So, the US is producing and consuming more than every other country (World export 11%), and that entitles it to produce more CO2?
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
> Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair
Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance can be found.
To quote:
all the evidence suggests that emissions are to an important degree a function of policy and choice that determines the energy efficiency of economies
"The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and steal bread." - Anatole France
> Killersats with the ability to preemptively strike other orbiting objects are completely legal
No. It equates to occupation of space.
> and necessary, when one considers the signal and observation intelligence one can obtain through satellites.
That is, why they are at least in the grey area. But since no party complains, reconnaissance has become accepted standard. But placement of space denial weapons is a totally different matter, and I think you will find the other signatories in disagreement with your position.
The reason for it not being compilable for Windows is the fact that Qt is not available for Windows in any GPL compatible version and the license of the GPL:d TOra specifically prohibits it from being linked with the commercial versions of Qt. The reason for this is that previously I and now Quest does not want it to interfere with out commercial products.
So, it seems to me more an issue with TOras license, than Trolltechs. For example, I fail to see how it should be incompatible with the GPL to link a product with a commercial library, when you don't distribute it.
Scalia: "The Constitution just sets minimums, most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." And: In times of war, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Speaking of which: Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are right-wing, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are left wing, O'Conner is centre. The next president will probably nominate the replacements for O'Conner, Ginsburg, Rehnquist.
> Gore wanted only certain counties recounted, and even though the recounts continually came up in Bush's favor, they wouldn't stop recounting.
I know that it is written in the law and is one of the reasons the US Supreme Court cited. What is the problem with recounting only certain counties? Bush could have challenged some results likewise.
Continually? Care to tell us how many recounts there were?
AFAIK, one machinally resulting in only 327 votes (instead of 1000+something) in favour for Bush, before they started recounting manually.
The point is, the big picture (1 billion years of earth history) doesn't matter for us. Yes, there have been episodes of massive vulcanism in the past. Yes, there have been changes of climate in the past. Yes, there were phases of higher CO2 concentration. Hell, there were even several massive asteroids colliding with earth.
But for us humans, maybe only the last 10 millenia are of interest. This is were we developed our civilisation. Fairly stable climate (1 degree variation), slightly cooler than today, and finally less CO2 concentration.
Speaking of the big picture. How do you think it will affect a world of 8billion people of inhabitants when (relatively) suddenly large areas of land become inareable and others uninhabitle?
> All it would take is just *one* of those massive events and nature will have accelerated past us in greenhouse (and other noxious) gas production.
Maybe. But you are sounding to me like a smoker, telling me, that it is much more likely to die from an car accident than from smoking. This time, however the odds reversed.
Those are independent possible causes, and on one we have an limited influence on the other not.
Especially, when you consider that on the very same site the global data (GHCN) is readily available and results in the following development: 1880-1970: 0.0057 Deg Celsius/Year 1970-2003: 0.029 Deg Celsius/Year
> The amount of greenhouse gases that the civilized world has output since the Industrial Revolution [...]
You are merely making an unfounded statement, but still got moderated up. Care to back this up?
According to "Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249, and 254-255." CO2 emissions of all volcanoes are surpassed by us humble beings by a factor of 150.
Sulphourous-emissions of volcanoes and all other natural sources are surpassed by 330%.
I guess, you'll now have to retort to doubting the integrity and/or qualification of the scientist in question.
Actually, in Japan a majority is for Kerry and only 30% support Bush. I somehow doubt that Poland would elect Bush, when 80% of its population was against going to war.
If your speaking of their respective goveremnts, it is may be different.
The US is a democracy in the sense people use the word. It isn't a direct democracy, like Switzerland, so what. The US is also a republic, so is Switzerland, and even North Korea happens to be a republic, just because their dictator is not to be a king.
I know their reasoning, it was the same I posed to use in my post you are responding too. Fear of the plebs, and what will happen when they get the vote.
But their reasoning doesn't respond to the question of morality: "What gives you the right to deny a person to decide on who is going to govern one?"
You know, there is a reason for universal suffrage.
"Black people don't have the education and the cultural background for democracy" "Women are mentally far to unstable to vote." "Only working people may vote, because only they contribute to the society."
Yes, there may be more intelligent voters and dumber voters, but who gets to decide, which ones are the right ones? And who will ascertain that the exlusion won't be partisan or arbitary like in the "cited" cases in the past?
But most importantly, what gives one the right to exclude those people to vote on their own rulers?
If you think that your electoral constituency is too dumb, don't disenfranchise them, educate them.
In a democracy, you may not get the government you need or want. But at least, you get the government you deserve.
Obviously, the result here is my interpretation of these characters. It's a work of fiction, which shouldn't be confused with history. But I've tried to make the essence of these characters faithful to what appears in the historical records.
In the beginning, he tries to emphasise that he didn't missed as many classes as either Mr. Seder or others might suspect or as other students might have missed.
Later, he was asked how his alcoholism affected his attendency. In that context, he notes that "he missed quite a few [classes]" due to hangovers.
This is not contradictory.
> So just because it's Harvard Business School doesn't mean they don't have an ax to grind.
How convenient. Blame criticism on partisanship.
But the criticism of the same institutions on Kerry's economic program, especially his stance against out-sourcing is valid and well founded?
Yeah, and every illegal download would be a valid purchase.
Maybe those people voting for a third party would like to make a point. Instead of voting for Bush or Kerry they still have the possiblity of not voting, which they'd even prefer to both.
It is the business of friends to meddle in the affairs of their friends. That's the difference between friends and acquaintances. Of course, they should know whether it is prudent in that particular matter or not. That is the difference between friends and "friends".
In your case, it doesn't seem prudent. But that doesn't mean it is never prudent.
However, let me point you out a little difference to religion.
Contrary to religion is not about makeing you choose a certain party.
Next, wether you like it or not, your life is affected by politics. There are not a lot people that don't care how their life is affected by it and have no particular opinion on anything. But most people say something along the line of: "Well, what I do/say doesn't matter anyway". They have given up.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
> Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair
Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance can be found.
To quote:
"The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and steal bread." - Anatole France
> Killersats with the ability to preemptively strike other orbiting objects are completely legal
No. It equates to occupation of space.
> and necessary, when one considers the signal and observation intelligence one can obtain through satellites.
That is, why they are at least in the grey area. But since no party complains, reconnaissance has become accepted standard. But placement of space denial weapons is a totally different matter, and I think you will find the other signatories in disagreement with your position.
The placement of weapons in an area with the capability to deny any possible opponent access to said area is not occupation?
OTOH, the capability to place such does not.
However, the article clearly states that the placement is planned, which would be in violation of Article II (The placement itself, not the planning).
Since then, it has been signed by 98 states (the 95 figure was from 2001). It has been ratified in 1966 by the General Assembly in resolution 2222.
> As you can see this treaty was never violated.
Ok. Then, where would be the withdrawal statement?
> Add to that the fact that the nation we signed the treaty with no longer even existed and your argument falls short.
So what? 95 signatories are still left.
Space superiority is a violation of Article II as it would mean the de facto occupation of Earth's orbit.
So, it seems to me more an issue with TOras license, than Trolltechs. For example, I fail to see how it should be incompatible with the GPL to link a product with a commercial library, when you don't distribute it.
Scalia: "The Constitution just sets minimums, most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
And: In times of war, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Speaking of which: Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are right-wing, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are left wing, O'Conner is centre. The next president will probably nominate the replacements for O'Conner, Ginsburg, Rehnquist.
Bush said he'd favour someone like Scalia.
> Gore wanted only certain counties recounted, and even though the recounts continually came up in Bush's favor, they wouldn't stop recounting.
I know that it is written in the law and is one of the reasons the US Supreme Court cited. What is the problem with recounting only certain counties? Bush could have challenged some results likewise.
Continually? Care to tell us how many recounts there were?
AFAIK, one machinally resulting in only 327 votes (instead of 1000+something) in favour for Bush, before they started recounting manually.
> but take in the big picture.
The point is, the big picture (1 billion years of earth history) doesn't matter for us. Yes, there have been episodes of massive vulcanism in the past. Yes, there have been changes of climate in the past. Yes, there were phases of higher CO2 concentration. Hell, there were even several massive asteroids colliding with earth.
But for us humans, maybe only the last 10 millenia are of interest. This is were we developed our civilisation. Fairly stable climate (1 degree variation), slightly cooler than today, and finally less CO2 concentration.
Speaking of the big picture. How do you think it will affect a world of 8billion people of inhabitants when (relatively) suddenly large areas of land become inareable and others uninhabitle?
> All it would take is just *one* of those massive events and nature will have accelerated past us in greenhouse (and other noxious) gas production.
Maybe. But you are sounding to me like a smoker, telling me, that it is much more likely to die from an car accident than from smoking. This time, however the odds reversed.
Those are independent possible causes, and on one we have an limited influence on the other not.
> Global warming in the US? laugh, it's funny.
Especially, when you consider that on the very same site the global data (GHCN) is readily available and results in the following development:
1880-1970: 0.0057 Deg Celsius/Year
1970-2003: 0.029 Deg Celsius/Year
1985-2003: 0.035 Deg Celsius/Year
> The amount of greenhouse gases that the civilized world has output since the Industrial Revolution [...]
You are merely making an unfounded statement, but still got moderated up. Care to back this up?
According to "Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249, and 254-255." CO2 emissions of all volcanoes are surpassed by us humble beings by a factor of 150.
Sulphourous-emissions of volcanoes and all other natural sources are surpassed by 330%.
I guess, you'll now have to retort to doubting the integrity and/or qualification of the scientist in question.
Actually, in Japan a majority is for Kerry and only 30% support Bush. I somehow doubt that Poland would elect Bush, when 80% of its population was against going to war.
If your speaking of their respective goveremnts, it is may be different.
> Well, that shook the industry into finding alternate solutions.
Yes, certainly that's why they went for WMA (Microsofts patent portofolio) and AAC (AT&T, Dolby, Sony and, you may have guessed it, Fraunhofer IIS).
> Since we were never intended to be a democracy, but a representative republic, your ideas on why there is universal sufferage fall apart.
Since I never intended to do become a billionair, my idea on why there are stock companies fall apart.
In other words, I fail to see the logical consequence.
> Universal sufferage is not the wonderful thing we've all been indoctrinated to believe it is.
Why? First, why indoctrinated?
Next, why isn't it?
The US is a democracy in the sense people use the word. It isn't a direct democracy, like Switzerland, so what. The US is also a republic, so is Switzerland, and even North Korea happens to be a republic, just because their dictator is not to be a king.
I know their reasoning, it was the same I posed to use in my post you are responding too. Fear of the plebs, and what will happen when they get the vote.
But their reasoning doesn't respond to the question of morality: "What gives you the right to deny a person to decide on who is going to govern one?"
You know, there is a reason for universal suffrage.
"Black people don't have the education and the cultural background for democracy"
"Women are mentally far to unstable to vote."
"Only working people may vote, because only they contribute to the society."
Yes, there may be more intelligent voters and dumber voters, but who gets to decide, which ones are the right ones? And who will ascertain that the exlusion won't be partisan or arbitary like in the "cited" cases in the past?
But most importantly, what gives one the right to exclude those people to vote on their own rulers?
If you think that your electoral constituency is too dumb, don't disenfranchise them, educate them.
In a democracy, you may not get the government you need or want. But at least, you get the government you deserve.
According to ABC (Oct, 13.-17.) , Kerry 50%, Bush 47%, Margin of error 3.5%
> At least we'll all be happy.
No, we wouldn't be happy, as we are the savages, grown up in a totally different society.
To quote the author himself:
So? I fail to see a discrepancy.
In the beginning, he tries to emphasise that he didn't missed as many classes as either Mr. Seder or others might suspect or as other students might have missed.
Later, he was asked how his alcoholism affected his attendency. In that context, he notes that "he missed quite a few [classes]" due to hangovers.
This is not contradictory.
> So just because it's Harvard Business School doesn't mean they don't have an ax to grind.
How convenient. Blame criticism on partisanship.
But the criticism of the same institutions on Kerry's economic program, especially his stance against out-sourcing is valid and well founded?
> but having a deficit prevents the government from working effectively.
It only prevents the following government from working effectively.
Yeah, and every illegal download would be a valid purchase.
Maybe those people voting for a third party would like to make a point. Instead of voting for Bush or Kerry they still have the possiblity of not voting, which they'd even prefer to both.
It is the business of friends to meddle in the affairs of their friends. That's the difference between friends and acquaintances. Of course, they should know whether it is prudent in that particular matter or not. That is the difference between friends and "friends".
In your case, it doesn't seem prudent. But that doesn't mean it is never prudent.
However, let me point you out a little difference to religion.
Contrary to religion is not about makeing you choose a certain party.
Next, wether you like it or not, your life is affected by politics. There are not a lot people that don't care how their life is affected by it and have no particular opinion on anything. But most people say something along the line of: "Well, what I do/say doesn't matter anyway". They have given up.