Maybe where you live. In plenty parts of the world the local regulators have created decent taxi services: cheap, efficient, clean, and timely. Don't confuse your local fuck-ups for everyone else.
Did you honestly just proclaim that all bus services in Europe are cumbersome and slow? Every single one? Really? I've used some ridiculously awesome bus services (particularly in London), which were fast, convenient, cheap, and did precisely what I needed. I guess my anecdote cancels out your massive generalisation.
You're not proposing anything new, just a continuation of the current system, which has ensured the US's internet infrastructure remains an absolute joke. Why do you hate yourself so much? Bizarre.
Just because wherever you live can't figure out how to get stuff done doesn't mean that all parts of the world are as equally inept. The places which have municipal broadband seem to be doing better than places with a single choice (thanks to your wonderful "capitalism will solve everything!" mantra). You are arguing out of your ass, and I'm slightly worried you don't even realise it. Tragic stuff.
Then explain why in other countries the government seems more than capable of infrastructure projects? You pointing to Venezuela is a bizarre example, especially considering rampant capitalism caused the very reaction you are condemning. You seem rather confused, like an abused spouse arguing that their abuser does really love them. In this one instance you prefer capitalism's problems (shitty internet, high price) over the alternatives (good internet, low price).
Because those systems are better planned than the examples he gave, and are not entirely pertinent to his claims? You might want to read his post again:)
You personally might not, but I'm sure some of the people you interact with and rely on have use for it. Good public transport helps the entire country.
Says the bigoted fool who thinks women shouldn't be scientists. Your opinion is worth soooo much on this topic, as it's clearly soooooo highly informed.
Then I take it you are in favour of stopping infertile people getting married, and are forgetting that plenty of same-sex couples have kids. Clear those two up and you might have an argument!
A republic is a country without a dynastic leader. That is it. It has nothing to do with being a democracy or a dictatorship. I think you are confusing "republic" with "representative democracy".
You are the one who is confused. It's not "poverty", but being outside of the economy and not being allowed in. It's like mega-poverty, as you simply don't exist, have no voice, yet still have the lovely gift of being shat on by those with power.
You being unemployed is not exactly comparable. If you are going to try to understand this, starting from your own experience is not the best way, as you are not directly comparable. Plenty terrorists have had good jobs, but the vast majority have not, or have no chance of finding one again. Pointing out the relatively-rare as evidence that the majority doesn't exist isn't particularly helpful.
To be fair you've already demonstrated you are quite capable of ignoring rational thought and logic should they lead you from the outcome you desire, such as your rampant religiosity. Once that has been demonstrated, you should expect people to poke holes in your arguments, as we don't know if you are still wearing your "irrational believer" hat or not. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Terrorism is more accurately defined as the use of violence or the threat thereof against a people in order to politically coerce them. It has nothing to do with religion, as you quite rightly pointed out.
The only way you can think that is if you get your scientific information from the introductions to newspaper articles. Seriously. Even the most egregious "No ice in 2014/2015" articles mention that these are possible outcomes (by using the words "could" and "might", which you have entirely failed to mention). The IPCC says that the sea ice should remain until ~2030.
You are showing off your ignorance as if it's something to be proud of. You've taken the gifts of knowledge and learning - given to you by the countless generations which preceded you - and wiped your ass with them. Congratulations. You're a great person.
You don't seem to understand what "ad hominem" means, even though you linked to a good description of it. You are not very good at teaching yourself, it seems. That would go a long way to explaining why you can be so incredibly wrong about so many things, yet seem to think you are right, even when the evidence is dangled in front of your face.
You are asking for a model, though. The models are used to make predictions - you can't have one without the other. As it is, many of the models have been very accurate, and this hasn't exactly been kept secret. The fact this information is so easy to find, and yet you haven't bothered looking for it, makes your position absolutely indistinguishable from someone who is engaging in an honest attempt to learn. If you are honestly attempting to learn, you are going about it the entirely wrong way. Instead of arguing on Slashdot, spend a few seconds on Google to learn something. I beg you.
Are you that fucking retarded? Seriously? You are citing the Telegraph, and citing it wrong in the process. The article even states "... the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s...". You are hanging on the words of one researcher, and not even bothering to look at the actual research involved, or what the scientists are saying on the matter.
You don't want to be proven wrong, or you are simply terrible at logic. Pick one.
You lazy fucker. Seriously. You are just playing little childish games because you seem to be so set on being right the very thought of you being wrong has made you start to act like a petulant child. Seriously. You are an embarrassment.
Plenty of plans have been discussed. You not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist:) And you missed the word "some" in front of "environmentalists", if you weren't attempting to make a massive, factually-incorrect generalisation, that is.
The previous floppy-drive-musical-machines were pre-programmed to play a specific single piece of music. This one can be played in real-time by a pianist - it's an actual instrument, whereas the ones you are thinking of were just players.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe where you live. In plenty parts of the world the local regulators have created decent taxi services: cheap, efficient, clean, and timely. Don't confuse your local fuck-ups for everyone else.
There are good reasons to limit the number of taxis on streets. If this needs to be explained to you, you might want to read up on this topic :)
Did you honestly just proclaim that all bus services in Europe are cumbersome and slow? Every single one? Really? I've used some ridiculously awesome bus services (particularly in London), which were fast, convenient, cheap, and did precisely what I needed. I guess my anecdote cancels out your massive generalisation.
You're not proposing anything new, just a continuation of the current system, which has ensured the US's internet infrastructure remains an absolute joke. Why do you hate yourself so much? Bizarre.
Just because wherever you live can't figure out how to get stuff done doesn't mean that all parts of the world are as equally inept. The places which have municipal broadband seem to be doing better than places with a single choice (thanks to your wonderful "capitalism will solve everything!" mantra). You are arguing out of your ass, and I'm slightly worried you don't even realise it. Tragic stuff.
Then explain why in other countries the government seems more than capable of infrastructure projects? You pointing to Venezuela is a bizarre example, especially considering rampant capitalism caused the very reaction you are condemning. You seem rather confused, like an abused spouse arguing that their abuser does really love them. In this one instance you prefer capitalism's problems (shitty internet, high price) over the alternatives (good internet, low price).
Wow! A whole 100 years. Incredible. That's sooo long!
Because those systems are better planned than the examples he gave, and are not entirely pertinent to his claims? You might want to read his post again :)
You personally might not, but I'm sure some of the people you interact with and rely on have use for it. Good public transport helps the entire country.
Says the bigoted fool who thinks women shouldn't be scientists. Your opinion is worth soooo much on this topic, as it's clearly soooooo highly informed.
Then I take it you are in favour of stopping infertile people getting married, and are forgetting that plenty of same-sex couples have kids. Clear those two up and you might have an argument!
A republic is a country without a dynastic leader. That is it. It has nothing to do with being a democracy or a dictatorship. I think you are confusing "republic" with "representative democracy".
You are the one who is confused. It's not "poverty", but being outside of the economy and not being allowed in. It's like mega-poverty, as you simply don't exist, have no voice, yet still have the lovely gift of being shat on by those with power.
You being unemployed is not exactly comparable. If you are going to try to understand this, starting from your own experience is not the best way, as you are not directly comparable. Plenty terrorists have had good jobs, but the vast majority have not, or have no chance of finding one again. Pointing out the relatively-rare as evidence that the majority doesn't exist isn't particularly helpful.
To be fair you've already demonstrated you are quite capable of ignoring rational thought and logic should they lead you from the outcome you desire, such as your rampant religiosity. Once that has been demonstrated, you should expect people to poke holes in your arguments, as we don't know if you are still wearing your "irrational believer" hat or not. You can't have your cake and eat it.
You don't seem to know what "terrorism" means. You just made that abundantly clear with that strange, strange post.
Terrorism is more accurately defined as the use of violence or the threat thereof against a people in order to politically coerce them. It has nothing to do with religion, as you quite rightly pointed out.
The only way you can think that is if you get your scientific information from the introductions to newspaper articles. Seriously. Even the most egregious "No ice in 2014/2015" articles mention that these are possible outcomes (by using the words "could" and "might", which you have entirely failed to mention). The IPCC says that the sea ice should remain until ~2030.
You are showing off your ignorance as if it's something to be proud of. You've taken the gifts of knowledge and learning - given to you by the countless generations which preceded you - and wiped your ass with them. Congratulations. You're a great person.
You don't seem to understand what "ad hominem" means, even though you linked to a good description of it. You are not very good at teaching yourself, it seems. That would go a long way to explaining why you can be so incredibly wrong about so many things, yet seem to think you are right, even when the evidence is dangled in front of your face.
You are asking for a model, though. The models are used to make predictions - you can't have one without the other. As it is, many of the models have been very accurate, and this hasn't exactly been kept secret. The fact this information is so easy to find, and yet you haven't bothered looking for it, makes your position absolutely indistinguishable from someone who is engaging in an honest attempt to learn. If you are honestly attempting to learn, you are going about it the entirely wrong way. Instead of arguing on Slashdot, spend a few seconds on Google to learn something. I beg you.
Are you that fucking retarded? Seriously? You are citing the Telegraph, and citing it wrong in the process. The article even states "... the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s...". You are hanging on the words of one researcher, and not even bothering to look at the actual research involved, or what the scientists are saying on the matter.
You don't want to be proven wrong, or you are simply terrible at logic. Pick one.
You lazy fucker. Seriously. You are just playing little childish games because you seem to be so set on being right the very thought of you being wrong has made you start to act like a petulant child. Seriously. You are an embarrassment.
Plenty of plans have been discussed. You not knowing about them doesn't mean they don't exist :) And you missed the word "some" in front of "environmentalists", if you weren't attempting to make a massive, factually-incorrect generalisation, that is.
Because voter complacency has allowed such a system to come in to effect. A democracy gets the government it deserves, each and every time.
The previous floppy-drive-musical-machines were pre-programmed to play a specific single piece of music. This one can be played in real-time by a pianist - it's an actual instrument, whereas the ones you are thinking of were just players.