Well, the Eugenics Wars were supposed to have happened by now, also referred to as the "third world war"
The Third World War was not the Eugenics Wars. The Eugenics Wars happened around the time of the 90s. There's a few non-cannon novels about them and they were mentioned in the TOS Episode Space Seed. The Third World War happened around the middle of the 2000s and ended ten years before the events of First Contact in 2063.
You must immediately turn in your geek card and exit the building. Some friendly looking security people with tasers will be escorting you out. Take heart though -- you'll be able to get chicks now.
Or every used car magazine, web site and newspaper listings page in history, for that matter?
Who cares dude? We can run traffic lights with impunity now. They can't take our photos because it's a copyright violation. I'm gonna go run a red light now just for the hell of it.
The court will bill the infringer. It'll just be called an award for damages instead of an invoice. The site isn't the infringer, though; the person who posted the content is (in general, not arguing whether there's any infringement in this particular case).
If posting pictures of an automobile that I own is infringement does that mean Toyota can sue municipalities who use red light cameras for copyright infringement?;)
Fair enough. Still, it sounds like most gun shops are crediting Barack Obama specifically, rather than Democrats in general, for their recent prosperity.
Probably. The general public seems to be under the impression that Obama is some sort of leftist. This isn't the impression that I've gotten from his words or actions. I think he's more a pragmatic centrist with liberal leanings.
No, but it's not an unreasonable generalization to make.
I think it is because it makes it too easy to dismiss the person you are talking to you if you can write them off as a Fox News junkie.
(By the way, Obama isn't gonna take your guns away; despite what Fox News may have been filling your head with, he's not a crazy left-wing radical. A small shift to the left isn't going to kill you.)
Obama isn't the one that I'm worried about. I don't think he is stupid enough to piss away all of his political capital on gun control. It's the Democrats in Congress that I'm worried about.
BTW, not everybody with concerns about gun control watches Fox News.
No matter what the US says, it's pretty obvious that the missile shield is being put there to piss off Russia (since it's already doing so quite easily).
If our objective was merely to piss off Russia I could think of more effective ways to do so than deploying missile interceptors that can't reach Russian missiles targeted at North America. Digest that fact for a moment: The base in Poland will not have the ability to intercept Russian ICBMs. Nor is it likely that this ability will be added in the future -- the physics of intercepting missiles aimed at North America just don't work out from that location.
and the price of oil will rise (which isn't a bad thing, to me).
It has nothing to do with you or I. It has everything to do with rising oil prices sucking in the Great Powers. Do you think China would stand idly by while her primary source of oil is destabilized and the price goes through the roof? What about Europe? You don't even need Uncle Sam for this scenario, although I'm sure we'd get involved too. Then there's the matter of Israel being forced to declare her own arsenal -- how do you think the Arab street would respond to that?
However, I stand by my statement that Europe has nothing to fear militarily from Iran
Well, the Poles apparently disagree with you, since they've decided to allow the base on their soil in spite of all of the saber-rattling from Moscow.
You've completely missed the point. Democracy is great and I wouldn't trade it for anything (insert Churchillian quote here), but it does tend to lead to the tyranny of the majority.... which leads right back to my point about having a choice when it comes to the private sector.
In the US, you can change government officials and policy.
Tell that to all the people who voted for John McCain. Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.... not a bad deal if you are one of the wolves but kind of a tough break if you happen to be the sheep.
So, I take it you are in favor of eliminating all tax deductions?
Why not? Deductions primarily benefit the rich anyway -- they can afford lobbyists to write deductions into the tax code so they don't wind up paying what they otherwise might. A progressive tax code without deductions (just rates) would be a lot easier to understand. Imagine being able to file your income taxes with a single piece of paper and a calculator -- that would seem to be a benefit to anyone who doesn't work for H&R Block....
There's also the matter of the Government using the tax code to encourage social decisions that jive with the priority of whichever party happens to be in power at this particular moment. I for one don't think that's a particularly approipate function of Government -- the tax code should exist to finance Government operations, not to encourage me to buy a house or an H2.
Iran getting a nuke is NOT going to be the end of the world.
If only it was that simple.... if Iran gets nukes then her Sunni neighbors will feel compelled to acquire their own nuclear weapons. This will destabilize the whole region with global ramifications (oil prices) that will eventually suck the Great Powers into the fray.
There's also the matter of Israel.... she would probably be compelled to publicly declare her own arsenal -- which will only add fuel to the fire of the regional arms race. It won't be pretty.
I for one don't agree with NATO, there is no need for it anymore
Well, I for one disagree with you, but our personal opinions are a moot point. You asked why we needed to defend Europe -- our commitments under NATO are the answer.
Georgia had gotten it's way and tricked the rest of the world into coming to their aid and helping them fight Russia after they got the idea that hey!~ lets attack russia
If Georgia had been a member of NATO I would think that Moscow would have thought twice about interfering with the internal affairs of that country. You realize that Moscow has effectively annexed portions of a neighboring country, right? What's next? Ukraine? The Baltic States? Finland?
There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.
The difference is that I have a choice of which private enterprises I do business with. Short of armed revolt or emigration I don't have that same choice when it comes to Government.
I really don't think Iran is going to risk total annihilation to lob a nuke at Europe.
It's not about whether or not they intend to "lob a nuke at Europe". The mere fact that they would have that capability (assuming they manage to develop nuclear weapons) is not acceptable. If they have the ability to creditably threaten Europe then our options for responding to aggressive actions of theirs are restricted.
His first act in terms of the military should be scrapping that stupid-ass missile defense system being built in Poland and the Czech Republic. There, now not only have you saved a ton of money on a pointless system that doesn't work, you also will remove one of the biggest causes of friction in the US-Russia relationship.
Would you still think it was pointless if Iran gets nuclear weapons? They already have missiles that can reach Europe you know....
Next you'll probably even say that calling a check you get from IRS, when you don't even pay income taxes, a "rebate" is a gratuitous lie
I must say that even as an occasionally liberal Democrat that this concept has always annoyed the hell out of me. Can I get a check from Uncle Sam just for working? And why do certain people get away without paying any income taxes anyway? Income taxes fund things that directly benefit all of us -- I wouldn't care if the lowest tax rate was a measly 1% -- as long as everybody was being asked to contribute something.
So your solution is to just wait it out, and hope fixing things up later will be cheap enough.
No, my solution is to find something that will work. Kyoto will not work for reasons that I've already explained. Increasing the cost of carbon in one part of the World while leaving it cheaper (or free) in the rest of the World will just move the carbon emissions to a different portion of the pie chart. The analogy would be the labor markets and outsourcing -- labor is cheaper overseas so companies have an incentive to outsource jobs. Do you really think carbon emissions will be any different?
If you intend to solve this problem with a treaty then it needs to impose equal reductions on all carbon emitting states. I don't think this is particularly likely as I don't see a compelling reason for China or India to halt their economic growth. In the West we have the luxury of worrying about the polar ice caps -- in China they have hundreds of millions of rural poor to worry about.
Indeed. The NYT recently had an article about this. They have some interesting figures -- a gallon of diesel can move one ton of fright 59 miles via truck, 202 miles by train and 514 miles via canal barges. A pretty impressive figure.
My belief is that production will move East , green rules or not. Most energy intensive industries are also labor intensive (Steel, Aluminum pdn., any products made of plastics etc.)and the price advantage in terms of labor far outweighs any costs added by emissions trade.
That depends on what happens with energy costs. If oil continues to skyrocket and we can't come up with a suitable replacement then it will eventually become more expensive to ship those goods across oceans than it would be to produce them locally. I've seen varying estimates on this -- anywhere from $200/bbl to $400/bbl.
Interestingly enough I've heard from a few friends of mine whom work for New York State that a few employers have actually brought jobs back to the State -- because of the aforementioned shipping costs. If this was happening with oil around $140/bbl imagine what would happen if oil hit $200 or more.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because Kirk is a pussy.
Better to be a pussy than an asshole. Of course, both get fucked by dicks ;)
An inconsistency in Star Trek canon? Like THAT's never happened before
I think Star Trek canon is one long line of inconsistencies ;)
We're also responsible for most of the spock/mccoy slashfic out there.
So which "I'm a Doctor, not a ..." variation is McCoy's safe word in those fanfics? ;)
Well, the Eugenics Wars were supposed to have happened by now, also referred to as the "third world war"
The Third World War was not the Eugenics Wars. The Eugenics Wars happened around the time of the 90s. There's a few non-cannon novels about them and they were mentioned in the TOS Episode Space Seed. The Third World War happened around the middle of the 2000s and ended ten years before the events of First Contact in 2063.
You must immediately turn in your geek card and exit the building. Some friendly looking security people with tasers will be escorting you out. Take heart though -- you'll be able to get chicks now.
Or every used car magazine, web site and newspaper listings page in history, for that matter?
Who cares dude? We can run traffic lights with impunity now. They can't take our photos because it's a copyright violation. I'm gonna go run a red light now just for the hell of it.
The court will bill the infringer. It'll just be called an award for damages instead of an invoice. The site isn't the infringer, though; the person who posted the content is (in general, not arguing whether there's any infringement in this particular case).
If posting pictures of an automobile that I own is infringement does that mean Toyota can sue municipalities who use red light cameras for copyright infringement? ;)
Fair enough. Still, it sounds like most gun shops are crediting Barack Obama specifically, rather than Democrats in general, for their recent prosperity.
Probably. The general public seems to be under the impression that Obama is some sort of leftist. This isn't the impression that I've gotten from his words or actions. I think he's more a pragmatic centrist with liberal leanings.
No, but it's not an unreasonable generalization to make.
I think it is because it makes it too easy to dismiss the person you are talking to you if you can write them off as a Fox News junkie.
(By the way, Obama isn't gonna take your guns away; despite what Fox News may have been filling your head with, he's not a crazy left-wing radical. A small shift to the left isn't going to kill you.)
Obama isn't the one that I'm worried about. I don't think he is stupid enough to piss away all of his political capital on gun control. It's the Democrats in Congress that I'm worried about.
BTW, not everybody with concerns about gun control watches Fox News.
Until the Government takes the gun away from the sheep for it's "protection"......
No matter what the US says, it's pretty obvious that the missile shield is being put there to piss off Russia (since it's already doing so quite easily).
If our objective was merely to piss off Russia I could think of more effective ways to do so than deploying missile interceptors that can't reach Russian missiles targeted at North America. Digest that fact for a moment: The base in Poland will not have the ability to intercept Russian ICBMs. Nor is it likely that this ability will be added in the future -- the physics of intercepting missiles aimed at North America just don't work out from that location.
and the price of oil will rise (which isn't a bad thing, to me).
It has nothing to do with you or I. It has everything to do with rising oil prices sucking in the Great Powers. Do you think China would stand idly by while her primary source of oil is destabilized and the price goes through the roof? What about Europe? You don't even need Uncle Sam for this scenario, although I'm sure we'd get involved too. Then there's the matter of Israel being forced to declare her own arsenal -- how do you think the Arab street would respond to that?
However, I stand by my statement that Europe has nothing to fear militarily from Iran
Well, the Poles apparently disagree with you, since they've decided to allow the base on their soil in spite of all of the saber-rattling from Moscow.
You've completely missed the point. Democracy is great and I wouldn't trade it for anything (insert Churchillian quote here), but it does tend to lead to the tyranny of the majority.... which leads right back to my point about having a choice when it comes to the private sector.
In the US, you can change government officials and policy.
Tell that to all the people who voted for John McCain. Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.... not a bad deal if you are one of the wolves but kind of a tough break if you happen to be the sheep.
So, I take it you are in favor of eliminating all tax deductions?
Why not? Deductions primarily benefit the rich anyway -- they can afford lobbyists to write deductions into the tax code so they don't wind up paying what they otherwise might. A progressive tax code without deductions (just rates) would be a lot easier to understand. Imagine being able to file your income taxes with a single piece of paper and a calculator -- that would seem to be a benefit to anyone who doesn't work for H&R Block....
There's also the matter of the Government using the tax code to encourage social decisions that jive with the priority of whichever party happens to be in power at this particular moment. I for one don't think that's a particularly approipate function of Government -- the tax code should exist to finance Government operations, not to encourage me to buy a house or an H2.
Iran getting a nuke is NOT going to be the end of the world.
If only it was that simple.... if Iran gets nukes then her Sunni neighbors will feel compelled to acquire their own nuclear weapons. This will destabilize the whole region with global ramifications (oil prices) that will eventually suck the Great Powers into the fray.
There's also the matter of Israel.... she would probably be compelled to publicly declare her own arsenal -- which will only add fuel to the fire of the regional arms race. It won't be pretty.
I for one don't agree with NATO, there is no need for it anymore
Well, I for one disagree with you, but our personal opinions are a moot point. You asked why we needed to defend Europe -- our commitments under NATO are the answer.
Georgia had gotten it's way and tricked the rest of the world into coming to their aid and helping them fight Russia after they got the idea that hey!~ lets attack russia
If Georgia had been a member of NATO I would think that Moscow would have thought twice about interfering with the internal affairs of that country. You realize that Moscow has effectively annexed portions of a neighboring country, right? What's next? Ukraine? The Baltic States? Finland?
There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.
The difference is that I have a choice of which private enterprises I do business with. Short of armed revolt or emigration I don't have that same choice when it comes to Government.
I really don't think Iran is going to risk total annihilation to lob a nuke at Europe.
It's not about whether or not they intend to "lob a nuke at Europe". The mere fact that they would have that capability (assuming they manage to develop nuclear weapons) is not acceptable. If they have the ability to creditably threaten Europe then our options for responding to aggressive actions of theirs are restricted.
Then let the nations of Europe defend themselves. Why does the US need to be the one defending everyone?
I can't imagine why the US needs to defend Europe.....
His first act in terms of the military should be scrapping that stupid-ass missile defense system being built in Poland and the Czech Republic. There, now not only have you saved a ton of money on a pointless system that doesn't work, you also will remove one of the biggest causes of friction in the US-Russia relationship.
Would you still think it was pointless if Iran gets nuclear weapons? They already have missiles that can reach Europe you know....
The cold war version of NASA was a lot easier for an entire nation to rally around and love.
Well, if relations with Russia are any indication we might get back to that version of NASA in the next decade or so ;)
Next you'll probably even say that calling a check you get from IRS, when you don't even pay income taxes, a "rebate" is a gratuitous lie
I must say that even as an occasionally liberal Democrat that this concept has always annoyed the hell out of me. Can I get a check from Uncle Sam just for working? And why do certain people get away without paying any income taxes anyway? Income taxes fund things that directly benefit all of us -- I wouldn't care if the lowest tax rate was a measly 1% -- as long as everybody was being asked to contribute something.
Barack Obama '08 Barack Obama '12 Michelle Obama '16 Michelle Obama '20
I think you've mistaken the Obama family for the Clinton and/or Bush family ;)
So your solution is to just wait it out, and hope fixing things up later will be cheap enough.
No, my solution is to find something that will work. Kyoto will not work for reasons that I've already explained. Increasing the cost of carbon in one part of the World while leaving it cheaper (or free) in the rest of the World will just move the carbon emissions to a different portion of the pie chart. The analogy would be the labor markets and outsourcing -- labor is cheaper overseas so companies have an incentive to outsource jobs. Do you really think carbon emissions will be any different?
If you intend to solve this problem with a treaty then it needs to impose equal reductions on all carbon emitting states. I don't think this is particularly likely as I don't see a compelling reason for China or India to halt their economic growth. In the West we have the luxury of worrying about the polar ice caps -- in China they have hundreds of millions of rural poor to worry about.
So, what you're saying is that Bush really wasn't such a bad President for bucking the trend and refusing to sign that silly treaty?
No, I'm saying that I agree with his stance on this particular issue. I'll leave it to history to decide how to rate GWB's presidency.
Indeed. The NYT recently had an article about this. They have some interesting figures -- a gallon of diesel can move one ton of fright 59 miles via truck, 202 miles by train and 514 miles via canal barges. A pretty impressive figure.
My belief is that production will move East , green rules or not. Most energy intensive industries are also labor intensive (Steel, Aluminum pdn., any products made of plastics etc.)and the price advantage in terms of labor far outweighs any costs added by emissions trade.
That depends on what happens with energy costs. If oil continues to skyrocket and we can't come up with a suitable replacement then it will eventually become more expensive to ship those goods across oceans than it would be to produce them locally. I've seen varying estimates on this -- anywhere from $200/bbl to $400/bbl.
Interestingly enough I've heard from a few friends of mine whom work for New York State that a few employers have actually brought jobs back to the State -- because of the aforementioned shipping costs. If this was happening with oil around $140/bbl imagine what would happen if oil hit $200 or more.