And what will they sell when the oil is gone? I'm not a fan of them using patents to shut down innovation, but don't doubt for a minute that they are serious about developing alternative fuels... so they can sell them, obviously. The oil companies know oil is running out.
They pay more because somebody has to pay to keep society stable, and they're the ones with the most to lose.
Don't even get started with some kind of argument about them earning their wealth. Of course some of them do, but if you believe that capitalism perfectly rewards people based on their contribution to society, you are naive. Taxes are an imperfect way to correct that imperfection.
Clever, but I disagree about the applicability of your metaphor. Yes, he had a bunch of stuff about about state secrets and then dismissed two important points:
1) what do we do about all the people at "Gitmo" if we shut it down? What proof do you have that waterboarding and other questionable activities are being continued there?
2) aren't we winding down combat operations in Iraq? Do you read the news? Also, starting a war is a lot different than continuing one. What do you suggest we do in Afghanistan if not try to prevent the Taliban from taking over again?
Starting a fraudulent war isn't the same as continuing a reasonable one. If you forgot, it was Osama Bin Laden that attacked the US, and his allies are the ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.
I'd hate to see what you think would qualify as worse!
I'd hate to see what you think qualifies as worse than before. Really.
Bush started two wars, one of which was for fraudulent reasons (Iraq), and the other was neglected so long that it is now "unwinnable." Bush and Clinton are as responsible as anyone for setting the stage for the current economic crisis that Obama is trying desperately to resolve. Bush CREATED Gitmo.
There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone, but yes, I think Bush has been responsible for far more death and catastrophe than Obama.
Obama was handed a sack of shit by the previous administration, and whatever happens the next 2-6 years, I doubt he'll add to it as much as Bush, Cheney, and Co. did during their tenure in office.
Oh and you're wrong about the women couldn't own property bit.
I said married women.
And in the more-progressive northern states not only did women own property, they were allowed to vote in elections.
As far as I know, Wyoming was the first state to grant women the right to vote, and that was in 1869. I think that in the 1820s, many states still only allowed property owners to vote.
An american individual in the 1820s had a LOT more freedom than we have today, if only because there was no income tax to take-away your earnings.
I don't view income taxes as a huge impediment to my freedom. Despite what you claim, in the 1820s, freedom of speech and other rights were regularly denied to huge parts of the population. Your claim is ridiculous.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of the things you claim restrict freedom (like taxes or government mandates) are actually required to protect the rights of others, or to provide them the same opportunities? Think about it.
You mean like the USA circa 1820s. We seemed to do okay. The government was limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution, and men were free to pursue happiness in whatever way they desired. There was the problem of slavery and sexism, but we were still making progress.
"Buy healthcare or be fined ~$1000."
It took about 200 years but the leaders have successfully restored the monarchy/nobility. True it's an elected monarchy/nobility, but still the same old Medieval-style power structure.
Married women couldn't own property. Slavery was legal. Health care was practically nonexistent.
Your idea of tyranny is different than mine!
Is it too much to ask that the editors at Slashdot at least GLANCE at the linked articles?
If Congresscritters can't be expected to read bills before they vote on them why would you expect editors at Slashdot to view articles before they make the front page?
The difference is that Congresscritters have lackeys and lobbyists to tell them what to think. Slashdot editors ARE the lackeys.
You do have to wonder if the widening gap between rural and city male voting behavior might actually be attributable to exposure to these sorts of chemicals, in all seriousness.
If this was the case, you'd think that the 'feminization' of men would show up in other ways too. Take a look at the differences in the rates of violent crime in rural areas and the inner city. For the most part, relatively relatively unpolluted, rural areas are far safer.
There are plenty of vastly more important social factors going on, in my opinion.
It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.
What, exactly, do you think would happen if the government seriously deregulated and we had "real Libertarianism?" Do you think the wealthy would suddenly have LESS power? Pretty damn unlikely. The knowledge and power imbalance between major corporations and the average consumer is too great, and they have very little incentive to play nice.
The answer is to take back government and make it work, not throw up our hands and give up.
A great majority of Americans have thrown science and logic out the window, and choose instead to vote with their passions and emotions.
Can you cite a time when the majority of Americans used science and logic to decide how to vote? I think you're overestimating the decision-making powers of generations past.
We pay more, and this creates big companies that develop drugs that get sold for less to the rest of the world - at least it sure feels like it.
Pharmaceuticals only account for about 8% of US health scare spending, and the government already funds a substantial amount of drug development. In fact, the government and nonprofit foundations already fund a huge amount of medical research.
If we can't fix medicare/medicaid we don't have a chance of building a sustainable, effective general health plan.
We don't have a sustainable private system right now either. Insurance companies are doing everything they can to reduce coverage while increasing premiums. How is this better than a public option?
One thing Medicare does quite effectively is drive down the costs of care. Ask any doctor. We need a public plan to control costs.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color, hair color, and complexion
Frankly, in this country, those are inconsequential choice.
The day they start to screen for intelligence, or even athletic ability, it becomes a threat to the ideals that (I believe) this country was founded on. The world has enough inequality without the creation of a master race.
Luckily, I think intelligence is a little trickier to identify than the traits they've cited.
With helpful reports like this one available, it's no wonder that our Congress is the most responsive and insightful bunch of legislators in the world.
Tell me if you spot one of these "free societies."
America hasn't been one for about 150 years, and the decay has been getting worse for the last 60 or so.
Wrong idea, right time. The Civil War (and the resulting amendments):
removed states right to secede (it was supposed to be legal, iirc), and other states rights as well.
extended applicability of federal law to states and state actions.
My point was that the United States was obviously not a free society prior to the civil war, at least by most reasonable definitions of the term. Similarly, claiming the US has become simply "less free" in the past 60 years is laughable. Women and minorities have seen huge strides in the path toward establishing their personal freedoms. To just pick one arbitrary example, it wasn't until 1966 that beating became grounds for divorce in New York - and women still had to prove that a "sufficient" number of beatings had taken place.
I strongly believe in a free society, but let's not pretend that the United States used to be some kind of paradise and only the federal government is to blame for our problems - that's pure ideology.
Last time I checked, the hormonal balance in men and women were quite a bit different
Ah - so that was what you were doing with those needles!
But seriously, do you have ANY evidence that hormones lead to certain occupational choices? The most I've ever seen is that entrepreneurial men have slightly higher levels of testosterone on average, but no one has ever shown which one is the cause and which the effect.
For some reason its hard to accept that a lot of women simply aren't interested in studying CS, engineering, or hard science.
Now for fifty comments about how "men and women are different" without any recognition that historically, "male" and "female" professions can and do change.
Medicine, for example, used to be almost entirely dominated by men. Now many medical schools have 50 percent or more women in their entering classes.
The real issue, I believe, is that most people need to feel comfortable in their chosen career, and for many women the culture of computer science doesn't seem to have a place for them.
Slashdot Mirror
And what will they sell when the oil is gone? I'm not a fan of them using patents to shut down innovation, but don't doubt for a minute that they are serious about developing alternative fuels... so they can sell them, obviously. The oil companies know oil is running out.
I like the government model better, since there isn't really much competition and there probably won't be, given the cost of infrastructure.
They pay more because somebody has to pay to keep society stable, and they're the ones with the most to lose. Don't even get started with some kind of argument about them earning their wealth. Of course some of them do, but if you believe that capitalism perfectly rewards people based on their contribution to society, you are naive. Taxes are an imperfect way to correct that imperfection.
Clever, but I disagree about the applicability of your metaphor. Yes, he had a bunch of stuff about about state secrets and then dismissed two important points:
1) what do we do about all the people at "Gitmo" if we shut it down? What proof do you have that waterboarding and other questionable activities are being continued there?
2) aren't we winding down combat operations in Iraq? Do you read the news? Also, starting a war is a lot different than continuing one. What do you suggest we do in Afghanistan if not try to prevent the Taliban from taking over again?
Starting a fraudulent war isn't the same as continuing a reasonable one. If you forgot, it was Osama Bin Laden that attacked the US, and his allies are the ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.
Obama asked for the sack of shit. I believe he campaigned on his ability to handle sacks of shit better than the other guy.
Prove that he can't?
I don't get how you think. If I hand you a sack of shit, can I blame you for stinking?
I'd hate to see what you think would qualify as worse!
I'd hate to see what you think qualifies as worse than before. Really.
Bush started two wars, one of which was for fraudulent reasons (Iraq), and the other was neglected so long that it is now "unwinnable." Bush and Clinton are as responsible as anyone for setting the stage for the current economic crisis that Obama is trying desperately to resolve. Bush CREATED Gitmo.
There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone, but yes, I think Bush has been responsible for far more death and catastrophe than Obama.
Obama was handed a sack of shit by the previous administration, and whatever happens the next 2-6 years, I doubt he'll add to it as much as Bush, Cheney, and Co. did during their tenure in office.
I sincerely hope that we can both minimize civilian (and "civilian") losses, and still win; I am unconvinced that we can.
If we don't minimize civilian losses, we lose.
Why repeat what I've already said?
Because it was preposterous.
Oh and you're wrong about the women couldn't own property bit.
I said married women.
And in the more-progressive northern states not only did women own property, they were allowed to vote in elections.
As far as I know, Wyoming was the first state to grant women the right to vote, and that was in 1869. I think that in the 1820s, many states still only allowed property owners to vote.
An american individual in the 1820s had a LOT more freedom than we have today, if only because there was no income tax to take-away your earnings.
I don't view income taxes as a huge impediment to my freedom. Despite what you claim, in the 1820s, freedom of speech and other rights were regularly denied to huge parts of the population. Your claim is ridiculous.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of the things you claim restrict freedom (like taxes or government mandates) are actually required to protect the rights of others, or to provide them the same opportunities? Think about it.
You mean like the USA circa 1820s. We seemed to do okay. The government was limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution, and men were free to pursue happiness in whatever way they desired. There was the problem of slavery and sexism, but we were still making progress.
"Buy healthcare or be fined ~$1000."
It took about 200 years but the leaders have successfully restored the monarchy/nobility. True it's an elected monarchy/nobility, but still the same old Medieval-style power structure.
Married women couldn't own property. Slavery was legal. Health care was practically nonexistent. Your idea of tyranny is different than mine!
Is it too much to ask that the editors at Slashdot at least GLANCE at the linked articles?
If Congresscritters can't be expected to read bills before they vote on them why would you expect editors at Slashdot to view articles before they make the front page?
The difference is that Congresscritters have lackeys and lobbyists to tell them what to think. Slashdot editors ARE the lackeys.
You do have to wonder if the widening gap between rural and city male voting behavior might actually be attributable to exposure to these sorts of chemicals, in all seriousness.
If this was the case, you'd think that the 'feminization' of men would show up in other ways too. Take a look at the differences in the rates of violent crime in rural areas and the inner city. For the most part, relatively relatively unpolluted, rural areas are far safer.
There are plenty of vastly more important social factors going on, in my opinion.
It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.
What, exactly, do you think would happen if the government seriously deregulated and we had "real Libertarianism?" Do you think the wealthy would suddenly have LESS power? Pretty damn unlikely. The knowledge and power imbalance between major corporations and the average consumer is too great, and they have very little incentive to play nice. The answer is to take back government and make it work, not throw up our hands and give up.
If you think that claiming accessibility without delivering it is fraud, and that the whole project cost was ridiculously inflated.... report them! http://www.recovery.gov/Contact/ReportFraud/Pages/ComplaintForm.aspx That's what the form is there for!
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is critical.
And you just keep trying them on until you find a style that fits, right?
A great majority of Americans have thrown science and logic out the window, and choose instead to vote with their passions and emotions.
Can you cite a time when the majority of Americans used science and logic to decide how to vote? I think you're overestimating the decision-making powers of generations past.
We pay more, and this creates big companies that develop drugs that get sold for less to the rest of the world - at least it sure feels like it.
Pharmaceuticals only account for about 8% of US health scare spending, and the government already funds a substantial amount of drug development. In fact, the government and nonprofit foundations already fund a huge amount of medical research.
If we can't fix medicare/medicaid we don't have a chance of building a sustainable, effective general health plan.
We don't have a sustainable private system right now either. Insurance companies are doing everything they can to reduce coverage while increasing premiums. How is this better than a public option? One thing Medicare does quite effectively is drive down the costs of care. Ask any doctor. We need a public plan to control costs.
I think you are going for this: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1196557&cid=27553043 THEIR YOU GO. YOUR WELCOME.
not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color, hair color, and complexion
Frankly, in this country, those are inconsequential choice.
The day they start to screen for intelligence, or even athletic ability, it becomes a threat to the ideals that (I believe) this country was founded on. The world has enough inequality without the creation of a master race.
Luckily, I think intelligence is a little trickier to identify than the traits they've cited.
With helpful reports like this one available, it's no wonder that our Congress is the most responsive and insightful bunch of legislators in the world.
Tell me if you spot one of these "free societies." America hasn't been one for about 150 years, and the decay has been getting worse for the last 60 or so.
Wrong idea, right time. The Civil War (and the resulting amendments):
My point was that the United States was obviously not a free society prior to the civil war, at least by most reasonable definitions of the term. Similarly, claiming the US has become simply "less free" in the past 60 years is laughable. Women and minorities have seen huge strides in the path toward establishing their personal freedoms. To just pick one arbitrary example, it wasn't until 1966 that beating became grounds for divorce in New York - and women still had to prove that a "sufficient" number of beatings had taken place.
I strongly believe in a free society, but let's not pretend that the United States used to be some kind of paradise and only the federal government is to blame for our problems - that's pure ideology.
Tell me if you spot one of these "free societies."
America hasn't been one for about 150 years, and the decay has been getting worse for the last 60 or so.
Since we abolished slavery? Wha-huh?
Last time I checked, the hormonal balance in men and women were quite a bit different
Ah - so that was what you were doing with those needles!
But seriously, do you have ANY evidence that hormones lead to certain occupational choices? The most I've ever seen is that entrepreneurial men have slightly higher levels of testosterone on average, but no one has ever shown which one is the cause and which the effect.
For some reason its hard to accept that a lot of women simply aren't interested in studying CS, engineering, or hard science.
Now for fifty comments about how "men and women are different" without any recognition that historically, "male" and "female" professions can and do change.
Medicine, for example, used to be almost entirely dominated by men. Now many medical schools have 50 percent or more women in their entering classes.
The real issue, I believe, is that most people need to feel comfortable in their chosen career, and for many women the culture of computer science doesn't seem to have a place for them.
I tried typing reboot NO CARRIER