she did feel that the exchange of money for viewing her body, whether in print or in person devalued her self-image. The XXX porn people that I have known have all been severely damaged esp once you got to know them personally and it keeps in line with the level of sacrifice and involvement. Regarding the dominance issue, I think the bigger picture is at work here... The women get paid a great deal more because they are the value item. They also have greater pressure and greater demand to perform all sorts of acts. The high-end women have a great deal of control but the low-end are often single mom's trying to make a few extra bucks... I met the owner's of a fairly successful porn site run out of Vegas and Northridge and they were great fans of divorcee's...
The porn industry also is involved in human trafficking, which raises all sorts of ethical concerns.
Given all of the above, I still don't think that legislation banning the making of or distribution of porn is effective or should be acceptable at the federal level. However, I think individual states can ban pornography if they so choose. This would allow people to gravitate to systems that reflect their value systems... Leaving places like Vegas for those who only want the occasional foray into that realm. I think that legalization of prostitution on a wider scale would defuse the power of the porn industry and allow many of these women to have greater control over their lives. Perhaps even follow SanFran and form a nat'l sex workers union.
So, you're implying that someone's ability to write politically relevant and motivating articles should be limited?
Interesting? So you're saying that someone that was a loyalist during the American Revolution should not have been able to write in a paper because they stood to gain or had gained monies or property in the past from the Crown?
Odd.
Personally, I think those that fear 'paid-blogging' are not confident in their own ability to discern fact from fiction, or they're a sociopath who thinks that no one else has this peculiar capability.
Sure... acquiesce to the world's body politic and cease to become a sovereign nation. Sounds like a plan.
Perhaps, nations should keep their own house in order and worry less about what the US is up to and how they could politically extort more money out of the US.
Or the almighty UN might actually try doing something... like rectifying the Darfur situation, or addressing the fact that Hezbollah attacked Israel as a de facto representative of the Lebanese govt. Or perhaps just prosecuting, and investigating aggressively the previous Secretary General for violations of the oil for food program... Considering both his son and brother-in-law have had shady dealings therein.
None of this is likely, even as the smug people that complain about USA policy still come to the teat at supper time.
Do you live in the US? Both in California and currently Oklahoma I had to drive over 50mins to get to my place of work. In California that covered 20miles, in OK that covers 55miles. I love the train, used to take it from San Diego to LA all the time. However, that idea is not tenable in the current structure of LA. Using public transit can take over two hours to cover the same distance that you could cover in 25mins in a vehicle, 45 in traffic.
Someday, it might be viable and affordable... but that day is a long way off, further if the transit unions keep on striking over being the highest paid transit drivers in the area.
I have been to, and used the transit systems of New York, Washington D.C., and London. Cursory examination of the topography and current infrastructure would show you just how laughable your idea of outlawing cars is for places like LA. Low traffic flows and population illustrates how ridiculous that idea would be Oklahoma.
Instead, focus on real conservation efforts, and acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs. Buy a used honda if energy efficiency is your thing. That new Prius is nifty but I would be willing to bet a great deal of money that the emissions created by the 'new' car are greater than your maintenance and further operation of that old honda. As a matter of fact, I bet all the nifty plastics and exotic elements in the body and batteries of that car will create more pollution than operating my '86 bronco for another 20 years.
Not trying to be a troll, but on one hand, people are bitching about the inaccuracy of modeling and others are waving their hands saying that modeling has nothing to do with predictions.
I understand that there are different specifics for models, perhaps you can give a synopsis?
Ummm... Let me know when St. Louis get hit by it's first hurricane. That's gotta pass by me first (NE Okla.) and I sure don't want to be around when a hurricane makes it that far inland.
Around here, when a storm makes it that far inland it's referred to as a thunderstorm, or perhaps a supercell.
Interestingly, 'Halliburton' hasn't kept me from making as much money as I could find a way to make. Usually, it's the state or federal gov't that impacts my income flow.
I agree that corporations have too many rights and too much recognition by the current gov't but that's a function of political corruption on both side of the aisle.
For instance: Murtha and his "I won't take the cash now. Maybe after we have done business for awhile" or the fact that he funnelled public funds into companies that former campaign hands worked with.
We need a turnaround. How we accomplish that is the question.
Interestingly, you happened upon a basic tenet that is espoused in the third amendment.
Agents of the government, or any institution with governmental power, should not have a presence in your home without cause.
Therefore, I argue that enforcing copyright law via equipment in the home is unconstitutional, unless the government provides for legal alternatives that do not have monitoring and control of our assets.
Yes, I know that the EULA allows for monitoring(Windows) or control(CSS), but I would argue that you should not be able to surrender your rights via usage. Precedent is not on my side, but it is an interesting philisophical argument, isn't it?
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, the most interesting conclusion could be that the US should tighten the leash on the education system and stop exporting knowledge to other countries by restricting visas? Thereby driving up the local knowledge pool whilst simultaneously stopping the brain drain?
Believe it or not, part of the gov's job is to protect the welfare of the people and the economy. This includes economic threats(Barbary Pirates?). If the gov't is not a good enough at protecting it's people from a perceived economic threat, the people have a right to bitch.
The true question to answer is: Is this a net loss or gain for the US economy and the US citizen? Personally, I think that the 'developer' and 'support' jobs are a net gain freeing up Americans to pursue technical jobs that are more difficult to outsource and/or jobs that require greater technical proficiency. Those high proficiency jobs are not really threatened by the reduction in 'starter' jobs, instead more mentoring for specific jobs types will happen and the overall technical competency within the job-space will increase. (At least in the two energy companies that I work for that seems to be the trend.) Mentoring can't really be done that well when the mentor and apprentice are in diametrically opposed timezones.
The illegal immigration problem is a little more clear-cut. Americans do have a _right_ to those jobs as long as they exist _within_ our borders, one of the benefits of citizenship. Artificially lowering wages and costs by illegal imports is no more ethical than not paying taxes on imported goods.
Slashdot Mirror
Neatness is a coping mechanism. Like most people who build some sort of highly structured psychological edifice to cope with a perceived threat, they can't empathize with someone who does not require the same level of response.
captcha: speedy
There are actually several studies that disagree with the conclusions in TFA. However, that wasn't the point of this post.
You have to great things working for you when you are a child or young adult:
1. More active satellite cells
2. More active glial cells.
The satellite cells will help you induce hyperplasia in the muscle tissue which does not happen nearly as easily as an adult, except in the presence of exogenous hormones. You are also carrying quite a lot more serum testosterone which will prime your body for hypertrophy.
The glial cells are still numerous and active into young adulthood. They are (theoretically) responsible for the learning/programming process of the neural network in your headspace. Program the skills and the neural drive early in your life and you'll get more out of weightlifting later in life as you'll be able to engage more of the muscle in a more coherent fashion.
anyhow, stick with it as you are. Try many brief high rep routines until you have a trained the movements into your body's vocabulary. Then add a little weight and speed up the lifting. Work one or two movements per day concentrating on bar speed. Finally, if you want to get very strong, devote two or three days to maximal weights (but do your own research beforehand).
Have fun!
captcha: amplify
I can definitely see your argument. However, the basis for the refutation of your argument is the philosophical question, "Is it ok to encourage the production of fetuses for recycling? What are the latent repercussions of doing so?"
For instance, one of the popular pro-choice arguments is that abortion is not commonly used as a method of birth control. Instead it is a last ditch effort at preserving quality of life. However, birth and conceptions rates don't support that argument. The conception rate has gone up 30% since RvW, however the birth rate has fallen 6%.(That's a chapter in Freakonomics) That would seem to indicate it's most popular use _is_ birth control.
If you've ever worked with extremely poor and uneducated people you'll find that abortion is often seen as a birth control method, and used frequently.
I know I'm completely off-topic but I wanted to see what you thought...
Interesting. As I remember it Muhammed required extra taxes from Christian and Jews (people of the book) when he was feeling merciful, and something less savory when he was not.
I am an atheist, but it seems odd that a religion whose own founder required the death of unbelievers on several occasions and also had sex with a child is compared to a overall harmless pacifist. It's like comparing Hitler to Gandhi. Seems perverse to me.
Muhammad was a warlord. A warlord who founded a religion of peace? What need would a warlord have for his people to be pacifistic to his own motivation and conversely hold nothing but mild tolerance or animus for all others?
As a curiosity, could someone with a deeper knowledge of theology, provide a list of pacifist sects of Islam compared to pacifist sects spawned by Chistianity? Buddhism beats both of the former hands down, more than likely...
"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" Sura 48:29. "Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." Sura 9:5
There may yet another angle to this as well. Especially in the music space where distribution agreements fly around a lot. Liability. If a particular party decides to use a particular distribution channel and that channel doesn't use DRM and the music doesn't sell well, the originating studio may be able to eke out a case for incompetence, breach of contract, or some other tripe.
With class action suits like the recent one that MS lost in Iowa... One has to wonder.
Note: I have a bitter hatred toward MS and their products, but I hate class-action suits and the lawyers that profit from them even more.
It's a tit for tat game in which no one can claim to have the higher authority. /*Disclaimer: I have worked in HongKong, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Paris, and Aberdeen*/
Americans are criticized for:
1. Being consumerist. Without the dynamic of consumerism the economies of many third world countries would collapse. Look at the threat posed to India by China's growing technological competence. Not to mention productivity. Per capita, the US still produces more than any one else.
2. Criminality. Sure, the 'war on drugs' have put a ton of pressure on our jails, but 30% of the people in the CA jail system are people who were criminals in another country who broke the law to come here, and then broke the law again while they were here. Our prisons would be a lot less empty if people from around the world weren't so eager to break the law to get here.
3. Wild West Swaggering Attitude. Honestly, this is a position of pride to me. I find it hilarious when my wife friend, who works for Amnesty Int'l, gets down on the US for our propensity to go it alone and do what we think is write. I hate consensus. By establishing consensus you're adopting the median of the intellects in the room. By following inspiration, you'll get colossal gaffs, but you'll also get colossal leaps of human progress. If the UN was driven and had more of a "git'r'done" attitude about political tragedies then Darfur and Palestine would be historical data, not current crises.
Incidentally, the UN didn't sign the cease-fire with Saddam. So they never had any say in whether or not we went into Iraq. The UN was appointed as a third party arbiter for inspections and negotiations, they were never designated as the enforcer of policy. Just as in legal arbitration, if you feel you have the need to rectify a situation that the arbitration cannot resolve, you can leave the arbitration and pursue more aggressive actions. In matters of state, one of those actions would be (duh-duh-duhnnnnn) war.
They are required to prove that the content is their protected works. Considering the content is digital, they should have a burden of proving 100% of the content is a usable part or whole work.
If they can't prove that the content is theirs, they have no business sending a C&D.
Similarly, if I claim a television in your home is actually mine, I have to be able to prove through serial number, receipt, etc., that the television is, in fact, mine.
It is a trivial exercise to determine whether the content is legit or not. md5sum? Proprietary compression algorithm? Tough shit, take what evidence you have and get a warrant.
The whole C&D thing is crap. It sets up copyright holders as vigilantes with next to zero accountability for abusing their power.
Just as a point of interest, the massive privatization of the military was an outgrowth of the outsourcing due to forced downsizing caused by the Clintonian military budget cuts.
It was the political and market forces of our perception of waste that caused corporate interests to be able to have such a large stake in warfare. In yesteryear, we bought beans, bullets, and bandaids from private corporations. During the 90's that began to escalate to logistics, non-combatant (Personnel Other than Grunt) jobs, such as secure communications. Now, your field contingent will be wearing cammies but your backend will be former military farmed out by Halliburton or some such to provide services that military 'used' to provide.
Was it for better or worse? Depends on how corrupt you think that politicians are. On both sides of the aisle politicians have been taking loads of cash and selling us up the river. Giving the corporate yahoos more access to the military via politician supported outsourcing seems a bit contrary to a strategy of a quickly resolved conflict.
But that's just one jarhead's view.
You operate under the illusion that producing a product obligates one to income.
Not so. Imagine your product is dirt. Dirt is readily available, no one is ready to pay for small amounts of innocuous dirt. However, if you provide convenient, small, enhanced packages of dirt you will have a market e.g., Miracle-Gro. Perhaps this isn't your preference, perhaps you would like to provide extremely large amounts of dirt to distributors who sell smaller increments of enhanced dirt. Like dump trucks of topsoil for subdivisions.
There are many business models for seemingly ubiquitous resources. The problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that they have a product that may become more common than dirt but they are unwilling to change their business model to compensate. Therefore they must sponsor insane laws to enforce broken models that have already failed and will fail again.
Hrmmm... Interestingly, your compatriots don't agree. That's why states with high taxes and economic blockages that increase the cost and decrease the quality of living are seeing a decrease in their tax-paying population. Witness the exodus from the NorthEast to the SouthEast or more relevant to me, the decline in tax-paying population in CA. Their population is growing but the number of tax paying citizens is decreasing... an excellent example of people voting regarding obnoxious policies and behavior. They moved.
You have that power over localities. States that have the most appeal to your particular political tastes will attract people with similar motivations and act as a disincentive to those that are not compatible.
I wonder what Maya plugins you're working with?
I used to work at DreamWorks SKG and that's linux only shop(on the animation side).
Thanks
I read the other replies to your post and I find it funny that 3 out of the 4 were people that have no idea why people might not like the Green agenda, but they sure do have an axe to grind with their preconceived notions of the Republican party.
As a Republican, let me present a few points:
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies. Examples include Paul Erhlich, Rachel Carlson, Al Gore (with much support by the scientific community.) and whoever that guy was who predicted the worst hurricane season in 50 yrs for 2006.
2.The argument is hardly, if ever, presented in a logical, coherent manner. Usually, it consists of a list of demands that (coincidentally?) line up with socialists and communists. See: the Kyoto protocol. It attempts to impose an aggressively progressive tax code on emissions, and consumption. If we don't like progressive taxes already, what makes you think that we'd like that sort of 'productivity punishment' applied to our country?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back. In Oklahoma, your chances of those panels paying for themselves are very probably slim. Gets worse as you go north. For the American SouthWest, they are probably a good investment.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds. (Maybe the birds will figure out that the windmill farm isn't such a great place to hang out.) Ted Kennedy opposed a windmill farm off of Martha's Vineyard as it would've obstructed their view.
So, if the environmentalists got together and started presenting tenable solutions to our problems, then they might get more reception. For me, I understand that there's global warming, might be anthropogenic, might not... (not's seem to be getting slimmer) but until someone proposes a real idea on how to deal... we'll just deal in the way we always have. Adapt.
Note: One of our saving graces could've been nuclear power, but the greenies shot that down too. Sucks that South Africa is using american developed technology in a pebble bed reactor. Look at the CA power crisis, while part of it was caused by collusion on the part of energy traders, it was enabled by CA's stance on building new plants. In fact, the newest power plant to provide CA with power was just built in NV. NIMBY-ism has killed several things that could make the world a more efficient place, but finding a backyard to put "it" in is rather difficult.
Ummmm, right... That's a good plan. Economically present yourself to the international community for castration.
IF they want to propose rules, then present a flat playing field where no-one derives an economic, political, or strategic advantage, or it's not a tenable solution.
One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lovelace
Having worked with and around many sex workers(strippers)... I was a bouncer/floorguy/doorman for a few of the largest strip clubs in Vegas, as well as one very low-end dive in LA. Most of them are at least slightly damaged.
What causes this damage? Who knows, but a lot of them have intimacy issues. Could it have something to do with being overly intimate for long periods of time with strangers? Low self-value? They'll act their shit doesn't stink until you establish a control channel, and then they debase themselves very quickly.
My wife is a former model and stripper. She's done the whole Playmate thing and been a super-highly paid stripper. She's a tough cookie and that past is behind her, but she did feel that the exchange of money for viewing her body, whether in print or in person devalued her self-image. The XXX porn people that I have known have all been severely damaged esp once you got to know them personally and it keeps in line with the level of sacrifice and involvement. Regarding the dominance issue, I think the bigger picture is at work here... The women get paid a great deal more because they are the value item. They also have greater pressure and greater demand to perform all sorts of acts. The high-end women have a great deal of control but the low-end are often single mom's trying to make a few extra bucks... I met the owner's of a fairly successful porn site run out of Vegas and Northridge and they were great fans of divorcee's...
The porn industry also is involved in human trafficking, which raises all sorts of ethical concerns.
Given all of the above, I still don't think that legislation banning the making of or distribution of porn is effective or should be acceptable at the federal level. However, I think individual states can ban pornography if they so choose. This would allow people to gravitate to systems that reflect their value systems... Leaving places like Vegas for those who only want the occasional foray into that realm. I think that legalization of prostitution on a wider scale would defuse the power of the porn industry and allow many of these women to have greater control over their lives. Perhaps even follow SanFran and form a nat'l sex workers union.
So, you're implying that someone's ability to write politically relevant and motivating articles should be limited?
Interesting? So you're saying that someone that was a loyalist during the American Revolution should not have been able to write in a paper because they stood to gain or had gained monies or property in the past from the Crown?
Odd.
Personally, I think those that fear 'paid-blogging' are not confident in their own ability to discern fact from fiction, or they're a sociopath who thinks that no one else has this peculiar capability.
Sure... acquiesce to the world's body politic and cease to become a sovereign nation. Sounds like a plan.
Perhaps, nations should keep their own house in order and worry less about what the US is up to and how they could politically extort more money out of the US.
Or the almighty UN might actually try doing something... like rectifying the Darfur situation, or addressing the fact that Hezbollah attacked Israel as a de facto representative of the Lebanese govt. Or perhaps just prosecuting, and investigating aggressively the previous Secretary General for violations of the oil for food program... Considering both his son and brother-in-law have had shady dealings therein.
None of this is likely, even as the smug people that complain about USA policy still come to the teat at supper time.
Do you live in the US? Both in California and currently Oklahoma I had to drive over 50mins to get to my place of work. In California that covered 20miles, in OK that covers 55miles. I love the train, used to take it from San Diego to LA all the time. However, that idea is not tenable in the current structure of LA. Using public transit can take over two hours to cover the same distance that you could cover in 25mins in a vehicle, 45 in traffic.
Someday, it might be viable and affordable... but that day is a long way off, further if the transit unions keep on striking over being the highest paid transit drivers in the area.
I have been to, and used the transit systems of New York, Washington D.C., and London. Cursory examination of the topography and current infrastructure would show you just how laughable your idea of outlawing cars is for places like LA. Low traffic flows and population illustrates how ridiculous that idea would be Oklahoma.
Instead, focus on real conservation efforts, and acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs. Buy a used honda if energy efficiency is your thing. That new Prius is nifty but I would be willing to bet a great deal of money that the emissions created by the 'new' car are greater than your maintenance and further operation of that old honda. As a matter of fact, I bet all the nifty plastics and exotic elements in the body and batteries of that car will create more pollution than operating my '86 bronco for another 20 years.
Care to use your expertise in the field to explain this?2 3085540.htm/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/0605
Not trying to be a troll, but on one hand, people are bitching about the inaccuracy of modeling and others are waving their hands saying that modeling has nothing to do with predictions.
I understand that there are different specifics for models, perhaps you can give a synopsis?
Ummm... Let me know when St. Louis get hit by it's first hurricane. That's gotta pass by me first (NE Okla.) and I sure don't want to be around when a hurricane makes it that far inland.
Around here, when a storm makes it that far inland it's referred to as a thunderstorm, or perhaps a supercell.
Interestingly, 'Halliburton' hasn't kept me from making as much money as I could find a way to make. Usually, it's the state or federal gov't that impacts my income flow.
I agree that corporations have too many rights and too much recognition by the current gov't but that's a function of political corruption on both side of the aisle.
For instance: Murtha and his "I won't take the cash now. Maybe after we have done business for awhile" or the fact that he funnelled public funds into companies that former campaign hands worked with.
We need a turnaround. How we accomplish that is the question.
I agree. Unreasonable is this question. Time will tell what the answer is. EMI's decision may be leading us in the right direction.
Interestingly, you happened upon a basic tenet that is espoused in the third amendment.
Agents of the government, or any institution with governmental power, should not have a presence in your home without cause.
Therefore, I argue that enforcing copyright law via equipment in the home is unconstitutional, unless the government provides for legal alternatives that do not have monitoring and control of our assets.
Yes, I know that the EULA allows for monitoring(Windows) or control(CSS), but I would argue that you should not be able to surrender your rights via usage. Precedent is not on my side, but it is an interesting philisophical argument, isn't it?
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, the most interesting conclusion could be that the US should tighten the leash on the education system and stop exporting knowledge to other countries by restricting visas? Thereby driving up the local knowledge pool whilst simultaneously stopping the brain drain?
I seem to remember that at one time Chinese steel, plastics, and electronics were all inferior to American made.
That gap is not necessarily there any more depending on the vendor.
Could developers have something to fear in the future?
Believe it or not, part of the gov's job is to protect the welfare of the people and the economy. This includes economic threats(Barbary Pirates?). If the gov't is not a good enough at protecting it's people from a perceived economic threat, the people have a right to bitch.
The true question to answer is: Is this a net loss or gain for the US economy and the US citizen? Personally, I think that the 'developer' and 'support' jobs are a net gain freeing up Americans to pursue technical jobs that are more difficult to outsource and/or jobs that require greater technical proficiency. Those high proficiency jobs are not really threatened by the reduction in 'starter' jobs, instead more mentoring for specific jobs types will happen and the overall technical competency within the job-space will increase. (At least in the two energy companies that I work for that seems to be the trend.) Mentoring can't really be done that well when the mentor and apprentice are in diametrically opposed timezones.
The illegal immigration problem is a little more clear-cut. Americans do have a _right_ to those jobs as long as they exist _within_ our borders, one of the benefits of citizenship. Artificially lowering wages and costs by illegal imports is no more ethical than not paying taxes on imported goods.