The racist didn't flee to the republican party. It was many democrats (some who were racist) over the entire south for much the same reasons the civil war happened (and if you think it was slavery, you are an idiot).
The south was still penalized in its self rule (which it is today) from its re-annexation into the union. The feds carried a leash on the south and interjected quite a bit into the state's inner workings (except when it came to Tom Crow laws) The republicans ran on a platform of state's rights which attracted a lot of people angry over the control the federal government was using. This included a lot of racist democrats. This grew even more when the civil rights legislation was passed in 1964 and 1968 as it targeted the southern states with specific enforcement requirements (some still in effect today).
It was about the same things the civil war was over. The feds bossing the states around. If the enforcement provisions weren't tied to the civil right legislation for the former confederate states, The democrats would still have the south locked up with all their that left still within them. And yes, a lot of the racist democrats stayed in the party. Some who were not only members off the KKK but leaders in it served on the highest senate committees as democrats until the last one died before Clinton left office.
First, it isn't my metric, I was just pointing out that FDR started the practice of pandering to buy votes which makes the jobs comparison largely bunk.
Second, Obama certainly is no FDR. FDR did more before Breakfast then Obama does all day it seems. From my point of view, perhaps that's a good thing.
oh.. Einstein was religious, he commented on it quite a bite. Perhaps you meant he wasn't conventionally religious- he claimed agnostic on a couple occasions.
Yes, I am aware you said conservative not religious. Another poster pointed that out. Sorry, I must have conflated your post with another.
"then in the beginning/middle of the 20th century it added crazy anti-socialism to its platform because that was a threat against capitalism"
They added anti socialism to their platform because of the failed revolt organized by the communist party of America in 1919ish. The communist party wanted to overthrow the government and install a Mussolini type dictator. They attempted to use the socialist party's connection to unions to enact this thinking that they would follow because of the similarities between the two. After the failed revolt, the foreign members of communist party was expelled from the US, the communist party of America was outlawed, and the native (American citizen) members joined the socialist party directly.
You literally had people who plotted to overthrow the US joining the socialist party who was more interested in organizing unions and workers rights at the time then government dominance. This changed about the time the communist party was removed. You further had issues because after WWII, the communists in Europe disguised themselves as socialist and joined the various socialists parties. Although the communist in the socialist parties in Europe did not reach positions of control as easily as the ones in America did so they weren't as prevalent.
I might also add that as a percentage of party members in congress, more republicans voted for the civil rights legislation then democrats did. (a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968 then democrats did). This entire concept of racist republicans verses enlightened democrats is fictional. It stems from MLK jr being locked up in a dangerous jail for a traffic violation and MLK senior attempted to get political help in ensuring his safety after rumor made it back that the untold plan was to have him have an accident and die while in jail for some trumped up charge. MLK senior and other blacks asked Nixon and Kennedy Kennedy made some calls and threatened to send federal marshals down (the marshals might be another instance in Montgomery and not Atlanta- It's been a while since I dealt with this). Nixon remained silent on it because he feared it would end his campaign. He didn't even make an issue of Kennedy getting involved that would have likely turned southern democrats against him. Nixon lost to Kennedy because of this. MLK sr. said if Kennedy was willing to help his boy, he was willing to vote for them. Until that time, the southern blacks mostly voted republican and it was democrats who caused them problems like the mayor of Montgomery and governor of Alabama and Georgia who seemed content with MLK jr's fate. Kennedy created and circulated pamphlets saying that and had the title read " No Comment Nixon Versus a Candidate With a Heart, Senator Kennedy." Surprisingly, Kennedy as a senator voted against the civil rights act of 1957 just years before this turn of events.
FDR had a democrat congress and gave everyone everything. He was popular with the working people when he took sides against a mining company in favor of Unionized workers. There are a lot of reasons the people supported FDR that I simply do not see with Obama. FDR actually made things happen, even when the Supreme court rules them unconstitutional.
lol.. I'm about sick of seeing shit like this. Do you seriously believe anyone who is religious doesn't believe in science or mathematics? I mean how could Albert Einstein have gotten away with all his papers he obviously knew nothing about.
I'm gonna tell you straight up. You will be surprised to find out how utterly wrong you are and how stupid you sound right now. It's a good thing slashdot keeps these posts around so you can look back and see how far you have come one of these days when you finally wake up.
You forget that Palin has already played the Hillary game in 2008. The only difference is that Hillary has some experience doing something in government now. That can help and hurt her depending on what transpires.
And that is exactly why he will never be elected. When people want something done, they do not want a candidate to say ask someone else. They want them to say what can and would be done whether they can actually do it or not. The people want to know what a candidate will bring to the table, not where he will pass the buck off too. For better or worse, the idiots in this country turn to the federal government to do things it was never intended to do and most candidates who say no do not get elected.
Actually, I know a lot of people who know what Ron Paul wants to do, they just do not understand what would happen if he could do it. It's not like it hasn't happened a few times in our history already with the great depression and world wars as quasi results.
That is of course if they do not mind the incumbent (Obama) staying in office. The problem is, if you aren't voting for the most likely to win opposition, then you are voting to keep the incumbent in office.
I understand your point and agree with it. It is just that there baggage with it if practiced in reality. Besides, a third party president would be completely useless without a party for support in congress to back them up. It would be worse then Jimmy Carter's administration when the democrat controlled congress refused to work with him.
You really have to think about this for a minute. War with Iran, as apposed to Syria which has been beating harder? As for lack of regulations, well, we got a democrat in there, he had a democrat congress for at least a year or more. and they didn't regulate the banks?
What I'm getting at is that what you seem to be concerned about is going to be true no matter who is in office. Only the details will be slightly different. We have more to worry about with going to war in Syria because Russia will come out against us most likely with China following right behind them. At least with Iran, they will be stupid enough to throw the first punch as retaliation to some sort of aggravation we cause them. China and Russia will just watch saying we can only sell you arms buy you need to pay in dollars or gold.
But here is an obvious strawman that illustrates how your concept is misguided. Suppose the solution was culling the human population, would an automatic rejection of that require someone to purpose something else in order for it to be valid?
So what exactly are the results of a warming planet anyways? How sure is the science behind that and what is missing from what we have already done throughout history to tame nature like build damns, pipe drinking water, build levies and so on what will not be available to us in the future when these results happen?
As for my solution, I have been screaming it for the past 15 years or so. Instead of pissing around with taxes and carbon caps that will only retard industry in a few countries while not only allowing growth and in some cases encouraging others (China and India) to pollute more then any savings from the arrested source could realistically provide, we should create teams of scientists sharing data either sponsored directly from or working within the countries that signed onto the Kyoto protocols who's sole purpose is to create more efficient energy and alternative sources that are not only reliable and cost competitive but viable in our existing infrastructure while paving a way to a new replacement as the tech comes on line. (I know run on sentence from hell) In the past 15 or so years, they have worked at stopping certain countries from producing while other catch up. That kind of approach does nothing to fix the problems and is at best, a solution that just shows something being done without regard to it's effectiveness.
The entire process was politically hijacked in the early to mid 1990's by groups wanting the IMF countries to forgive the third world debt and the entire idea behind certain countries limiting their carbon emissions while others to play catchup was their solution because it allowed investment in these third world countries and gave them a revenue source to repay their loans. This entire program is completely outside fixing anything to do with global warming. If we are serious about the issue, if we are serious about fixing it, we would stop with the political control shenanigans and just get research departments working on the problem with the caveat that all participating countries can share in the tech unrestricted and non-participating countries could buy into the products at low royalties.
It will take a lot of advancements to get to that point. Especially if we also start actively developing tar sands (Canada is already getting there, but e.g. Russia hasn't even started yet, and it has just as much if not more - it's not even properly explored yet).
OF course it will take some time. So do we sit here and do nothing or direct resources at it? I guess that is a major question. Imagine if the Kyoto protocal wasn't about limiting production and shipping jobs to China and India who are not limited by it and are now the worlds largest pollution creators and instead focused on those advancements needed. Oil would still be naturally high and alternatives would be a lot cheaper by now. Probably so much cheaper that it would be the preferred long term energy source. A coalition of countries working on that goal has a severe advantage over forcing private industries looking to save a buck and remain in business by doing it themselves because the countries can share the results of others works and build from them. When things became viable (as in reliable and cost competitive), you simply regulate them into use if the market hasn't already jumped on them.
The problem is that this isn't the kind of thing that you can defer indefinitely. Every tonne of carbon fuels burned adds CO2 to the atmosphere, exacerbating the greenhouse effect. And it's much, much harder to take that stuff back in later on.
Here is the problem now. If we impose cap and trade schemes or limit production, the poor suffer because things costs more. We solve that by importing cheap items from countries that are not subject to the limits which in turn creates more poor because jobs aren't here. IF we wait, the well to do are at risk to lose some beach homes and property that are mostly at risk to wildfires and.hurricanes anyways. We might have to shift our food production a bit and of course there is the time tested way of taming nature and put our civil engineers to work fixing it when it becomes a threat.
We don't have to collapse economy for that. We just need to properly account for externalities (i.e. AGW), and let the market take it away from there - helping it by getting the state involved in funding expensive long-term research, most notably fusion, to the point where the market is ready to pick it up for production use.
Externalities are artificial costs imposed to acount for the effect of the use of the product. Those externalities are typically already accounted for by the decrease costs in goods and services the public receives. It is much more economical and efficient to simply deal with the consequences as they come about.
Now, during the better part of the Bush administration, we had expensive energy costs. We didn't have that during the Clinton administration and energy was cheap. Energy costs is one of the major driving forces behind the economy- moreso then tax policy. You cannot raise those costs and expect not to crash the economy. Many of the bad loans bundled into the default swaps that caused (were part of ) the last disaster were given to people who would have been able to afford them after the sub prime rates dropped had their extra income not went to increased energy costs.
That's only true until the "advances in alternative energy (both lowering cost and increasing efficiency)" as the op stated make it less expensive and competitive.
People know that to be true but do not want to wait for the advancements so they attempt to impose artificial costs to oil and coal to make it more comparative as it is. The down side to that is the economy collapses and the poor are hit the hardest by the increased energy costs.
rejecting the political solution does not automagically mean rejecting the science. Or are you suggesting there is only one way to fix it and it has to be only the ways that have been purposed but failed so far to date?
Most free market people are against the idea of anyone controlling what effect them. It doesn't matter if it is the government through regulation that aren't needed which picks winners and losers or if it is some company that has become the defacto dictator due to its size and power protect their own interests.
The socialism boogeyman has the same root cause, entities other then yourself in charge of what directly effects you.
The mainstream political chat-o-sphere these days is mostly divided between "I want to do that myself and you should too" and the "I want government to do it for me, give them all the power to do it for you too".
That's of course overly simplified, but no more then your observations.
Or, you cloud create an abstraction layer that allows programs to use a unified library and relies on the sound system to plug into it. You know, sort of like direct X does for sound.
And yes, I remember the old days of having to make sure a game supported my sound card and configuring the games to use it- on windows before DirectX. ( I also remember selecting my 3d accelerator add in on a few games. But that was before 3d was built into the graphics cards)
um.. how is this not about Microsoft too? I mean seriously, linux on the desktop and we are to ignore what is already on the desktop to pass your filter?
This story is about replacing what is out there and if Microsoft is out there, then it is just as valid to bring up them as it is anything else because it is relevant.
You're not answering my question, and I feel like I'm talking to a wall that responds with ad hominems.
Your question has been repeatedly answered all through this thread. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean you get to ignore it in favor of waiting until you get one what you want to see.
You seem to think that kids can grow up safely isolating their "sciency" sides from their "religious" sides. I don't feel the two are so easily separated. A parent can't teach their child to think critically while simultaneously smacking them on the head when they think critically about their religion. The child isn't going to learn to trust in reason when you have a minder following up and saying, "Good job thinking rationally. Unfortunately you're wrong because a bunch of people believe something different, and they are many and you are one, so you must be the one that's wrong. Also, please don't look up 'appeal to majority' or 'appeal to authority' on the Internet." The child will be less effective trying to understand the world around him if he's been raised to accept "God did it" as an acceptable and satisfying conclusion for anything he doesn't understand. The child will be less successful in a research role, where the strictest application of logic and reason is needed, if he doesn't trust that logic and reason will work, because it's clearly wrong for things that his religion teaches him.
Here is your problem. A parent does not teach a child to discover everything the parent thinks they should know. Can you imagine how insanely stupid it would be for a parent to say what happens when you touch that hot stove instead of don't touch that, it is hot and will hurt you? Can you imagine a parent saying cross the street to see what happens and hope they use logic and reason to discover the importance of looking both ways before a they jot out in front of a car and get killed? No, they tell them not to play in the street and they tell them to look both ways. Parents tell children the story of the boogerman and other tales to make them afraid to venture off without them at night when everyone is asleep. Should the parents just say ignore that and see what happens when their child runs out and joins crack alley while mom tries to get some sleep?
Children need to learn facts and behavior. Teaching them religion is not in any way detrimental to thinking critically or logic and reason. This concept you keep insisting is nothing but a fabrication that exists in your mind because of your disdain for religion.
Note that I never said the child will be ineffective, or will fail completely, just that this belief system will undermine his education.
Not any more then memorizing the 50 states or the capitol of those states will. Not any more then reading comic books or playing fictional games will. Are you suggesting they do not do that either? I happen to know that some of the smartest geeks and scientists, probably the very same ones you aspire to, were heavily invested in video games that did not follow your version of scientific reality or comic books. They probably do more harm to critical thinking then any religion could do because they actually expect you to work through puzzles and anticipate what comes next without following the laws of nature. Religion basically says, this is what happened and this is why we worship. It is literally memorizing states and capitols compared to comics and video games.
There are really two ways I think to fully reconcile a belief in both science and religion.
No!! there is not only two ways. Please start using this logic and reasoning, this critical thinking you keep claiming is so important. Please stop putting your religious (or bigoted to be more accurate) beliefs in front of logic and reason. You are worse then a jehovas witness with this shit.
You can not "attach" physical assets without the aid of Police. Most Police ignore judgements unless they are very high amounts.
What are you talking about? You do not need the police to put a lien on a building or car or copyrighted work. All you need to do is file the proper paperwork with the appropriate agency.
Most financial assets will be kept off shore, out of the reach of US courts. Even if they had US assets, they are not going to tell you about them, and they are not even going to show up before a judge and explain why not. They will simply ignore you.
That is true in only certain instances. Most foreign banks cooperate with US court orders if they do business with the US. You may have to hire a lawyer in the other country to show a judge the US court order and request the comparable order be made. You cannot just attach to something without a court order or other legal right to do so. You are not walking in off the street saying Jimbob owes me money, lock this account until he pays me.
You've got no chance of collecting for perjury anyway, because its a crime, not a civil matter, and the police are not going to Paris for you. Get over it.
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong point. I have never said you would be going after them for perjury. You can sue people for acts they take that damage you in some way if you can quantify the damages. Loss of business or reputation and legal fees incurred because of the wrong is one of those ways, What happens with a fraudulent take down notice is that someone is erroneously making a legal claim against you. They owe for any damage that error causes just like if they walked down the street and assaulted you.
You attach to assets they hold like the claimed copyrighted works and report the debt to the credit bureaus so the company has to clear it in order to do business or suffer penalties in trying to do so.
This is why you sue the agent and the owner who will be liable too.
If I was the only person suing, you might have a point. But if everyone who has been wronged by these things sue, then they cannot escape the reality.
These organizations and the people/organizations who employ them are already subject to damages and legal fees their take down notices cause. The DMCA does not protect the person making the claim or the accused, just the netowrk operator if certain steps are taken.
Slashdot Mirror
The racist didn't flee to the republican party. It was many democrats (some who were racist) over the entire south for much the same reasons the civil war happened (and if you think it was slavery, you are an idiot).
The south was still penalized in its self rule (which it is today) from its re-annexation into the union. The feds carried a leash on the south and interjected quite a bit into the state's inner workings (except when it came to Tom Crow laws) The republicans ran on a platform of state's rights which attracted a lot of people angry over the control the federal government was using. This included a lot of racist democrats. This grew even more when the civil rights legislation was passed in 1964 and 1968 as it targeted the southern states with specific enforcement requirements (some still in effect today).
It was about the same things the civil war was over. The feds bossing the states around. If the enforcement provisions weren't tied to the civil right legislation for the former confederate states, The democrats would still have the south locked up with all their that left still within them. And yes, a lot of the racist democrats stayed in the party. Some who were not only members off the KKK but leaders in it served on the highest senate committees as democrats until the last one died before Clinton left office.
First, it isn't my metric, I was just pointing out that FDR started the practice of pandering to buy votes which makes the jobs comparison largely bunk.
Second, Obama certainly is no FDR.
FDR did more before Breakfast then Obama does all day it seems. From my point of view, perhaps that's a good thing.
oh.. Einstein was religious, he commented on it quite a bite. Perhaps you meant he wasn't conventionally religious- he claimed agnostic on a couple occasions.
Yes, I am aware you said conservative not religious. Another poster pointed that out. Sorry, I must have conflated your post with another.
Good point. If it's a given for the incumbent then I guess it wouldn't matter.
Sigh.. Learn your history.
They added anti socialism to their platform because of the failed revolt organized by the communist party of America in 1919ish. The communist party wanted to overthrow the government and install a Mussolini type dictator. They attempted to use the socialist party's connection to unions to enact this thinking that they would follow because of the similarities between the two. After the failed revolt, the foreign members of communist party was expelled from the US, the communist party of America was outlawed, and the native (American citizen) members joined the socialist party directly.
You literally had people who plotted to overthrow the US joining the socialist party who was more interested in organizing unions and workers rights at the time then government dominance. This changed about the time the communist party was removed. You further had issues because after WWII, the communists in Europe disguised themselves as socialist and joined the various socialists parties. Although the communist in the socialist parties in Europe did not reach positions of control as easily as the ones in America did so they weren't as prevalent.
I might also add that as a percentage of party members in congress, more republicans voted for the civil rights legislation then democrats did. (a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968 then democrats did). This entire concept of racist republicans verses enlightened democrats is fictional. It stems from MLK jr being locked up in a dangerous jail for a traffic violation and MLK senior attempted to get political help in ensuring his safety after rumor made it back that the untold plan was to have him have an accident and die while in jail for some trumped up charge. MLK senior and other blacks asked Nixon and Kennedy Kennedy made some calls and threatened to send federal marshals down (the marshals might be another instance in Montgomery and not Atlanta- It's been a while since I dealt with this). Nixon remained silent on it because he feared it would end his campaign. He didn't even make an issue of Kennedy getting involved that would have likely turned southern democrats against him. Nixon lost to Kennedy because of this. MLK sr. said if Kennedy was willing to help his boy, he was willing to vote for them. Until that time, the southern blacks mostly voted republican and it was democrats who caused them problems like the mayor of Montgomery and governor of Alabama and Georgia who seemed content with MLK jr's fate. Kennedy created and circulated pamphlets saying that and had the title read " No Comment Nixon Versus a Candidate With a Heart, Senator Kennedy." Surprisingly, Kennedy as a senator voted against the civil rights act of 1957 just years before this turn of events.
Ah, yes, I conflated another post.
FDR had a democrat congress and gave everyone everything. He was popular with the working people when he took sides against a mining company in favor of Unionized workers. There are a lot of reasons the people supported FDR that I simply do not see with Obama. FDR actually made things happen, even when the Supreme court rules them unconstitutional.
lol.. I'm about sick of seeing shit like this. Do you seriously believe anyone who is religious doesn't believe in science or mathematics? I mean how could Albert Einstein have gotten away with all his papers he obviously knew nothing about.
I'm gonna tell you straight up. You will be surprised to find out how utterly wrong you are and how stupid you sound right now. It's a good thing slashdot keeps these posts around so you can look back and see how far you have come one of these days when you finally wake up.
You forget that Palin has already played the Hillary game in 2008. The only difference is that Hillary has some experience doing something in government now. That can help and hurt her depending on what transpires.
And that is exactly why he will never be elected. When people want something done, they do not want a candidate to say ask someone else. They want them to say what can and would be done whether they can actually do it or not. The people want to know what a candidate will bring to the table, not where he will pass the buck off too. For better or worse, the idiots in this country turn to the federal government to do things it was never intended to do and most candidates who say no do not get elected.
Actually, I know a lot of people who know what Ron Paul wants to do, they just do not understand what would happen if he could do it. It's not like it hasn't happened a few times in our history already with the great depression and world wars as quasi results.
That is of course if they do not mind the incumbent (Obama) staying in office. The problem is, if you aren't voting for the most likely to win opposition, then you are voting to keep the incumbent in office.
I understand your point and agree with it. It is just that there baggage with it if practiced in reality. Besides, a third party president would be completely useless without a party for support in congress to back them up. It would be worse then Jimmy Carter's administration when the democrat controlled congress refused to work with him.
You are going to get that from all sides. It may not be what we need, but you can believe no matter who is elected, it is what we can expect.
You really have to think about this for a minute. War with Iran, as apposed to Syria which has been beating harder? As for lack of regulations, well, we got a democrat in there, he had a democrat congress for at least a year or more. and they didn't regulate the banks?
What I'm getting at is that what you seem to be concerned about is going to be true no matter who is in office. Only the details will be slightly different. We have more to worry about with going to war in Syria because Russia will come out against us most likely with China following right behind them. At least with Iran, they will be stupid enough to throw the first punch as retaliation to some sort of aggravation we cause them. China and Russia will just watch saying we can only sell you arms buy you need to pay in dollars or gold.
Not really my job to bring up a solution.
But here is an obvious strawman that illustrates how your concept is misguided. Suppose the solution was culling the human population, would an automatic rejection of that require someone to purpose something else in order for it to be valid?
So what exactly are the results of a warming planet anyways? How sure is the science behind that and what is missing from what we have already done throughout history to tame nature like build damns, pipe drinking water, build levies and so on what will not be available to us in the future when these results happen?
As for my solution, I have been screaming it for the past 15 years or so. Instead of pissing around with taxes and carbon caps that will only retard industry in a few countries while not only allowing growth and in some cases encouraging others (China and India) to pollute more then any savings from the arrested source could realistically provide, we should create teams of scientists sharing data either sponsored directly from or working within the countries that signed onto the Kyoto protocols who's sole purpose is to create more efficient energy and alternative sources that are not only reliable and cost competitive but viable in our existing infrastructure while paving a way to a new replacement as the tech comes on line. (I know run on sentence from hell) In the past 15 or so years, they have worked at stopping certain countries from producing while other catch up. That kind of approach does nothing to fix the problems and is at best, a solution that just shows something being done without regard to it's effectiveness.
The entire process was politically hijacked in the early to mid 1990's by groups wanting the IMF countries to forgive the third world debt and the entire idea behind certain countries limiting their carbon emissions while others to play catchup was their solution because it allowed investment in these third world countries and gave them a revenue source to repay their loans. This entire program is completely outside fixing anything to do with global warming. If we are serious about the issue, if we are serious about fixing it, we would stop with the political control shenanigans and just get research departments working on the problem with the caveat that all participating countries can share in the tech unrestricted and non-participating countries could buy into the products at low royalties.
OF course it will take some time. So do we sit here and do nothing or direct resources at it? I guess that is a major question. Imagine if the Kyoto protocal wasn't about limiting production and shipping jobs to China and India who are not limited by it and are now the worlds largest pollution creators and instead focused on those advancements needed. Oil would still be naturally high and alternatives would be a lot cheaper by now. Probably so much cheaper that it would be the preferred long term energy source. A coalition of countries working on that goal has a severe advantage over forcing private industries looking to save a buck and remain in business by doing it themselves because the countries can share the results of others works and build from them. When things became viable (as in reliable and cost competitive), you simply regulate them into use if the market hasn't already jumped on them.
Here is the problem now. If we impose cap and trade schemes or limit production, the poor suffer because things costs more. We solve that by importing cheap items from countries that are not subject to the limits which in turn creates more poor because jobs aren't here. IF we wait, the well to do are at risk to lose some beach homes and property that are mostly at risk to wildfires and .hurricanes anyways. We might have to shift our food production a bit and of course there is the time tested way of taming nature and put our civil engineers to work fixing it when it becomes a threat.
Externalities are artificial costs imposed to acount for the effect of the use of the product. Those externalities are typically already accounted for by the decrease costs in goods and services the public receives. It is much more economical and efficient to simply deal with the consequences as they come about.
Now, during the better part of the Bush administration, we had expensive energy costs. We didn't have that during the Clinton administration and energy was cheap. Energy costs is one of the major driving forces behind the economy- moreso then tax policy. You cannot raise those costs and expect not to crash the economy. Many of the bad loans bundled into the default swaps that caused (were part of ) the last disaster were given to people who would have been able to afford them after the sub prime rates dropped had their extra income not went to increased energy costs.
That's only true until the "advances in alternative energy (both lowering cost and increasing efficiency)" as the op stated make it less expensive and competitive.
People know that to be true but do not want to wait for the advancements so they attempt to impose artificial costs to oil and coal to make it more comparative as it is. The down side to that is the economy collapses and the poor are hit the hardest by the increased energy costs.
rejecting the political solution does not automagically mean rejecting the science. Or are you suggesting there is only one way to fix it and it has to be only the ways that have been purposed but failed so far to date?
Most free market people are against the idea of anyone controlling what effect them. It doesn't matter if it is the government through regulation that aren't needed which picks winners and losers or if it is some company that has become the defacto dictator due to its size and power protect their own interests.
The socialism boogeyman has the same root cause, entities other then yourself in charge of what directly effects you.
The mainstream political chat-o-sphere these days is mostly divided between "I want to do that myself and you should too" and the "I want government to do it for me, give them all the power to do it for you too".
That's of course overly simplified, but no more then your observations.
Or, you cloud create an abstraction layer that allows programs to use a unified library and relies on the sound system to plug into it. You know, sort of like direct X does for sound.
And yes, I remember the old days of having to make sure a game supported my sound card and configuring the games to use it- on windows before DirectX. ( I also remember selecting my 3d accelerator add in on a few games. But that was before 3d was built into the graphics cards)
um.. how is this not about Microsoft too? I mean seriously, linux on the desktop and we are to ignore what is already on the desktop to pass your filter?
This story is about replacing what is out there and if Microsoft is out there, then it is just as valid to bring up them as it is anything else because it is relevant.
Your question has been repeatedly answered all through this thread. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean you get to ignore it in favor of waiting until you get one what you want to see.
Here is your problem. A parent does not teach a child to discover everything the parent thinks they should know. Can you imagine how insanely stupid it would be for a parent to say what happens when you touch that hot stove instead of don't touch that, it is hot and will hurt you? Can you imagine a parent saying cross the street to see what happens and hope they use logic and reason to discover the importance of looking both ways before a they jot out in front of a car and get killed? No, they tell them not to play in the street and they tell them to look both ways. Parents tell children the story of the boogerman and other tales to make them afraid to venture off without them at night when everyone is asleep. Should the parents just say ignore that and see what happens when their child runs out and joins crack alley while mom tries to get some sleep?
Children need to learn facts and behavior. Teaching them religion is not in any way detrimental to thinking critically or logic and reason. This concept you keep insisting is nothing but a fabrication that exists in your mind because of your disdain for religion.
Not any more then memorizing the 50 states or the capitol of those states will. Not any more then reading comic books or playing fictional games will. Are you suggesting they do not do that either? I happen to know that some of the smartest geeks and scientists, probably the very same ones you aspire to, were heavily invested in video games that did not follow your version of scientific reality or comic books. They probably do more harm to critical thinking then any religion could do because they actually expect you to work through puzzles and anticipate what comes next without following the laws of nature. Religion basically says, this is what happened and this is why we worship. It is literally memorizing states and capitols compared to comics and video games.
No!! there is not only two ways. Please start using this logic and reasoning, this critical thinking you keep claiming is so important.
Please stop putting your religious (or bigoted to be more accurate) beliefs in front of logic and reason. You are worse then a jehovas witness with this shit.
What are you talking about? You do not need the police to put a lien on a building or car or copyrighted work. All you need to do is file the proper paperwork with the appropriate agency.
That is true in only certain instances. Most foreign banks cooperate with US court orders if they do business with the US. You may have to hire a lawyer in the other country to show a judge the US court order and request the comparable order be made. You cannot just attach to something without a court order or other legal right to do so. You are not walking in off the street saying Jimbob owes me money, lock this account until he pays me.
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong point. I have never said you would be going after them for perjury. You can sue people for acts they take that damage you in some way if you can quantify the damages. Loss of business or reputation and legal fees incurred because of the wrong is one of those ways, What happens with a fraudulent take down notice is that someone is erroneously making a legal claim against you. They owe for any damage that error causes just like if they walked down the street and assaulted you.
You attach to assets they hold like the claimed copyrighted works and report the debt to the credit bureaus so the company has to clear it in order to do business or suffer penalties in trying to do so.
This is why you sue the agent and the owner who will be liable too.
If I was the only person suing, you might have a point. But if everyone who has been wronged by these things sue, then they cannot escape the reality.
These organizations and the people/organizations who employ them are already subject to damages and legal fees their take down notices cause. The DMCA does not protect the person making the claim or the accused, just the netowrk operator if certain steps are taken.