Yes, keeping your population impoverished really helps your pollution figures...
My bet is, if there was a way to get the impoverished people work, they would. I'm not convinced there is any 'plan' or evil plot to keep the people impoverished.
Environmental over-regulation in the US drives up prices for manufacturers and other businesses. This leads them to move to China and other developing countries with very lax environmental standards. Pollution is increased a lot.
It's wages, not lax environmental standards, that have the greatest effect on manufacturing costs which drives manufacturing (not to mention service) industries to countries like China and India (and many more low wage countries). I do shudder when someone expresses the opinion that the US (or any country) needs fewer environmental standards. I can only assume they don't care if their descendants die off quicker in the name of short term profit now. When I was a kid in the 1950's I could safely eat snow in the winter. I wouldn't do that today and it has only been a bit over 50 years. I wonder what it will be like 50 years from now. Cancer from cigarettes won't be an issue any more. Going outside and breathing the air will do more harm.
...that was (you guessed it) stolen by wannabe americans...
The word is "genocide" which was masked by the term "Manifest Destiny" which was a religious based belief which many in the US continue to justify to this day.
I know, I work in the petroleum industry and I have a pretty damn good idea what U.S. environmental requirements cost our industrial base.
Producers aren't the significant polluters. Users are. Apples and oranges. Personally it's a joke to me. I'm almost 60 years old and have known since the 1960's what was happening with pollution. None of this is new. As pollution grows (not only air pollution, but soil and water), the earth will eventually kill off humans and most other creatures and will start over again. Luckily it won't be in my life time. The bottom line is between over population and aspects such as pollution, the human race as we know it will become extinct in the not so distant future. Those who fight controlling pollution with justifications such as "It costs too much $" are just moving up the time line to extinction a bit.
So they were keeping buckets of urine on hand because they liked the smell?
Another troll who hasn't even read the/. thread which debunks the urine in a bucket 'biggie'. Urine - How utterly dangerous! Urine should be classified as an WMD (or maybe it already is...).
This issue is not just a matter of "cops oppressing people because the man told them to do so".
The FBI had a full case going on, including informers and other kinds of information sources. They had info on what the group was planning to DO, but not much info about HOW they were going to do it. They asked for a warrant so they could search the place and get important (and official) information about who is participating, how, when, and where. And also, if lucky, arrest everyone for having bombs, smoke canisters, molotov cocktails and other kinds of "riot-starting tools". Unfortunately (I think that because I'm not sympathetic with fools who invest their times at those activities) the FBI only managed to get a room full of people and no illegal tools at all.
But it's still a victory.
Finding nothing is still a victory? A 'victory' for / of what? The WMD gambit.... You cite all sorts of things which were not found. Oh, I forgot. Urine in 1 bucket. Dangerous stuff, that...
If you'd read the article, or the/. discussion, you'd know there was one bucket of urine in an apartment which had no toilet. Being from Australia, I guess you can't read...;)
You 'heard on the news' a few snippits and believe them. So much for your understanding of the actual events. You'd do better to read the thread here on/. It debunks your 'news' information.
Yes. In a way Apple sells a 'way of life'. Just like Harley Davidson. I remember a PBS segment where they interviewed a number of Harley owners (this was about 10 years ago). Most said they bought a Harley for the sound and because it's "... a Harley!" And most said they carried a tool set around and didn't mind things like leaking oil and such "... because it's a Harley!" Luckily, Macs don't leak oil;)
Someone else wrote here on slashdot a very insightful comment concerning ads. A good ad does not need to be clicked. Compare an internet ad to say, a magazine, TV or (sadly) cinema ad. Those kinds of ads are engineered not to make you take an action at the moment you watch the ad, but just to remember the brand and certain specific snippets of information.
Excellent point. I sell some direct advertising spaces on my web site. I make it clear from the beginning - Nothing that flashes or distracts with movement, animated gifs have to be >0.01 transition and 8 seconds at 'stop' frames with a maximum of 5 loops. I point out I do not track click throughs, that all advertising is 'Presence' advertising. If you want people to see your ad and remember you later, OK, but if you're measurable is click through or completed sales after a click through, I'm not interested in selling the space to you because you'll be disappointed.
I know it is not scientific, but most people I talk to have cable, and a DVR that gets used for two primary reasons:
1. To time shift their viewing of shows.
2. To skip the advertisements - 99% of which are irrelevant to them.
Apples and oranges. On TV the commercial interrupts the program. On web sites the advertising is integrated.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are so put off by advertising. If a person doesn't like a site because of ads, don't visit it. There are web sites I don't visit because of the ads. I have one in particular in mind. It has very good information, but the flashing, blinking, and movement reminds me of a 1960's acid light show. It must play heII on people who are light sensitive or light-triggered epileptics.
If someone uses an ad blocker its because they want information from that web site without the ads. Ok. Will those of you who use ad blockers pay for the information? I'm betting not. I tried a 'contribution' alternative on my site a couple years back. Less than 6 people a month (many months no one 'contributed' 6 would be a good month) would 'contribute' even though I was getting over 10,000 unique visitors and serving over 100k pages a day.
I have had a web site online since 1996. In 2003 I almost shut it down because I was against advertising. The site just cost me too much money and time. As I was ready to turn it off, someone finally convinced me to try Google's then young AdSense. I did and it has since been worth it to keep the site online. I get a lot of 'Thank You' emails from people who appreciate the site. It's a technical niche site.
I mention this because if all advertising on the internet was to go away tomorrow the internet would become a pretty small place./. would be gone. Almost every site I can think of that I visit would be gone. Actually I can't even think of a site I visit frequently that doesn't have ads.
If there was a way I could detect people using ad blockers on my web site I would block them or direct them to a page where they would have to pay to access the site in an ad free layout. If every web site did this, the people complaining about advertisements would find their information lifeline cut. I can just hear the screaming now. "Where did all the content go?"/. is a good example. What if/. started charging for access? How many people would be here? I like/. but I wouldn't be here if I had to pay.
In America? There is pretty much no excuse for being homeless. You CAN get help if you want it. You CAN find a job.
In many places, having one of the jobs about which you speak will maybe pay enough for a person to live out of their car at best. It's obvious you have no idea how bad things can get for some people. It simply is not true that 'anyone' can get a job, either.
Iran is case-in-point: The goal of the leadership in Iran has nothing to do with diplomacy; they want their nuclear toys, period, and will risk war to get them. The thought of a peaceful Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran stretches just that little bit past the bounds of reality.
Ah! Republican talking points. Also unfounded in reality. You're watching too much Fox (faux) news.
Slashdot Mirror
Since a GPS is only a receiver, the connection is tenuous at best.
Antitrust laws you god damn moron.
In which case Microsoft and many other companies would have to be broken up. All antitrust laws are totally arbitrary.
"And it's All the US's Fault!"
No, but its part of the problem...
Yes, keeping your population impoverished really helps your pollution figures...
My bet is, if there was a way to get the impoverished people work, they would. I'm not convinced there is any 'plan' or evil plot to keep the people impoverished.
And like I said in another post, we've cleaned up our act.
If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.... ;)
Environmental over-regulation in the US drives up prices for manufacturers and other businesses. This leads them to move to China and other developing countries with very lax environmental standards. Pollution is increased a lot.
It's wages, not lax environmental standards, that have the greatest effect on manufacturing costs which drives manufacturing (not to mention service) industries to countries like China and India (and many more low wage countries). I do shudder when someone expresses the opinion that the US (or any country) needs fewer environmental standards. I can only assume they don't care if their descendants die off quicker in the name of short term profit now. When I was a kid in the 1950's I could safely eat snow in the winter. I wouldn't do that today and it has only been a bit over 50 years. I wonder what it will be like 50 years from now. Cancer from cigarettes won't be an issue any more. Going outside and breathing the air will do more harm.
...that was (you guessed it) stolen by wannabe americans...
The word is "genocide" which was masked by the term "Manifest Destiny" which was a religious based belief which many in the US continue to justify to this day.
I know, I work in the petroleum industry and I have a pretty damn good idea what U.S. environmental requirements cost our industrial base.
Producers aren't the significant polluters. Users are. Apples and oranges. Personally it's a joke to me. I'm almost 60 years old and have known since the 1960's what was happening with pollution. None of this is new. As pollution grows (not only air pollution, but soil and water), the earth will eventually kill off humans and most other creatures and will start over again. Luckily it won't be in my life time. The bottom line is between over population and aspects such as pollution, the human race as we know it will become extinct in the not so distant future. Those who fight controlling pollution with justifications such as "It costs too much $" are just moving up the time line to extinction a bit.
"They look guilty, ergo..." Spoken like a good Stalinist era informer! Yeah! You have my number! NOW I'm REALLY afraid!
Spoken like a good Stalinist era informer! "You didn't do anything but in case you do we've got our eye on you and your urine..."
Where do you live now?
perhaps i should be proactive and kill/attack anyone who comes near me or my property, just to be safe of course
I live in the US where Bush has legitimized this type of behavior.
Why dont YOU read the article posted on slashdot:
There was an informant inside this organization that told authorities what was planned.
I've just informed on you and told the police what you plan to do. You might want to watch your door for a while.
The police have a higher standard to hold to because they're the professionals.
I disagree. They're the equivalent of the old German SS at best these days.
So they were keeping buckets of urine on hand because they liked the smell?
Another troll who hasn't even read the /. thread which debunks the urine in a bucket 'biggie'. Urine - How utterly dangerous! Urine should be classified as an WMD (or maybe it already is...).
This issue is not just a matter of "cops oppressing people because the man told them to do so". The FBI had a full case going on, including informers and other kinds of information sources. They had info on what the group was planning to DO, but not much info about HOW they were going to do it. They asked for a warrant so they could search the place and get important (and official) information about who is participating, how, when, and where. And also, if lucky, arrest everyone for having bombs, smoke canisters, molotov cocktails and other kinds of "riot-starting tools". Unfortunately (I think that because I'm not sympathetic with fools who invest their times at those activities) the FBI only managed to get a room full of people and no illegal tools at all. But it's still a victory.
Finding nothing is still a victory? A 'victory' for / of what? The WMD gambit.... You cite all sorts of things which were not found. Oh, I forgot. Urine in 1 bucket. Dangerous stuff, that...
If you'd read the article, or the /. discussion, you'd know there was one bucket of urine in an apartment which had no toilet. Being from Australia, I guess you can't read... ;)
You 'heard on the news' a few snippits and believe them. So much for your understanding of the actual events. You'd do better to read the thread here on /. It debunks your 'news' information.
Yes. In a way Apple sells a 'way of life'. Just like Harley Davidson. I remember a PBS segment where they interviewed a number of Harley owners (this was about 10 years ago). Most said they bought a Harley for the sound and because it's "... a Harley!" And most said they carried a tool set around and didn't mind things like leaking oil and such "... because it's a Harley!" Luckily, Macs don't leak oil ;)
Someone else wrote here on slashdot a very insightful comment concerning ads. A good ad does not need to be clicked. Compare an internet ad to say, a magazine, TV or (sadly) cinema ad. Those kinds of ads are engineered not to make you take an action at the moment you watch the ad, but just to remember the brand and certain specific snippets of information.
Excellent point. I sell some direct advertising spaces on my web site. I make it clear from the beginning - Nothing that flashes or distracts with movement, animated gifs have to be >0.01 transition and 8 seconds at 'stop' frames with a maximum of 5 loops. I point out I do not track click throughs, that all advertising is 'Presence' advertising. If you want people to see your ad and remember you later, OK, but if you're measurable is click through or completed sales after a click through, I'm not interested in selling the space to you because you'll be disappointed.
I know it is not scientific, but most people I talk to have cable, and a DVR that gets used for two primary reasons:
1. To time shift their viewing of shows.
2. To skip the advertisements - 99% of which are irrelevant to them.
Apples and oranges. On TV the commercial interrupts the program. On web sites the advertising is integrated.
/. would be gone. Almost every site I can think of that I visit would be gone. Actually I can't even think of a site I visit frequently that doesn't have ads.
/. is a good example. What if /. started charging for access? How many people would be here? I like /. but I wouldn't be here if I had to pay.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are so put off by advertising. If a person doesn't like a site because of ads, don't visit it. There are web sites I don't visit because of the ads. I have one in particular in mind. It has very good information, but the flashing, blinking, and movement reminds me of a 1960's acid light show. It must play heII on people who are light sensitive or light-triggered epileptics.
If someone uses an ad blocker its because they want information from that web site without the ads. Ok. Will those of you who use ad blockers pay for the information? I'm betting not. I tried a 'contribution' alternative on my site a couple years back. Less than 6 people a month (many months no one 'contributed' 6 would be a good month) would 'contribute' even though I was getting over 10,000 unique visitors and serving over 100k pages a day.
I have had a web site online since 1996. In 2003 I almost shut it down because I was against advertising. The site just cost me too much money and time. As I was ready to turn it off, someone finally convinced me to try Google's then young AdSense. I did and it has since been worth it to keep the site online. I get a lot of 'Thank You' emails from people who appreciate the site. It's a technical niche site.
I mention this because if all advertising on the internet was to go away tomorrow the internet would become a pretty small place.
If there was a way I could detect people using ad blockers on my web site I would block them or direct them to a page where they would have to pay to access the site in an ad free layout. If every web site did this, the people complaining about advertisements would find their information lifeline cut. I can just hear the screaming now. "Where did all the content go?"
you didnt do it with the last president
Current president, actually, however you are correct. Bush has made a fool of himself with his ignorance, and a mess of the world.
however, this is a democracy
If you're referring to the US you're wrong.
In America? There is pretty much no excuse for being homeless. You CAN get help if you want it. You CAN find a job.
In many places, having one of the jobs about which you speak will maybe pay enough for a person to live out of their car at best. It's obvious you have no idea how bad things can get for some people. It simply is not true that 'anyone' can get a job, either.
Iran is case-in-point: The goal of the leadership in Iran has nothing to do with diplomacy; they want their nuclear toys, period, and will risk war to get them. The thought of a peaceful Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran stretches just that little bit past the bounds of reality.
Ah! Republican talking points. Also unfounded in reality. You're watching too much Fox (faux) news.