You're mostly correct. However, one of the requirement was that you can make these statements without fear of reprisal from the government. In theory, you should be fine. In the real world people have been incarcerated for weeks or months without trial (under the patriot act) for saying stupid things. Note that you can also be arrested (and convicted, apparently) for stating in private that you think bombing some building would be a good way to achieve said goal. Even if there is no tangible evidence (i.e. bombs or bomb-making equipment) that you actually planned to do that.
Well, no -not really but your right. Don't mistake over throwing a government or the support of doing so to replace it with a version of your imagined in your own mind with changing your government through the legal process in place specifically to allow the people to shape it. There is the real difference, even though it appears to be a subtle choice of wording. One is the same as effecting change to our own system through the electorial process and with the consent of enough people who cared enough to vote (even with a large but minority disagreeing), the other side steps the principle of the people.
You see, stating that you "want to help elect people who share your views and work towards amending the constitution and gaining the popular support to create a more fair an equitable government and system that benefits the people like what you think a counsel of elders following sharia law would provide" is entirely different then saying "I wish someone would blow up that building and kill the lot of them so I can get this counsel into place" even if the counsel doesn't exist. One is embracing the system to change the system within it's own rules like we do with every day normal elections, the other is conspiracy to commit a crime and if someone actually did blow up the building, it would/could be an act of war and terrorism against the United States on your behalf. Its the difference between the good guys and the bad guys because one is following the rules and not breaking the law. But the results are no different then "If I'm elected, I will push for the government to do X" where X being don't by the federal government isn't supported by the constitutional authority of the government. Lets say X could be anything from single payer health care to ensuring women can vote to abolishing slavery or establishing a counsel of elders of some sort.
I understand what your saying though. Many people, if they knew your end game would work to stop you on their own and with any tool at their advantage. However, if you havn't broken a law, that would be illegal to use government against you. And if you did make so much of a whisper of an illegal act, the full weight of the law would/could come down on you depending if they have any power to abuse or not. But we can't mistake private citizens with government unless they are action as agents of the government. This abuse of power may even happen if the action or charges filed against you have no chance at all of surviving the court case once the details are out if the abusive charges can be used to disrupt your support base and momentum.
The big problem with the later, "government abuse and vigilantism by the government", is that every time we pass a law because of kneejerk fears, some politician or government agency will end up using it in ways it was never intended to be applied or raised as the concern for passing the laws. The conspiracy charge used to need some sort of capability to be demonstrated, but that was dropped because of fears. These were fears that the "degrees of separation like what is found with organized crime where the bosses and main beneficent can't be legally touched over a killing or a drug ring (whatever) they profited from or whatever"- could/would spill into the world of terrorism and Al Qeada's top planners/leaders who masterminded and ordered the assault could basically sit in the court rooms during the trials of t
OK, your still not seeing it, I will give it another try and I will attempt to be a little more civil this time. But before we get started, I want you to read this article to get an idea of the issues I'm talking about.
It's not that disagree with you about the reasoning behind Kyoto, or the effectiveness of selling carbon credits. But neither of those things have anything to do with what is presently happening. That you fear the political implications does not suddenly transform good science into hype and FUD. It would be better for me if I contented myself with the idea that AGW is some "vast left-wing conspiracy". I have too much to worry about in my own life. But that's not how it works.
The issue is that the science is directly connected to the politics and when you see an attack on the politics, you are taking it as an attack on the science. I originally made no reference to the science behind global warming and even stated it was independent of my argument when I made mention to the "even of it is happening, the so called solutions aren't addressing the claimed problem and all of them have been hijacked for political manipulation and gain" Now those aren't my exact words, but it's close enough. You took that as an attack on the science without any consideration of what was actually said or the context in which it was said.
And it isn't just you, when a journalist quote or represent conclusions or statements of the science and people point out their flaws or unsupported statements, it is taken as an attack on the science. Gwynne Dyer said in an Op-ed back in 2005 over an interpreted a statement from James Lovelock concerning global warming "it would cause a massive human die-off" Lovelock's state actually was "Unless we stop now, we will really doom the lives of our descendants. If we just go on for another 40 or 50 years faffing around, they'll have no chance at all, it'll be back to the Stone Age. There'll be people around still. But civilization will go." So does the science affirm that there _will_be_ a massive human die off or then end of civilization? No, it doesn't those are opinions and interpretations of possibilities. The science doesn't exactly rule it out but it doesn't rule out aliens coming in with some laser refrigerator large enough to cool the planet with technology unimaginable to us and thereby saving the world either. Yet when criticizing those comments, We are labeled as "deniers" and attacked by people like you for being stupid and not knowing science as if the science actually does say civilization will be destroyed in 50 for certain. But some how, we should be prosecuted like Nazi war criminals as David Roberts suggests with this comment. "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Now, knowing that in today's environment the politics and the science can't be separated, you end up with scientific conclusions or statements made for the purpose of furthering the politics. Germany's Environment Minister, Jürgen Trittin claimed that Katrina was caused by Global Warming stating the the US had to sign Kyoto and refused to back down on the statement even after the science and scientists said it had nothing specific to do with global warming.
But wait, it gets better because now we only have two months to save the world. Does the Science actually say that if we don't act within two month, we will definitely see the "killing or making refugees of billions of people in Asia, Africa and America"? Does the science even speak of ""The first offers must come from the rich countries lik
I should probably articulate the point further. First of all, free speech is not the gold standard of freedom. There are other freedom values that are arguably more important to a free society, such as due process. By that standard alone, the US wouldn't be allowed in (see: guantanamo).
I'm not going to disagree with the premise of this statement in general but I will question whether Guantanamo or the suspension of habeas corpus in the way applied would qualify as both a lack of due process and some violation that would negate freedom. I say this because in the context of the conversation, we are talking about the freedom of a society and I would argue that people attacking that society isn't a part of it even though they may be held under that society's control in defense of those attacks. And lets not sugar coat it thinking the members at club gitmo were detained for saying our laws or foreign policy needs changed. It wasn't speech at all, they are there for violence or direct support of violence against the members of the society (In this case the US) in a theater of war or by conducting war again civilians of our society. Well, that is with the exception of those who have been incorrectly imprisoned but due process isn't necessarily removed from them because even though it takes longer and is conducted a little differently, the same elements were availible as to pointing to their detention.
Second of all, you state that the right to criticize your government without fear of reprisal is the standard of a free society. You try advocating the replacement of the US government by a sharia-backed council of elders and see how far that gets you.
Well, actually, the GP stated that was the standard for a free society, I was stating that the US hasn't removed that in any meaningful way so as to make us any more non-free then we have ever been, and certainly not enough to make us non-free or a fear based society.
As for the replacement of the US government by Sharia, Here is the thing, suggesting that, working towards implementing that, and even lawfully having it isn't against any laws in the United States of America. Now, there will be certain steps that would need to happen like constitutional amendments to both removed the power and structure of the current government and to create the authority of the new Sharia based Counsel government. If you plot to undermine the authority or existence of the government itself in any ways which is in violation of a law or considered an act of war, then it would be those acts that are against the law and not the speech. And Do not in any way take the reaction of civilians in disagreement as an impediment of your freedom, the freedom is from government, not your neighbor. Your neighbor doesn't have any rights above you in response (unless your statement is slanderous or somehow otherwise legally bound), but people are animals underneath and when you provoke them, they react.
Anyways, the difference is between lawfully changing the government and unlawfully changing it. When you lawfully change the government, the government itself evolves into the finished product. When you unlawfully change the government, you are replacing it and the rights of the people without proper justification. Lets be thankful that it is so hard to get constitutional amendments.
Freedom means different things in different places, most of the world doesn't think of the US as being nearly as free as you seem to think it is. Most of the world is not even convinced that a 'free' society is a good thing to have. A united nations without most of the world is not a united nations at all.
The problem here, and I'm not exactly sure it is an actual problem outside a point of clarification, but the problem is what you touched on in the former paragraph. People value different aspects of freedom differently or place different weight on to the f
You really have no reading compregension skill do you? The mere mentioning of Israel was nothing but ancillary information to set the time line. If any weight was put on Israel over what I said, it was purely because of your reading into it and most likely your guilt somehow not letting you settle.
As for outsourcing pollution being a shock, it fucking should be. Is the global warming rallying cry not something about Co2 destroying the world or making it uninhabitable and unhospitable to humans? If any of that is remotely true, then shifting it from person A to person B is not a fix even though it is somehow being proclaimed to be. The point that you seem to be missing is that the mandated actions do nothing to solve or relieve the problem that brought the actions out. It would be like all the sudden they said you had to make love to your dog,- sure your doing something but it has absolutely no effect on global warming.
Kyoto, socialism, political motivation, those are the key elements of the scam. If a society goes into a socialist contract with it's members, that fine and dandy, if that society is tricked into that environment of fake OMG the world is going to end scares, then that is no different then you taking your car to the service center for an oil change and them telling you that it needs $5000 in sensors and other repairs when there isn't a damn thing wrong with it. I know, your a douche and don't own a car because oil changed always seem to cost 5 grand, but the point is still there whether you take it willingly or not.
Oh yea, solar power sucks because it's too damn expensive and couldn't compete with traditional energy source even back when it was inflated to 3 times it's value. The point about it being old is that solar is somewhat well established and we are about to the point of efficiency without some major breakthrough. Solar simply will not be competitive without some new major advancement. You won't be able to manufacture the costs must lower, you aren't going to get much more efficiency with current tech, and with the need of storage and inverters, it will always be at a disadvantage.
Nobody gives a crap about Kyoto *now*. You think people are going to care more about it when the polar ice caps are gone, and we have much larger problems to deal with? At one point you say "even if global warming is real". So I can understand why you think this is a lot of scaremongering. All I can suggest is that you read more on the topic. The science side of it, since you seem to be well versed in the history/politics.
Actually people do give a crap about Kyoto and in the context of the post, it was more then appropriate. Context is something you seem to be missing though. I don't know why it is a problem for you, but the entire post was set to a time line and even if Kyoto isn't important today, it was during the time line. More importantly, the reason people don't care about it today is because it has been exposed as a scam that did nothing to limit the flow of Co2 into the atmosphere. The fact that people don't care any more predicates that the entire process was/is and still is little more then a scam. You do understand what a scam is right? That's when someone tricks you into doing something your expecting to benefit from but they withhold the benefits.
BTW, the Even if Global warming is real was a qualifier to state that the failures in the political solutions and the hijacking for ulterior reasons doesn't negate any evidence of global warming. This goes back to that context thing that you have demonstrated the inability to handle. If X-1=a+b then any perversion of a or b would not necessarily corrupt X, it would just means that in the context used, X-1!=a+b or X-1=(a+b)-any_perversions. The point is, the political hijacking doesn't change the first part of the equation, it is still X-1. If X-1 is bad at all, then it is our duty,
Step Four, get sued past the point of any potential returns from the actions outlined.
There are unfair competition/business laws present that could offer a halt to that sort of thing. This is a big part of what MS was busted for and even though the anti trust case was more or less a busted slap on the wrist, Sun did end up taking a sizable chunk of change from MS over the Java implementations that did exactly what you suggested and MS is currently restricted by the settlement over certain things it can do.
But of course, me telling you about it means that the initial problems is most likely what is remembered and not the company getting spanked for their wrong doings in it. So your probably right.
Actually, or should I say ironically, Atheism is listed in the UN charter on Human rights as a religious right that should be honored by any member country. So at least in the context of the UN's understanding, it is a religion.
I love how you are all worried about kids you don't have or even plan to have. Let's join forces and look for reasons to get pissed about other things too. Perhaps your point about the RFID passports, we can claim that because the people in charge are largely like you, you can't get your legitimate complaint about them heard because they are rejecting you as a religious nut.
Maybe we can work some pets into the mix too, but we have to make sure they aren't ones we already have nor have plans to get any time soon. Perhaps potential girlfriends might work better?
GWB also said that after he got the job and it was appropriate to when and who he said it to. It's part of the culture to claim got support your actions when you think they are righteous.
The most obvious and earliest example of this in American history is when Thomas Jefferson confronted the ambassador of Tripoli while in France and ask where they got off pirating our commerce ships and enslaving our people. The ambassador's response was that Allah gives them the right. Jefferson's response came after he had been elected president and he created a standing navy, the department of the marines, and promptly sent them to Tripoli to revoke that right.
I'm getting tired of seeing unfounded arguments like yours.
Ironically I've found a lot of people who are heavily into church and god are actually those with worse moral qualities, but it is subjective and each person is different
You will find most "evil" people attempting to appear righteous. In other words, murderers who consistently act like murderers tend to get caught or killed. Murderers who act like the community group leader and captain of the block watch program tends to live free a lot longer. This is true whether religion is in the picture or not. There is nothing magical about a church or saying your religion that precludes you from doing bad things and even a doubter like you should know that it wouldn't preclude anyone from doing bad things. Why you don't understand this and had to bring it up like you did is beyond me.....
Has the world ever been peaceful? in the days when every man woman and child had to be religious or they would be burned at the steak, we had crusades which resulted in thousands of people being killed, all because they simply believed something else.
This again shows that you just don't undertand what your talking about. God didn't start any crusades, God didn't start any wars, didn't torture anyone, Didn't burn anyone at the stake and didn't smack you around as a kid to give you reason to hate so much later in life. Those were all actions of man and no one claims that God done them even though some of those actions were proclaimed to have been done in the name of god.
The problem is that religion has been perverted into a tool to control the population. It doesn't really matter what religion it is or how old or new it is. But the rulers of the populations using this tool called religion wasn't GOD or some Gods, it was a mortal man who made a claim. The same man who made the claim already held power over the people, he just used the religions as excuses to act in ways the people would object to. Instead, the ruler simply reflected his shortcomings and failures as a person onto the people by claiming they werne't pleasing GOD or the gods. But the people feared the ruler and the people pretending to represent god, not god itself.
and 'god's' laws are infallible and nobody could ever possibly break a law written down by a MAN a few thousand years ago?
Actually, I'm going to assume you are talking about the same GOD the Christians, the Jews, and Muslims use in this comment. Each one of those religions write about the free will aspect of Man and how man is required to make a choice. That choice allows those laws to be honored or broken just like it allows you to have orange juice or coffee with your breakfast.
But think of the reasoning behind it like slaves verses volunteers. conscript a group of people and force them to do a job, they will do it but not as thoroughly or as efficiently as a group of willing volunteers trading their efforts for pay.
The world in general has not changed, only your perception of it, with greater information we can now see more of the atrocities being committed, when before it was easier to sweep under the rug where no-one could see. The world overall has never been a pleasant or perfect place.
Your probably more right then wrong here. However, in the absence of religion, we are seeing bad things happen earlier in life. Kids join gangs and kill earlier in life for less and less. Ten years ago, it may have been over clothing, now it's because they looked at him hard. Crime rates in most towns were lower, people provided for their families on a larger scale then they do today, a lot of things are different now. A good portion of this is the social economic climate and the deterioration of the family. However that is something that was traditionally strong in religious views which would probably eliminate s
The problem with the Sudan was that they were mass killing their own citizens in efforts to purify their population. Genocide is not peace nor freedom in any way and a primary purpose of the UN was to stop that behavior.
As for telling the UN to pound sand, Sure, I agree with you. But in the examples specifically given, I think the country lost if not just temporarily, their right of sovereignty because of the appalling actions taken by them. I would expect that to happen to any nation who commits genocide- even if they are a bunch of blacks.
It really doesn't matter if it is ever ratified by the UN. Each and every country has the right to accept or refuse the resolutions unless something else binds them to it.
In other words, unless the UN had brokered the ending of a war and the countries has to submit to certain things for compliance, it has no authority above what each individual country allows it to have. Even if they adopt this, it would be up to every single country to accept it in order for it to effect them just like any other treaty. The one exception is they might slide it into the jurisdiction of the world court which makes me glad my politicians weren't dumb enough to cede sovereignty to it. And if they did, I would encourage my politicians to militarily support any country who did surrender sovereignty to the world court in an effort to aid them in getting it back.
Why would it be out? You can go to what amounts to the town square and badmouth the government. You can bad mouth the government anywhere you want. You just can't take someone's else' rights or property to do so. Your probably thinking of the free speech zones which isn't applicable to what was mentioned. Your right to free speech does not trump any rights I or some politician might have and it certainly doesn't trump other people's rights to free speech. The right of free speech allows you to say things without fear of reprisal from the government, it doesn't give you a venue or an audience which is about all the complaints over the speech zones seem to protest.
No, just about every affluent country has negative population growth. The total populations of affluent countries are increasing only due to immigration.
Well, yes and no. What your referring to is the natural growth rates. Well, I assume that is because your link which displayed information from Wikipedia wouldn't show anything but the links to Wikipedia for me. Anyways, the natural growth rate is currently around.8 to.9 percent for the US per year. The rest is immigration as you mention. The problem is that the growth rate is not exactly exponential, it is compounded and influenced directly by the immigration. So lets say that a real population increase is 2% but only.8% is natural growth. Lets also assume that we have 100 people. In the first year, we would have a total of 102 people with.8 of them being from live births and 1.2 of them being immigrants. But the next year, if things stay the same, we now have 2% of 102 people making it 104.2 people total with.83 of them natural and 1.25 being imported. So lets say this goes on for 10 years, using a simple compound interest calculation with the values of 100 at the start and 2% increase per year for 10 years, we end up with 121.9 people. That's a real growth of 21.9% over those 10 years. If after the 10 years we find the savings, then in 10 more years with the same numbers, we would have around 148.6 people. That's only another 21.9% or so increase but 10 years into the furter it would be a real 48% increase in population.
This is what makes it so difficult to go backwards like they attempted to do with Kyoto. In was out and offered roughly 8 years after the 1990 numbers were locked in, signing it, ratifying it, and starting to legislate it could reasonably take another 2 years. That would effectivly take the goal to ten years back but instead of starting with 100 people, you are starting with 121 people. Now if it takes ten years to realize the 30% emissions savings, you then have the 148 people using them. You haven't reached your goals yet.
Lets look at the http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=on >USA's population. Now this is going to get a little sloppy because I had trouble finding population information from the same source and this site stops in 2008 which 2010 would fit better. Anyways, in 1990, the US's population was 248,709,873. In 2000 or 10 years later (symbolic of implementing Kyoto standards) the population was 281,421,906. A difference of 32,712,069 people or about 13% more people. The 2008 population says 304,059,724 or 55,349,851 more people then the 1990 levels. This is roughly 22% more people at the end of ten years (actually only 8 of the ten) working towards a ten year old number. Now here is the effect, if each person used x units of energy and produced 10 units of Carbon emissions a year and it took ten years to get a 20% reduction in emissions, we are only 2% under the 1990 levels. That can be negated in one or two years.
And the hard problem we have is that most all processes are at or near peak efficiency. There isn't much more that we can do outside of sequestering the emissions or removing it from the air directly. But again, I have to ask why are we even worrying about it when we don't care about the emissions of 70% or better of the rest of the world? We know that trees aren't the answer unless we cut the trees down and use them for something, we know that wind and solar are too costly at the moment, but all of that is moot when we don't care if there is an increase in total world emissions as long as it doesn't come from the wealthy nations.
I will go into why the immigration is so important when I answer the other
A scheme failing to work doesn't mean it wasn't a scheme. As for the alternative energy sources making a profit, that generally only happens when energy costs are artificially high which would be the case with cap and trade in the EU as well as the bubble that busted last fall.
The EU has experienced about a 3% inflation rate over the last year. This is a little disturbing when you consider that Euro dollar is worth about 1.5 US dollars. Actually today it is 1.32 but on average over the last few years, it has been more to the point of 1.5 or so. That means the 3% inflation is more like 4.5% in the US. In contrast, the US inflation rate typically runs around 3% even though 2008 saw a 3.8% rate. Now the EU rates actually vary from member nation to member nation and I took the current average rate expressed by the HICP data availible which is measured in and adjusted to 2005 Euro dollars.
Anyways, the EU imposed several different energy tariffs and actually had a consumer rights deal worked out because their energy costs were too high for their poor to afford. Sadly, if the Obama Cap and trade system is put in place, we will see that in the US too. And yes, the US is already eyeballing tariffs to place on imports to ensure that we pay as much as possible.
Anyways, despite what you think is exculpatory evidence simply because something failed to materialize, all you have to do is ask a few questions and you can clearly see the idea isn't to stop global warming as much as it is to siphon money and alternative political agendas.
The first question might be, if global warming is so problematic and it is the human contributions to GHGs,- then why is the focus solely on limiting what people can do or by taking a sum of money from them instead of creating an international research group that does nothing but explores technology to reduce emissions, make alternative energy sources affordable, advance the state of plug in electric vehicles or perhaps small but efficient power generating systems like Fuel cells of hydrogen peroxide "on demand" charging systems, and then make those discoveries availible to any industry wishing to implement them while eventually phasing older systems out or retrofitting them as repairs become necessary.
Another question would be why aren't caps imposed on all Kyoto signatories instead of just the wealthy ones? Even if the caps settled on an over all larger amount of emissions on a world wide scale, the developing countries would be benefiting from advancements in efficiency and emissions controls from industrialized nations and we would be on a world wide effort to reduce emissions instead of attempting to punish just the rich nations.
Another question which I think is the most telling is with the caps, why isn't there a provision for one nation to implement changes in another as a means of capturing part of the carbon allotments. If the UK could contract with corporations in the US or Germany or France or China or whoever to upgrade to cleaner or more efficient systems, they should have the ability to claim ownership of some of the carbon offset by those upgrades. Lets say they can upgrade a facility and save 200 m-tons of emissions a year, and they can do that upgrade for $1000 per ton, that may be cheaper then purchasing 100 metric tons of carbon units from Tuvalu or the economic losses from exporting industry to India or China or where ever the hot spot might be that isn't restricted by carbon caps.
Finally, why isn't the goal to stop emissions. Sure, people think that is a goal but it has never been expressed in any political solution presently or previously at the table for consideration. All political solutions to date have contained only a reduction of emissions, most of them were reductions in increased emissions, and they all contained a way to buy your way out of obligations.
I guess you were to busy driving your gas guzzling SUV, getting 2 miles per gallon, while eating big greasy cheeseburgers in those old-fashioned styrofoam containers and chucking those containers through the window of your car - to actually do some number crunching there. 30% out of 10 is 3 - yes... BUT...
Those 3 people are also gonna have their carbon emissions scaled down - so take 30% off of them too. That would be 0.9 - almost an entire person. So, starting with 10, you end up with 13 people - who are creating as much of CO2 as 9 people did before. More people, less pollution.
Well, one thing is for sure, I didn't have my head up someone's ass while blindly following faulty logic.
Anyways, add a unit/person or two to the mix. it's not like we are going to limit the population. If all the savings is in something automobile exhaust or electric generation the savings can be offset simply buy changes in use. The point of the matter is that population growth can over power any reductions as well as the reduction doesn't address the problem. It isn't like the emissions savings is stopping Co2 from entering the air, if pumping it in is the problem, then it shouldn't disappear because something emitted only 7 units instead of 10.
You can see that it WOULD NOT be impossible. Plus - needs of the people are not increasing EQUALLY. A village somewhere in Africa that needs a wind or solar powered water pump DOES NOT equal one lard-ass in the developed world who spends dozen such pumps on lattes each year.
First, I didn't say it would be impossible, read what you think you read again. Perhaps grab a dictionary in between cussing out everyone who doesn't fit your mold of an ideal existence. Second, the idiots in the country with 5 pumps each shouldn't be worried about the somewhere in Africa. Somewhere in Africa is the responsibility of their own government, not mine or me. I don't and will not be guilted because someone's people let them down when attempting to act like government. If they want our government to fix things, they need to surrender sovereignty so the resources can be exploited for the betterment of both societies.
By cutting down on your own emissions and implementing clean energy sources on the large scale - YOU get to keep nearly all of your current comforts, plus you let some developing countries reach a higher level of civilization in the process.
Actually, without either, I get to keep all my creature comforts as well as not have to pay for some others countries upgrade in civilization. And yes, it all ends up costing more, solar and electric is just too expensive, coal and oil already replaced it once. Jobs going overseas means no work at home or work that is so fudged into the mold that people not paying their mortgage two states away will cause you to lose your livelihood.
And not only do you get to live a cleaner and healthier life with less chance for getting cancer and with a "better" body due to actually walking a bit here and there - by raising standards of those poor people in the "Third World" you reduce the chances that in the future they will feel the urge to chuck a plane or two into some buildings near your home. Or a carcass crawling with Ebola into your local water supply.
And here is the problem. You went from what might be better to telling us what to do. Why would I want to walk? I get plenty of exercise in the gym. And less chance doesn't mean no cancer. Just like me never having cancer doesn't mean I won't be effected by it some day. But you dictating how people must live, what they can't do like driving a vintage muscle car or running industrial sized mills and lathes or welders or whatever to restore them- or doing anything that uses more energy.
But here is the kicker, you think it was the third world countries because of t
Your right that nudity isn't pornography but pornography can be nudity.
Society has worked to suppress the naturalistic urges to just take the opposite sex whenever you feel the need to. It has brought about civilization and in some ways stabilized it. This isn't a society that is mentally ill, it is a calculating society working to better itself and it has worked.
Now the difference between nudity and pornography is the sexual implication or intention of the nudity. If it is meant to erotically excite someone, then it can be labeled as pornography. From the descriptions of the photos I have seen, they can be considered pornography. As a society, we have also decided that it isn't right to possess pornographic images of children under the age of consent and thus we are left with this situation.
States like Ohio are attempting to pass laws making minor children guilty of misdemeanors instead of felonies. It's an attempt to soften the blow on something they might not be aware of but we won't let go because it furthers the order of society.
You need to study up a little on the subject. Alleviating the over burdening regulation and costs associated with socialism isn't corporatism.
The problem lays with the carrot and the stick. One side only believes in the stick and expects to be able to beat industry into their idealist compliance. The other side believes in using the carrot to move the beast closer to compliance and then using the stick only when that fails. The carrot in this instance would be tax incentives and subsidies that you would consider corporate welfare. The more we take action that places a cost on business, the more business moves outside our reach. The so called welfare attempts to displace that costs until it can be built into the pricing structure. In a free society, no business has an obligation to stay in a specific place so to see the benefit from it remaining there, you need to have as little artificial impact through regulation as possible. This isn't being fascist in any reasoning of the word. However, if you only look at the surface and don't understand the principle of the actions, you will even fail to see the electric is out because you didn't pay the bill, not because something else caused it.
The issues as I see it is that those problems won't happen over night. They will be gradually phased in over time and humans are more then capable of adapting and engineering around nature.
You know, it isn't much different then florida, it's water table is severely close to the surface yet we have buildings with basements. It gets pounded with several hurricanes each year and after the mid 80's (Ivan I think) the building codes were adjusted and now the buildings are damaged instead of destroyed. Warning systems have been put in place and now people have time to evacuate the dangers as they come buy as well as places to go. Florida still is one of the top agriculture producing states in the US.
Yet when people start talking about dealing with the effects of global warming instead of mitigating the problems, they are called shills for BigOil, idiots and so on. New Orleans was a failure of government to act and/or act properly. There is no reason to believe that in 100 years when the oceans have risen 3 foot that dams and levies can't be in place, that building codes won't reflect the new environment or that people won't be farming new lands and producing food in places it hasn't been before. Humans adapt, we have this ability to not only use tools but to think about the use of a tool and build better tools to use. It's not like one day we will wake up and realize that no one did anything.
I can make the argument for you. In 1988 when the global warming alarmism started moving along, it parralelled a push to forgive the third world debt that was largely caused by the oil crisis in the 1970's when OPEC decided to halt sales to the US over it's support for Israel who just kicked their asses.
Anyways, to stay on topic, in 1992, the global warming issue had been hijacked by the third world debt issues and the product of this can be seen by 1994 with the first attempts to draft the Kyoto accords. Of course this was all highly secretive and the US attempted to assemble and international climate panel to prove that global warming was the cause of man (more specifically, first world industrialized nations). The movement to forgive the third world debt started disapearing as the Kyoto accords started nearing release. In 1998 it had almost completely evaporated but by then, they had most of europe convinced it needed to sign on to Kyoto.
Now when we examine Kyoto we find several things. Of the 157 some countries that have signed on to it, only 36-37 (if you count the US) have caps on their Co2 production and a few of those caps were placed at rated higher then they were currently emitting. The numbers I posted may be off by a couple because I'm rambling from memory but they accurately represent the differences and anyone wanting to look can find it easily. Anyways, of the 37 or so countries, they placed limits to 1990 levels of Co2 production but claimed that all man made Co2 was in excess of the natural cycles and causing global warming. Now you can look at this and see right now that the goal of the Kyoto protocol wasn't necessarily to stop global warming because it only addressed a portion of the Co2 coming from some of the richest nations. The same nations BTW that owned the third world debt.
But is gets worse. Knowing, and yes, we have years of data to back this up but knowing that the population generally increases (*with the exception of Germany which is almost a negative population growth rate) you can see that it would be almost impossible to go back 10 years in carbon production while the needs of the people are constantly increasing. If you cut 10 people's carbon footprint by 30% over 20 years and during that 20 years, 3 more people are added to the group, their 70% contribution negates all savings from the 30%reduction. So there was a trigger built in to Kyoto that allowed member nations to offset their Co2 production by buying Carbon credits from the third world nations or to invest into those third world nations by moving industry there. This creates a revenue base that allows the third world nations to pay off their debt but it totally ignores the issue of Co2 production being bad for the environment. In short, it says if the rich industrialized nations want to stay comfortable, they have to pay more and invest in the poorer third world countries. Currently, most of Europe has chosen to use Chine and India to outsource their pollution and help meet their goals and it can be seen by their increased pollution emissions. China has or is about to pass the US in emissions and they have no caps whatsoever at all. The remaining 130 some countries who have started becoming major polluters too, are in line for this type of boost.
So even if global warming is real and it is the threat that it has been claimed, the political solutions have been hijacked from the start for reasons of money. And those reasons are huge. The sums of money involved are well above any oil companies profits or savings you will see from traditional energy compared to the more expensive alternative sources.
People have moved past that redistribution of wealth, greed has kicked in, and you have people like Al Gore selling carbon offsets to himself or people with the potential to make billions from outdated technology (yes, solar was invented in the 1800's, failed to be practical or cost effective in the 50's,60's,70's and 80's, Wind was actually replaced by coal in the 1920's though the 1950's) if they can
The performance of todays' laptops is on a par with desktops. As a matter of fact, it's usually better for machines that look "similar-specs" because the components are better matched.
On par yes, but at a price disadvantage. You simply cannot purchase a laptop for the same price as a comparable desktop. And with most laptop installations, the keyboards and monitors while sufficient for mobile use, aren't the most productive compared to normal ones. Some of the monitors might be close but generally they are plugged in to regular monitors that are larger and easier to see. All this adds up to spending more then you would be saving. Especially at the $36 per year number. Once you figure the extra savings of the laptop's power requirements in, it may not be as large of a difference but one would be there.
Also, there's no such thing as a "redundant scren and keyboard" when migrating to a half-decent laptop. Plug the screen and keyboard from the previous machine into the laptop and get the "dual-monitor goodness" for free. No need to buy an extra video card, so there's an additional saving there. So, spend $300 more, save that $300 over the next 3 years in energy costs, and get a productivity boost of between 5% and 50% per user. Sounds like a win-win to me. (Before you say it's not practical, my 17" laptop which I'm posting this from is plugged into a 26" 1920x1200 Samsung... and my linux desktop, with all the special effects enabled, works across both screens. I bought a 2nd identical lcd for the office, and I notice a serious performance hit when I plug it into the office dual-core which is supposedly 50% faster. Specs don't come anywhere near telling the whole story).
That could work for some, generally when we replace computers, we replace the monitors too just to avoid the hassle of them failing randomly one some age comes on them. The biggest problem with the monitors is that the brightness fades and in the bright office lights, the colors start to washout making it difficult to see. After a point, this starts the employee using them to either get drowsy and tired or it gives them headaches. Unfortunately in my case, most of the used monitors that would be considered Good, end up going to the server line where most of the work is done remotely.
As for the "leaving them on makes them run longer" - the two sets of machines you're dealing with are probably dealing with different workloads, different locations, and differing care and maintenance. I don't expect end-user Windows boxes to last more than a couple - three years before they're ready to be junked. It's just the way it is. A good example is a hard drive I salvaged from a dying windows box - wouldn't even boot, couldn't re-install windows, etc. I stuck it in a linux box, and it ran for years after, and handled up to a terabyte of data transfer each month. So, different work loads will result in differing failure modes - especially when an inept, angered, or frustrated user punches or kicks their box when they think nobody's looking, or drops a paperclip into the power supply, or repositions the box so there's no airflow, or any one of a number of other problems.
Ahh the paper clips... Lol.. Many copy machines have went down because of paperclips. I'm to the point there the little tray the manufacturer prints paperclips on as to suggest that you could store paperclips there, I just tape a piece of paper over it saying paperclips, staples, and thumbtacks are a good way to get the next service call on this machine deducted from your severance pay. Of course I can't fire anyone nor can I attack a fee to their paychecks, but the number of paperclips screwing the works up have dropped to almost less then once a year.
But Yea, I'm sure there are different workloads on the different floors. They aren't all that dissimilar though, they use the same programs, the ones that leave
Lets look at this from the back end of things instead of the contamination first.
How many crimes are unsolved? Of those crimes, how many have DNA evidence that ruled out other people as suspects? Of those cases, and because the problem isn't as wide spread, how many of the other people's DNA were someone's along the production and handling lines of the swabs? Or to be more blunt, how possible is it that the DNA could be from someone handling the swabs?
Imagine the court case, Prosecutor, they found the murder weapon in your garbage can, you had motive and a means, do you really expect us to believe you had nothing to do with the murder. Killer, the garbage can was on the curb, one of your officers could have put it there, you even found someone else's DNA at the crime scene- it was even on the murder weapon, why are you setting me up, it's not against the law to dislike someone- even if he was killed. Jury: not guilty.
If the contamination exists, it will most likely be just a few swabs. Some of those swabs may not even be tested for DNA because they will be used to look for other things like Gun shot residue and so on. But most likely when something does become contaminated, it is going to be in a close line effecting only the swabs closest to them. This means they could effect only one crime scene, possible two, and not even rise to the 20 different scenes across different countries.
Actually, I mean that comment as a joke. A joke that was poking fun at all the people who dismissed other theories as outlandish and only because of connections to oil companies only to have those theories incorporated into the global warming models later because it made more sense then the crap they had.
Here are a few points of contention that have been raise and subsequently subsumed. Water vapor, solar activity, volcanic activity, oceanic decadal oscillations (which have been linked to solar activity) and there are probable more like the mathmatical errors in the collection and reporting of temperatures. Two of which are the Y2K bug found in Hansen's reporting and the temp scales in the Mann Hockey stick graph that has been debunked.
The problem isn't the people not worth listening to. It was the people who had something of value to add but was rejected completely until the flaws they pointed out started causing problems.
Assumption 1 is more like we don't know if any cotton swabs from any batch is spoiled so periodic testing would confirm it or not. The person's contamination poses no risk to them, the risk comes from the police concentrating their efforts and resources on that person instead of the actual murderer who is now in the process of cleaning up all the mistakes he made. If at least one swab from every scene was tested without being exposed to the scene, the probability of a contaminated sample being present would have surfaced by now.
Assumption 2: This is a little more dificult because you bounce it around too much. However, if a control swab showed DNA at the scene was also found on the swab not used at the scene, then several assumptions could be made. One is that it got on the swab before getting to the scene. Two is that the DNA is most likely connected to someone handling the swabs and not a gruesome killer. Another would be that if it wasn't the police or officers collecting the evidence, then it could be someone involved with manufacturing, shipping or whatever else with the swab. But more to the point, if wouldn't have been at 20 difference crime scenes across international boundries because the manufacturer would have taken steps to fix the problem. So it would be trivial to find the people working close enough to the swabs to find the source of contamination and once that was done, it would be even more trivial to find out if they were in another countries when the murders took place.
That's right, the contamination doesn't give someone a free pass, what it does is allows the police to easily rule someone out and let them know when the person is a plausible suspect verses an artifact of a sneeze on an assembly line somewhere.
But think about what effect on the crime scene it has. In either case, nothing changes the crime scene, it doesn't place more or less blood there, it doesn't change who is the victim or where they are laying or what other evidence is there. What effect is has is the opinion or interpretation of all that evidence. It is in short, creating the opinion of investigating officers.
I have noticed that unless your working with Server quality hardware, it doesn't matter who makes the computers, you start seeing failures in about 2 years. This doesn't mean all of them will fail, it means that a majority of the ones I have seen fail are at least 2 years old.
Now, when I say fail, I'm talking about to a point where it can't be used for normal tasks and work assignments. It could be a bad piece of memory, a bad hard drives, a bad fan in the right place taking a processor with it and so on. Some companies will replace the entire unit then fix the problem and sell the old unit to employees. Some companies will just toss the bad computer out and replace it. Some companies will fix only what is bad and return it to service. I tend to keep spares at each site and rotate that in while fixing the bad computer and reserving it as a spare.
Modern systems however don't really become obsolete like they would in the past. They are powerful enough to handle most all office application availible today and will still be able to in the future. If I drop a new system in place today, I can expect to get 4-5 years out of it before it gets replaced simply because of failures. I could most likely replace it with identical hardware and get another 2-3 years from it before it needs to be replaced. However, some machines will simply fail before expected and this anomaly is increased when the computers get turned off and on constantly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no -not really but your right. Don't mistake over throwing a government or the support of doing so to replace it with a version of your imagined in your own mind with changing your government through the legal process in place specifically to allow the people to shape it. There is the real difference, even though it appears to be a subtle choice of wording. One is the same as effecting change to our own system through the electorial process and with the consent of enough people who cared enough to vote (even with a large but minority disagreeing), the other side steps the principle of the people.
You see, stating that you "want to help elect people who share your views and work towards amending the constitution and gaining the popular support to create a more fair an equitable government and system that benefits the people like what you think a counsel of elders following sharia law would provide" is entirely different then saying "I wish someone would blow up that building and kill the lot of them so I can get this counsel into place" even if the counsel doesn't exist. One is embracing the system to change the system within it's own rules like we do with every day normal elections, the other is conspiracy to commit a crime and if someone actually did blow up the building, it would/could be an act of war and terrorism against the United States on your behalf. Its the difference between the good guys and the bad guys because one is following the rules and not breaking the law. But the results are no different then "If I'm elected, I will push for the government to do X" where X being don't by the federal government isn't supported by the constitutional authority of the government. Lets say X could be anything from single payer health care to ensuring women can vote to abolishing slavery or establishing a counsel of elders of some sort.
I understand what your saying though. Many people, if they knew your end game would work to stop you on their own and with any tool at their advantage. However, if you havn't broken a law, that would be illegal to use government against you. And if you did make so much of a whisper of an illegal act, the full weight of the law would/could come down on you depending if they have any power to abuse or not. But we can't mistake private citizens with government unless they are action as agents of the government. This abuse of power may even happen if the action or charges filed against you have no chance at all of surviving the court case once the details are out if the abusive charges can be used to disrupt your support base and momentum.
The big problem with the later, "government abuse and vigilantism by the government", is that every time we pass a law because of kneejerk fears, some politician or government agency will end up using it in ways it was never intended to be applied or raised as the concern for passing the laws. The conspiracy charge used to need some sort of capability to be demonstrated, but that was dropped because of fears. These were fears that the "degrees of separation like what is found with organized crime where the bosses and main beneficent can't be legally touched over a killing or a drug ring (whatever) they profited from or whatever"- could/would spill into the world of terrorism and Al Qeada's top planners/leaders who masterminded and ordered the assault could basically sit in the court rooms during the trials of t
OK, your still not seeing it, I will give it another try and I will attempt to be a little more civil this time. But before we get started, I want you to read this article to get an idea of the issues I'm talking about.
The issue is that the science is directly connected to the politics and when you see an attack on the politics, you are taking it as an attack on the science. I originally made no reference to the science behind global warming and even stated it was independent of my argument when I made mention to the "even of it is happening, the so called solutions aren't addressing the claimed problem and all of them have been hijacked for political manipulation and gain" Now those aren't my exact words, but it's close enough. You took that as an attack on the science without any consideration of what was actually said or the context in which it was said.
And it isn't just you, when a journalist quote or represent conclusions or statements of the science and people point out their flaws or unsupported statements, it is taken as an attack on the science. Gwynne Dyer said in an Op-ed back in 2005 over an interpreted a statement from James Lovelock concerning global warming "it would cause a massive human die-off" Lovelock's state actually was "Unless we stop now, we will really doom the lives of our descendants. If we just go on for another 40 or 50 years faffing around, they'll have no chance at all, it'll be back to the Stone Age. There'll be people around still. But civilization will go." So does the science affirm that there _will_be_ a massive human die off or then end of civilization? No, it doesn't those are opinions and interpretations of possibilities. The science doesn't exactly rule it out but it doesn't rule out aliens coming in with some laser refrigerator large enough to cool the planet with technology unimaginable to us and thereby saving the world either. Yet when criticizing those comments, We are labeled as "deniers" and attacked by people like you for being stupid and not knowing science as if the science actually does say civilization will be destroyed in 50 for certain. But some how, we should be prosecuted like Nazi war criminals as David Roberts suggests with this comment. "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
Now, knowing that in today's environment the politics and the science can't be separated, you end up with scientific conclusions or statements made for the purpose of furthering the politics. Germany's Environment Minister, Jürgen Trittin claimed that Katrina was caused by Global Warming stating the the US had to sign Kyoto and refused to back down on the statement even after the science and scientists said it had nothing specific to do with global warming.
But wait, it gets better because now we only have two months to save the world. Does the Science actually say that if we don't act within two month, we will definitely see the "killing or making refugees of billions of people in Asia, Africa and America"? Does the science even speak of ""The first offers must come from the rich countries lik
I'm not going to disagree with the premise of this statement in general but I will question whether Guantanamo or the suspension of habeas corpus in the way applied would qualify as both a lack of due process and some violation that would negate freedom. I say this because in the context of the conversation, we are talking about the freedom of a society and I would argue that people attacking that society isn't a part of it even though they may be held under that society's control in defense of those attacks. And lets not sugar coat it thinking the members at club gitmo were detained for saying our laws or foreign policy needs changed. It wasn't speech at all, they are there for violence or direct support of violence against the members of the society (In this case the US) in a theater of war or by conducting war again civilians of our society. Well, that is with the exception of those who have been incorrectly imprisoned but due process isn't necessarily removed from them because even though it takes longer and is conducted a little differently, the same elements were availible as to pointing to their detention.
Well, actually, the GP stated that was the standard for a free society, I was stating that the US hasn't removed that in any meaningful way so as to make us any more non-free then we have ever been, and certainly not enough to make us non-free or a fear based society.
As for the replacement of the US government by Sharia, Here is the thing, suggesting that, working towards implementing that, and even lawfully having it isn't against any laws in the United States of America. Now, there will be certain steps that would need to happen like constitutional amendments to both removed the power and structure of the current government and to create the authority of the new Sharia based Counsel government. If you plot to undermine the authority or existence of the government itself in any ways which is in violation of a law or considered an act of war, then it would be those acts that are against the law and not the speech. And Do not in any way take the reaction of civilians in disagreement as an impediment of your freedom, the freedom is from government, not your neighbor. Your neighbor doesn't have any rights above you in response (unless your statement is slanderous or somehow otherwise legally bound), but people are animals underneath and when you provoke them, they react.
Anyways, the difference is between lawfully changing the government and unlawfully changing it. When you lawfully change the government, the government itself evolves into the finished product. When you unlawfully change the government, you are replacing it and the rights of the people without proper justification. Lets be thankful that it is so hard to get constitutional amendments.
The problem here, and I'm not exactly sure it is an actual problem outside a point of clarification, but the problem is what you touched on in the former paragraph. People value different aspects of freedom differently or place different weight on to the f
You really have no reading compregension skill do you? The mere mentioning of Israel was nothing but ancillary information to set the time line. If any weight was put on Israel over what I said, it was purely because of your reading into it and most likely your guilt somehow not letting you settle.
As for outsourcing pollution being a shock, it fucking should be. Is the global warming rallying cry not something about Co2 destroying the world or making it uninhabitable and unhospitable to humans? If any of that is remotely true, then shifting it from person A to person B is not a fix even though it is somehow being proclaimed to be. The point that you seem to be missing is that the mandated actions do nothing to solve or relieve the problem that brought the actions out. It would be like all the sudden they said you had to make love to your dog,- sure your doing something but it has absolutely no effect on global warming.
Kyoto, socialism, political motivation, those are the key elements of the scam. If a society goes into a socialist contract with it's members, that fine and dandy, if that society is tricked into that environment of fake OMG the world is going to end scares, then that is no different then you taking your car to the service center for an oil change and them telling you that it needs $5000 in sensors and other repairs when there isn't a damn thing wrong with it. I know, your a douche and don't own a car because oil changed always seem to cost 5 grand, but the point is still there whether you take it willingly or not.
Oh yea, solar power sucks because it's too damn expensive and couldn't compete with traditional energy source even back when it was inflated to 3 times it's value. The point about it being old is that solar is somewhat well established and we are about to the point of efficiency without some major breakthrough. Solar simply will not be competitive without some new major advancement. You won't be able to manufacture the costs must lower, you aren't going to get much more efficiency with current tech, and with the need of storage and inverters, it will always be at a disadvantage.
Actually people do give a crap about Kyoto and in the context of the post, it was more then appropriate. Context is something you seem to be missing though. I don't know why it is a problem for you, but the entire post was set to a time line and even if Kyoto isn't important today, it was during the time line. More importantly, the reason people don't care about it today is because it has been exposed as a scam that did nothing to limit the flow of Co2 into the atmosphere. The fact that people don't care any more predicates that the entire process was/is and still is little more then a scam. You do understand what a scam is right? That's when someone tricks you into doing something your expecting to benefit from but they withhold the benefits.
BTW, the Even if Global warming is real was a qualifier to state that the failures in the political solutions and the hijacking for ulterior reasons doesn't negate any evidence of global warming. This goes back to that context thing that you have demonstrated the inability to handle. If X-1=a+b then any perversion of a or b would not necessarily corrupt X, it would just means that in the context used, X-1!=a+b or X-1=(a+b)-any_perversions. The point is, the political hijacking doesn't change the first part of the equation, it is still X-1. If X-1 is bad at all, then it is our duty,
Step Four, get sued past the point of any potential returns from the actions outlined.
There are unfair competition/business laws present that could offer a halt to that sort of thing. This is a big part of what MS was busted for and even though the anti trust case was more or less a busted slap on the wrist, Sun did end up taking a sizable chunk of change from MS over the Java implementations that did exactly what you suggested and MS is currently restricted by the settlement over certain things it can do.
But of course, me telling you about it means that the initial problems is most likely what is remembered and not the company getting spanked for their wrong doings in it. So your probably right.
Actually, or should I say ironically, Atheism is listed in the UN charter on Human rights as a religious right that should be honored by any member country. So at least in the context of the UN's understanding, it is a religion.
I love how you are all worried about kids you don't have or even plan to have. Let's join forces and look for reasons to get pissed about other things too. Perhaps your point about the RFID passports, we can claim that because the people in charge are largely like you, you can't get your legitimate complaint about them heard because they are rejecting you as a religious nut.
Maybe we can work some pets into the mix too, but we have to make sure they aren't ones we already have nor have plans to get any time soon. Perhaps potential girlfriends might work better?
GWB also said that after he got the job and it was appropriate to when and who he said it to. It's part of the culture to claim got support your actions when you think they are righteous.
The most obvious and earliest example of this in American history is when Thomas Jefferson confronted the ambassador of Tripoli while in France and ask where they got off pirating our commerce ships and enslaving our people. The ambassador's response was that Allah gives them the right. Jefferson's response came after he had been elected president and he created a standing navy, the department of the marines, and promptly sent them to Tripoli to revoke that right.
*Yawn..
I'm getting tired of seeing unfounded arguments like yours.
You will find most "evil" people attempting to appear righteous. In other words, murderers who consistently act like murderers tend to get caught or killed. Murderers who act like the community group leader and captain of the block watch program tends to live free a lot longer. This is true whether religion is in the picture or not. There is nothing magical about a church or saying your religion that precludes you from doing bad things and even a doubter like you should know that it wouldn't preclude anyone from doing bad things. Why you don't understand this and had to bring it up like you did is beyond me.....
This again shows that you just don't undertand what your talking about. God didn't start any crusades, God didn't start any wars, didn't torture anyone, Didn't burn anyone at the stake and didn't smack you around as a kid to give you reason to hate so much later in life. Those were all actions of man and no one claims that God done them even though some of those actions were proclaimed to have been done in the name of god.
The problem is that religion has been perverted into a tool to control the population. It doesn't really matter what religion it is or how old or new it is. But the rulers of the populations using this tool called religion wasn't GOD or some Gods, it was a mortal man who made a claim. The same man who made the claim already held power over the people, he just used the religions as excuses to act in ways the people would object to. Instead, the ruler simply reflected his shortcomings and failures as a person onto the people by claiming they werne't pleasing GOD or the gods. But the people feared the ruler and the people pretending to represent god, not god itself.
Actually, I'm going to assume you are talking about the same GOD the Christians, the Jews, and Muslims use in this comment. Each one of those religions write about the free will aspect of Man and how man is required to make a choice. That choice allows those laws to be honored or broken just like it allows you to have orange juice or coffee with your breakfast.
But think of the reasoning behind it like slaves verses volunteers. conscript a group of people and force them to do a job, they will do it but not as thoroughly or as efficiently as a group of willing volunteers trading their efforts for pay.
Your probably more right then wrong here. However, in the absence of religion, we are seeing bad things happen earlier in life. Kids join gangs and kill earlier in life for less and less. Ten years ago, it may have been over clothing, now it's because they looked at him hard. Crime rates in most towns were lower, people provided for their families on a larger scale then they do today, a lot of things are different now. A good portion of this is the social economic climate and the deterioration of the family. However that is something that was traditionally strong in religious views which would probably eliminate s
The problem with the Sudan was that they were mass killing their own citizens in efforts to purify their population. Genocide is not peace nor freedom in any way and a primary purpose of the UN was to stop that behavior.
As for telling the UN to pound sand, Sure, I agree with you. But in the examples specifically given, I think the country lost if not just temporarily, their right of sovereignty because of the appalling actions taken by them. I would expect that to happen to any nation who commits genocide- even if they are a bunch of blacks.
It really doesn't matter if it is ever ratified by the UN. Each and every country has the right to accept or refuse the resolutions unless something else binds them to it.
In other words, unless the UN had brokered the ending of a war and the countries has to submit to certain things for compliance, it has no authority above what each individual country allows it to have. Even if they adopt this, it would be up to every single country to accept it in order for it to effect them just like any other treaty. The one exception is they might slide it into the jurisdiction of the world court which makes me glad my politicians weren't dumb enough to cede sovereignty to it. And if they did, I would encourage my politicians to militarily support any country who did surrender sovereignty to the world court in an effort to aid them in getting it back.
Why would it be out? You can go to what amounts to the town square and badmouth the government. You can bad mouth the government anywhere you want. You just can't take someone's else' rights or property to do so. Your probably thinking of the free speech zones which isn't applicable to what was mentioned. Your right to free speech does not trump any rights I or some politician might have and it certainly doesn't trump other people's rights to free speech. The right of free speech allows you to say things without fear of reprisal from the government, it doesn't give you a venue or an audience which is about all the complaints over the speech zones seem to protest.
Well, yes and no. What your referring to is the natural growth rates. Well, I assume that is because your link which displayed information from Wikipedia wouldn't show anything but the links to Wikipedia for me. Anyways, the natural growth rate is currently around .8 to .9 percent for the US per year. The rest is immigration as you mention. The problem is that the growth rate is not exactly exponential, it is compounded and influenced directly by the immigration. So lets say that a real population increase is 2% but only .8% is natural growth. Lets also assume that we have 100 people. In the first year, we would have a total of 102 people with .8 of them being from live births and 1.2 of them being immigrants. But the next year, if things stay the same, we now have 2% of 102 people making it 104.2 people total with .83 of them natural and 1.25 being imported. So lets say this goes on for 10 years, using a simple compound interest calculation with the values of 100 at the start and 2% increase per year for 10 years, we end up with 121.9 people. That's a real growth of 21.9% over those 10 years. If after the 10 years we find the savings, then in 10 more years with the same numbers, we would have around 148.6 people. That's only another 21.9% or so increase but 10 years into the furter it would be a real 48% increase in population.
This is what makes it so difficult to go backwards like they attempted to do with Kyoto. In was out and offered roughly 8 years after the 1990 numbers were locked in, signing it, ratifying it, and starting to legislate it could reasonably take another 2 years. That would effectivly take the goal to ten years back but instead of starting with 100 people, you are starting with 121 people. Now if it takes ten years to realize the 30% emissions savings, you then have the 148 people using them. You haven't reached your goals yet.
Lets look at the http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=on >USA's population. Now this is going to get a little sloppy because I had trouble finding population information from the same source and this site stops in 2008 which 2010 would fit better. Anyways, in 1990, the US's population was 248,709,873. In 2000 or 10 years later (symbolic of implementing Kyoto standards) the population was 281,421,906. A difference of 32,712,069 people or about 13% more people. The 2008 population says 304,059,724 or 55,349,851 more people then the 1990 levels. This is roughly 22% more people at the end of ten years (actually only 8 of the ten) working towards a ten year old number. Now here is the effect, if each person used x units of energy and produced 10 units of Carbon emissions a year and it took ten years to get a 20% reduction in emissions, we are only 2% under the 1990 levels. That can be negated in one or two years.
And the hard problem we have is that most all processes are at or near peak efficiency. There isn't much more that we can do outside of sequestering the emissions or removing it from the air directly. But again, I have to ask why are we even worrying about it when we don't care about the emissions of 70% or better of the rest of the world? We know that trees aren't the answer unless we cut the trees down and use them for something, we know that wind and solar are too costly at the moment, but all of that is moot when we don't care if there is an increase in total world emissions as long as it doesn't come from the wealthy nations.
I will go into why the immigration is so important when I answer the other
A scheme failing to work doesn't mean it wasn't a scheme. As for the alternative energy sources making a profit, that generally only happens when energy costs are artificially high which would be the case with cap and trade in the EU as well as the bubble that busted last fall.
The EU has experienced about a 3% inflation rate over the last year. This is a little disturbing when you consider that Euro dollar is worth about 1.5 US dollars. Actually today it is 1.32 but on average over the last few years, it has been more to the point of 1.5 or so. That means the 3% inflation is more like 4.5% in the US. In contrast, the US inflation rate typically runs around 3% even though 2008 saw a 3.8% rate. Now the EU rates actually vary from member nation to member nation and I took the current average rate expressed by the HICP data availible which is measured in and adjusted to 2005 Euro dollars.
Anyways, the EU imposed several different energy tariffs and actually had a consumer rights deal worked out because their energy costs were too high for their poor to afford. Sadly, if the Obama Cap and trade system is put in place, we will see that in the US too. And yes, the US is already eyeballing tariffs to place on imports to ensure that we pay as much as possible.
Anyways, despite what you think is exculpatory evidence simply because something failed to materialize, all you have to do is ask a few questions and you can clearly see the idea isn't to stop global warming as much as it is to siphon money and alternative political agendas.
The first question might be, if global warming is so problematic and it is the human contributions to GHGs,- then why is the focus solely on limiting what people can do or by taking a sum of money from them instead of creating an international research group that does nothing but explores technology to reduce emissions, make alternative energy sources affordable, advance the state of plug in electric vehicles or perhaps small but efficient power generating systems like Fuel cells of hydrogen peroxide "on demand" charging systems, and then make those discoveries availible to any industry wishing to implement them while eventually phasing older systems out or retrofitting them as repairs become necessary.
Another question would be why aren't caps imposed on all Kyoto signatories instead of just the wealthy ones? Even if the caps settled on an over all larger amount of emissions on a world wide scale, the developing countries would be benefiting from advancements in efficiency and emissions controls from industrialized nations and we would be on a world wide effort to reduce emissions instead of attempting to punish just the rich nations.
Another question which I think is the most telling is with the caps, why isn't there a provision for one nation to implement changes in another as a means of capturing part of the carbon allotments. If the UK could contract with corporations in the US or Germany or France or China or whoever to upgrade to cleaner or more efficient systems, they should have the ability to claim ownership of some of the carbon offset by those upgrades. Lets say they can upgrade a facility and save 200 m-tons of emissions a year, and they can do that upgrade for $1000 per ton, that may be cheaper then purchasing 100 metric tons of carbon units from Tuvalu or the economic losses from exporting industry to India or China or where ever the hot spot might be that isn't restricted by carbon caps.
Finally, why isn't the goal to stop emissions. Sure, people think that is a goal but it has never been expressed in any political solution presently or previously at the table for consideration. All political solutions to date have contained only a reduction of emissions, most of them were reductions in increased emissions, and they all contained a way to buy your way out of obligations.
Well, one thing is for sure, I didn't have my head up someone's ass while blindly following faulty logic.
Anyways, add a unit/person or two to the mix. it's not like we are going to limit the population. If all the savings is in something automobile exhaust or electric generation the savings can be offset simply buy changes in use. The point of the matter is that population growth can over power any reductions as well as the reduction doesn't address the problem. It isn't like the emissions savings is stopping Co2 from entering the air, if pumping it in is the problem, then it shouldn't disappear because something emitted only 7 units instead of 10.
First, I didn't say it would be impossible, read what you think you read again. Perhaps grab a dictionary in between cussing out everyone who doesn't fit your mold of an ideal existence. Second, the idiots in the country with 5 pumps each shouldn't be worried about the somewhere in Africa. Somewhere in Africa is the responsibility of their own government, not mine or me. I don't and will not be guilted because someone's people let them down when attempting to act like government. If they want our government to fix things, they need to surrender sovereignty so the resources can be exploited for the betterment of both societies.
Actually, without either, I get to keep all my creature comforts as well as not have to pay for some others countries upgrade in civilization. And yes, it all ends up costing more, solar and electric is just too expensive, coal and oil already replaced it once. Jobs going overseas means no work at home or work that is so fudged into the mold that people not paying their mortgage two states away will cause you to lose your livelihood.
And here is the problem. You went from what might be better to telling us what to do. Why would I want to walk? I get plenty of exercise in the gym. And less chance doesn't mean no cancer. Just like me never having cancer doesn't mean I won't be effected by it some day. But you dictating how people must live, what they can't do like driving a vintage muscle car or running industrial sized mills and lathes or welders or whatever to restore them- or doing anything that uses more energy.
But here is the kicker, you think it was the third world countries because of t
Your right that nudity isn't pornography but pornography can be nudity.
Society has worked to suppress the naturalistic urges to just take the opposite sex whenever you feel the need to. It has brought about civilization and in some ways stabilized it. This isn't a society that is mentally ill, it is a calculating society working to better itself and it has worked.
Now the difference between nudity and pornography is the sexual implication or intention of the nudity. If it is meant to erotically excite someone, then it can be labeled as pornography. From the descriptions of the photos I have seen, they can be considered pornography. As a society, we have also decided that it isn't right to possess pornographic images of children under the age of consent and thus we are left with this situation.
States like Ohio are attempting to pass laws making minor children guilty of misdemeanors instead of felonies. It's an attempt to soften the blow on something they might not be aware of but we won't let go because it furthers the order of society.
You need to study up a little on the subject. Alleviating the over burdening regulation and costs associated with socialism isn't corporatism.
The problem lays with the carrot and the stick. One side only believes in the stick and expects to be able to beat industry into their idealist compliance. The other side believes in using the carrot to move the beast closer to compliance and then using the stick only when that fails. The carrot in this instance would be tax incentives and subsidies that you would consider corporate welfare. The more we take action that places a cost on business, the more business moves outside our reach. The so called welfare attempts to displace that costs until it can be built into the pricing structure. In a free society, no business has an obligation to stay in a specific place so to see the benefit from it remaining there, you need to have as little artificial impact through regulation as possible. This isn't being fascist in any reasoning of the word. However, if you only look at the surface and don't understand the principle of the actions, you will even fail to see the electric is out because you didn't pay the bill, not because something else caused it.
The issues as I see it is that those problems won't happen over night. They will be gradually phased in over time and humans are more then capable of adapting and engineering around nature.
You know, it isn't much different then florida, it's water table is severely close to the surface yet we have buildings with basements. It gets pounded with several hurricanes each year and after the mid 80's (Ivan I think) the building codes were adjusted and now the buildings are damaged instead of destroyed. Warning systems have been put in place and now people have time to evacuate the dangers as they come buy as well as places to go. Florida still is one of the top agriculture producing states in the US.
Yet when people start talking about dealing with the effects of global warming instead of mitigating the problems, they are called shills for BigOil, idiots and so on. New Orleans was a failure of government to act and/or act properly. There is no reason to believe that in 100 years when the oceans have risen 3 foot that dams and levies can't be in place, that building codes won't reflect the new environment or that people won't be farming new lands and producing food in places it hasn't been before. Humans adapt, we have this ability to not only use tools but to think about the use of a tool and build better tools to use. It's not like one day we will wake up and realize that no one did anything.
I can make the argument for you. In 1988 when the global warming alarmism started moving along, it parralelled a push to forgive the third world debt that was largely caused by the oil crisis in the 1970's when OPEC decided to halt sales to the US over it's support for Israel who just kicked their asses.
Anyways, to stay on topic, in 1992, the global warming issue had been hijacked by the third world debt issues and the product of this can be seen by 1994 with the first attempts to draft the Kyoto accords. Of course this was all highly secretive and the US attempted to assemble and international climate panel to prove that global warming was the cause of man (more specifically, first world industrialized nations). The movement to forgive the third world debt started disapearing as the Kyoto accords started nearing release. In 1998 it had almost completely evaporated but by then, they had most of europe convinced it needed to sign on to Kyoto.
Now when we examine Kyoto we find several things. Of the 157 some countries that have signed on to it, only 36-37 (if you count the US) have caps on their Co2 production and a few of those caps were placed at rated higher then they were currently emitting. The numbers I posted may be off by a couple because I'm rambling from memory but they accurately represent the differences and anyone wanting to look can find it easily. Anyways, of the 37 or so countries, they placed limits to 1990 levels of Co2 production but claimed that all man made Co2 was in excess of the natural cycles and causing global warming. Now you can look at this and see right now that the goal of the Kyoto protocol wasn't necessarily to stop global warming because it only addressed a portion of the Co2 coming from some of the richest nations. The same nations BTW that owned the third world debt.
But is gets worse. Knowing, and yes, we have years of data to back this up but knowing that the population generally increases (*with the exception of Germany which is almost a negative population growth rate) you can see that it would be almost impossible to go back 10 years in carbon production while the needs of the people are constantly increasing. If you cut 10 people's carbon footprint by 30% over 20 years and during that 20 years, 3 more people are added to the group, their 70% contribution negates all savings from the 30%reduction. So there was a trigger built in to Kyoto that allowed member nations to offset their Co2 production by buying Carbon credits from the third world nations or to invest into those third world nations by moving industry there. This creates a revenue base that allows the third world nations to pay off their debt but it totally ignores the issue of Co2 production being bad for the environment. In short, it says if the rich industrialized nations want to stay comfortable, they have to pay more and invest in the poorer third world countries. Currently, most of Europe has chosen to use Chine and India to outsource their pollution and help meet their goals and it can be seen by their increased pollution emissions. China has or is about to pass the US in emissions and they have no caps whatsoever at all. The remaining 130 some countries who have started becoming major polluters too, are in line for this type of boost.
So even if global warming is real and it is the threat that it has been claimed, the political solutions have been hijacked from the start for reasons of money. And those reasons are huge. The sums of money involved are well above any oil companies profits or savings you will see from traditional energy compared to the more expensive alternative sources.
People have moved past that redistribution of wealth, greed has kicked in, and you have people like Al Gore selling carbon offsets to himself or people with the potential to make billions from outdated technology (yes, solar was invented in the 1800's, failed to be practical or cost effective in the 50's,60's,70's and 80's, Wind was actually replaced by coal in the 1920's though the 1950's) if they can
On par yes, but at a price disadvantage. You simply cannot purchase a laptop for the same price as a comparable desktop. And with most laptop installations, the keyboards and monitors while sufficient for mobile use, aren't the most productive compared to normal ones. Some of the monitors might be close but generally they are plugged in to regular monitors that are larger and easier to see. All this adds up to spending more then you would be saving. Especially at the $36 per year number. Once you figure the extra savings of the laptop's power requirements in, it may not be as large of a difference but one would be there.
That could work for some, generally when we replace computers, we replace the monitors too just to avoid the hassle of them failing randomly one some age comes on them. The biggest problem with the monitors is that the brightness fades and in the bright office lights, the colors start to washout making it difficult to see. After a point, this starts the employee using them to either get drowsy and tired or it gives them headaches. Unfortunately in my case, most of the used monitors that would be considered Good, end up going to the server line where most of the work is done remotely.
Ahh the paper clips... Lol.. Many copy machines have went down because of paperclips. I'm to the point there the little tray the manufacturer prints paperclips on as to suggest that you could store paperclips there, I just tape a piece of paper over it saying paperclips, staples, and thumbtacks are a good way to get the next service call on this machine deducted from your severance pay. Of course I can't fire anyone nor can I attack a fee to their paychecks, but the number of paperclips screwing the works up have dropped to almost less then once a year.
But Yea, I'm sure there are different workloads on the different floors. They aren't all that dissimilar though, they use the same programs, the ones that leave
Lets look at this from the back end of things instead of the contamination first.
How many crimes are unsolved? Of those crimes, how many have DNA evidence that ruled out other people as suspects? Of those cases, and because the problem isn't as wide spread, how many of the other people's DNA were someone's along the production and handling lines of the swabs? Or to be more blunt, how possible is it that the DNA could be from someone handling the swabs?
Imagine the court case, Prosecutor, they found the murder weapon in your garbage can, you had motive and a means, do you really expect us to believe you had nothing to do with the murder. Killer, the garbage can was on the curb, one of your officers could have put it there, you even found someone else's DNA at the crime scene- it was even on the murder weapon, why are you setting me up, it's not against the law to dislike someone- even if he was killed. Jury: not guilty.
If the contamination exists, it will most likely be just a few swabs. Some of those swabs may not even be tested for DNA because they will be used to look for other things like Gun shot residue and so on. But most likely when something does become contaminated, it is going to be in a close line effecting only the swabs closest to them. This means they could effect only one crime scene, possible two, and not even rise to the 20 different scenes across different countries.
Actually, I mean that comment as a joke. A joke that was poking fun at all the people who dismissed other theories as outlandish and only because of connections to oil companies only to have those theories incorporated into the global warming models later because it made more sense then the crap they had.
Here are a few points of contention that have been raise and subsequently subsumed. Water vapor, solar activity, volcanic activity, oceanic decadal oscillations (which have been linked to solar activity) and there are probable more like the mathmatical errors in the collection and reporting of temperatures. Two of which are the Y2K bug found in Hansen's reporting and the temp scales in the Mann Hockey stick graph that has been debunked.
The problem isn't the people not worth listening to. It was the people who had something of value to add but was rejected completely until the flaws they pointed out started causing problems.
Nope, you got them wrong.
Assumption 1 is more like we don't know if any cotton swabs from any batch is spoiled so periodic testing would confirm it or not. The person's contamination poses no risk to them, the risk comes from the police concentrating their efforts and resources on that person instead of the actual murderer who is now in the process of cleaning up all the mistakes he made. If at least one swab from every scene was tested without being exposed to the scene, the probability of a contaminated sample being present would have surfaced by now.
Assumption 2: This is a little more dificult because you bounce it around too much. However, if a control swab showed DNA at the scene was also found on the swab not used at the scene, then several assumptions could be made. One is that it got on the swab before getting to the scene. Two is that the DNA is most likely connected to someone handling the swabs and not a gruesome killer. Another would be that if it wasn't the police or officers collecting the evidence, then it could be someone involved with manufacturing, shipping or whatever else with the swab. But more to the point, if wouldn't have been at 20 difference crime scenes across international boundries because the manufacturer would have taken steps to fix the problem. So it would be trivial to find the people working close enough to the swabs to find the source of contamination and once that was done, it would be even more trivial to find out if they were in another countries when the murders took place.
That's right, the contamination doesn't give someone a free pass, what it does is allows the police to easily rule someone out and let them know when the person is a plausible suspect verses an artifact of a sneeze on an assembly line somewhere.
Thanks for playing..
But think about what effect on the crime scene it has. In either case, nothing changes the crime scene, it doesn't place more or less blood there, it doesn't change who is the victim or where they are laying or what other evidence is there. What effect is has is the opinion or interpretation of all that evidence. It is in short, creating the opinion of investigating officers.
Yes, I grasping but look how fun this is.
I have noticed that unless your working with Server quality hardware, it doesn't matter who makes the computers, you start seeing failures in about 2 years. This doesn't mean all of them will fail, it means that a majority of the ones I have seen fail are at least 2 years old.
Now, when I say fail, I'm talking about to a point where it can't be used for normal tasks and work assignments. It could be a bad piece of memory, a bad hard drives, a bad fan in the right place taking a processor with it and so on. Some companies will replace the entire unit then fix the problem and sell the old unit to employees. Some companies will just toss the bad computer out and replace it. Some companies will fix only what is bad and return it to service. I tend to keep spares at each site and rotate that in while fixing the bad computer and reserving it as a spare.
Modern systems however don't really become obsolete like they would in the past. They are powerful enough to handle most all office application availible today and will still be able to in the future. If I drop a new system in place today, I can expect to get 4-5 years out of it before it gets replaced simply because of failures. I could most likely replace it with identical hardware and get another 2-3 years from it before it needs to be replaced. However, some machines will simply fail before expected and this anomaly is increased when the computers get turned off and on constantly.