Thing with China is, if North Korea becomes too much of a political liability, they'll just move in and annexe the whole country. IMHO the man in charge has more to fear from China than from the US.
That's not going to happen. Nobody would stand for it (not the South, not the US, not Japan, and not even Russia), the Chinese would have nothing to gain but problems (do you want to clean up the mess that is North Korea?) and ask the Japanese how well the Korean people respond to being occupied by an outside force.
lets just hope a neo con is not at the helm here in the US or we may goto war with China. Seeing that it was China almost pushed the US into the sea during the Korean war (after wave, and wave of china men which overheated our machine guns).
Pushed into the sea? You don't have a lot of knowledge of military history do you? They pushed the United Nations (not the US) forces out of North Korea and managed to recapture Seoul before running out of steam. They didn't have the logistical capacity to go any further. In short order (two months later) the UN recaptured Seoul and pushed them back to the 38th parallel. China didn't almost "push the allies into the sea".
The Chinese lost between 100,000 to 500,000 soldiers killed in action, not counting wounded. The North Koreans lost another 500,000. Nobody knows exactly how many as both sides have ample reason to inflate or deflate the estimate. Contrast that to about 35,000 American KIAs and another 17,000 allied (not counting the South). At the Battle of Chosin Reservoir the Chinese lost ten times as many soliders as the UN did. That's what it took for them to obtain "victory".
Maybe. A couple of tactical nukes to take out the artillery aimed at Seoul would probably not be very devastating to SK for fallout as long as they are all under the ~10Kt range. But it is a risky gamble.
The power of NK's artillery is vastly overstated. Most of the pieces that can hit Seoul are fixed (i.e: we know where they are) and between counter-battery fire and airstrikes would be silenced within the first hour or so of open warfare. Would Seoul be hit? Sure. Would it be flattened into a modern day version of Stalingrad or Sarajevo? Not likely. You don't even need tactical nukes. The US and SK have plans for this.
Even with the artillery defeated there is a possibility that NK could fly a plane and nuke Seoul or Tokyo, though it is unlikely
Not when their nuclear technology is more primitive then Little Boy or Fat Man. Do they even have a plane that could carry such a weapon? Moot point in any case -- the South and Japan both boast modern air defenses. The North's air force is largely obsolete.
And their missiles could also cause significant damage
Their missiles aren't very accurate and can't be used for anything other then a modern day version of the V-1/V-2 terror bombing campaigns. The military value would be nil.
To put it bluntly, our options suck. The only way that we can have a reasonable assurance of no counterattack would be a massive conventional and nuclear first strike (>100 bombs and missiles) so that we know that we've destroyed their NBC WMDs. The fallout in this case would hit both SK and China hard.
Our options completely suck. Yet the military situation isn't as bad as most people make it out to be. The North can't win a war -- all it can do is make the South lose one by inflicting unacceptable losses. It's not a sure bet that they can do this -- the South and the US have plans in place to deal with the biggest threats from the North. And for the fallout I'd worry less about China and the South and more about Japan -- that's where it would go. It's debatable whether or not modern nukes (in airburst mode) would generate an unacceptable amount of fallout. But it's all moot anyway. It's not going to happen.
The problems go back WAY further, probably 100-150 years, which is far and above the average attention span of the American Populace (I think its down to slightly above that of a goldfish).
Explain to me what we did 100 to 150 years ago that pissed off the World? The emergence of the American superpower didn't happen until after WW2 as I recall history.
The only things I can think of would be the Mexican-American or Spanish-American wars. But if you look at the context of that time I think you'll find that the United States was hardly unique in imposing our will on weaker nations. Yet I don't hear anybody bashing the British/Germans/French/Spanish that much.
I suspect the reason that most people have for anti-American feelings is more related to what we did in the name of fighting communism, what we've done/are doing to secure our energy supplies and what we are doing in the name of fighting terrorism.
But by all means, please point out what the United States did a hundred years ago to piss you off so much.
That risks the scenario of the north opening up the borders and flooding its neighbors with refugees. On top of that, the north may feel they have no other options but invading the south.
They can't invade the South. Even without US help it's been about two decades since the North had military superiority over the South.
North Korea can't win a war against the South. The South can still lose a war against them but the North can't win unless their objective is to go out in a blaze of glory.
This time Bush didn't give North Korea nuclear technology like Clinton did in the 1990s. Bush got help from China to cut off North Korea's money--completely.
Clinton gave them nuclear technology that could not be used to make weapons. It's worth noting that they honored their end of the agreement until Bush went and included them in the "Axis of Evil" state of the union speech. That's when they started working on weapons again. Given that under Bush, we seem to invade countries that don't have nukes (Iraq), while engaging in a dialog with those that do (North Korea) or those that are close (Iran), I can't really say that I blame them.
If you want to throw out a cheap shot at Clinton at least have the decency to tell the whole story.
I know flip phones are in, but the hinge is a weak spot on a lot of them. I've had much better luck with the durability of candy bar phones. This Moto phone is a non-flip.
Not going to dispute that because you are completely right. My favorite phone ever was the Kyocera 2325. Bar phone, LCD monochrome display. Had everything a phone should have and nothing more. A few simple (included and free) games to keep amused, good predictive text and the coolest speed dial system I've ever seen. Dial the letters of the contact name and it found them. Never seen a non Kyocera phone with that feature.
But I do actually like my flip phone. It's nice to open to answer, it's smaller and it feels nicer in use. Is it too much to ask for a metal spring/hinge instead of cheap plastic?
I want to see a nice flip phone with a monochrome display (battery life), metal case and the basic software goodies (a good contact system and predictive text). Is that too much to ask for?
I Agree. I just want a simple phone with decent standby time and excellent reception. I don't need a camera or an MP3 player or a web browser. I just want a phone... seriously.
The camera is a PITA anyways. Do you know how many employers refuse to let you bring camera phones in? Most defense plants. Hell, I work for healthcare and our regulatory agency says we can't have them either (course everybody does anyway). They are supposed to be left in the employees car.
Verizon has a few halfway decent flip phones without cameras -- but the problem is they are all el-cheapo models that don't even have an external display. What's the point of a flip phone if you have to open it to see who is calling and then push a button to answer the call?
Give me a well made phone (is metal springs instead of plastic too much to ask for?) without a camera or a color screen and a ton of battery life and I'll be happy. Oh, and an outside display:P Take the camera and the color screen away from the Motorola V325 and it'd be the perfect phone.
Well, I'm not sure I think that Americans need to worry about "protecting our culture" because our culture is a collection of the best of the cultures brought over to the New World. I do not worry about Hispanic culture displacing American culture because historically speaking American culture has assimilated the best of new cultures. Immigrants assimilate into American culture and both sides benefit.
Take where I live as an example. Italian culture and cuisine dominates. I would not be at all surprised if Mexican/Latino culture did the same in the coming decades. I do not see this as a problem. We will only benefit.
This is because the situation is different. Most hispanic immigrants *DO* make serious efforts to blend into society. The white power crowd simply doesn't like the fact that latinos are rapidly pushing out whites as the majority population in the USA. These people are idiots and will never accomplish anything. Personally, I think we should deport THOSE people, preferably into the sea.
Bullshit! You are blaming the hostility towards illegal immigrants on "white power"? That's offensive and completely out of line. I don't care about how fast they blend into society. Assimilation is a two-way street and they will influence us just as much as we influence them. There's no problem with that. What I do care about is the fact that most of them are here illegally.
How can I have any respect for somebody that breaks the law to get here? I don't care what color they are. If they broke the law to get here then they need to be deported. And if they get amnesty for doing so then I would like the chance to commit a "free" crime and escape punishment.
The problem with Hispanics is that they are not allowed to that country, nor allowed to blend into society. They re tolerated because they are needed...
Not allowed? That's the issue that most Americans have with Latin American immigration. A lot of them don't bother to do it legally.
I have a friend from Canada who wants to immigrate to the US. She has a masters degree, speaks three languages and has a promise of employment. When it takes her 12 months just to go through the red tape while a Mexican day laborer is allowed to sneak across the border and work under the table -- all the while the Government refusing to do anything about it -- we have a serious problem.
I don't have a problem with Hispanics or anybody else retaining their own culture. Historically speaking assimilation is a two-way street. I do have a serious problem with them breaking the law to get here in the first place.
It's not necessarily political suicide. There was an article in the NYT a couple weeks back from a campaign manager (or something similar) from the Clinton campaign (male version) that reported that based on their latest research, more than half of the US public a foreign policy that will make the US less dependent on foreign oil.
Yes, but if you think the American public will accept the cost of gas doubling due to a "tax" (remember that tax is an almost inherently bad word in American politics) no amount of explaining to them that it will eventually wean us off foreign oil will matter. They will not accept it. It won't happen. No matter what the merits may be.
The thing is raising energy taxes does not imply that you raise the overall tax level. You can easily hand the money back by lowering the income tax or even the VAT. On average this should only create an incentive for people to conserve energy without costing them any money. It is easier said than done but it may just be feasible and sellable if accompagnied by proper middle east oriented FUD.
I don't know if the "middle east" thing would even need to be FUD. The fact is that a lot of the key oil-exporters are oppressive regimes (yes, I'll use that word) that are using their oil revenues to prop themselves up instead of building an economy that will survive the end of the hydrocarbon age. I think that history will view them as having squandered the greatest gift in the history of the human race. That said, I still don't think you could sell a massive gas tax to the American public.
I'm not so sure about Hydrogen, but I fully agree with the use of nuclear fission. In today's terrorism fearing climate I think the explosive part about Hydrogen is not a selling point.
Eh, gasoline and jet fuel explode too. Nobody seems overly worried about them. In any case the threat of terrorism will probably diminish (it will never be eliminated) as we move away from hydrocarbons. We will have less and less reason to meddle in the Middle East when our economy isn't completely dependent on them.
Bio ethanol seems to be a good candidate. Easily produced and easily consumed in modern engines. It's already in use as car fuel in Brazil (I've been told they switch their sugar cane output from raw sugar to bio ethanol and vice versa depending on world market prices for sugar). The US has a big sugar industry I believe, and so does Europe. Both industries are under pressure to lower subsidies and are in need for new markets, so why not?
Well I just picked Hydrogen because it would seem to be the easiest power "storage" device to "create" using electrical power. Hydrogen is also advantageous because the byproduct is H20 -- not CO2. But in the end I suppose it doesn't matter which fuel we use. We will need an energy source for the grid and with current technology I don't see that being anything other then fission. Renewables aren't going to cut it unless we are ready to accept a cut in our standard of living. We'll also need a mobile energy source for cars/ships/aircraft/etc.
But let's not depress ourselves. I firmly believe the free market will eventually find an efficient solution to the energy problem. And if not then natural selection will eventually have found a way to filter out humans and bacteria will once again command the world Yeah!
The only I'm depressed about is that the free market seems to be more interested in short term profits then in long term survivability. Kinda blows the Libertarian theory of private ownership (they allegedly have an incentive to make sure the land/resource/etc is productive in the long term) out of the water:( I'm not depressed about the human race. One way or another we will solve the energy question. I think the future lies in the atom. In 25-50 years I'll tell you if I was right.
I understand the Tragedy of the Commons argument but I'm still not so sure that I agree with the concept of massive taxes on gasoline.
In any case, even if they work in Europe, they'd never work in the United States. For one it would be political suicide to suggest it and for two it would cripple our economy and standard of living, which for better or for worse is based around a suburban automobile dependent culture.
I for one would like to see the Hydrogen economy become a reality. Of course, Hydrogen requires energy to produce and the most obvious (CO2 neutral) energy source (nuclear fission) that we have today is hated by most environmentalists. So it seems our choice is between accepting a reduction in our standard of living or continuing to dump massive amounts of CO2 (coal will be around for quite awhile) into the atmosphere.
lus the added bonus of being tracked constantly, because there will be checkpoints all over and RFID tag enabled stations to read your tires (all new tires soon will have chips in them)
In regard to the sexual harassment, I'm not sure how the stories get so blown out of proportion. I'm a female programmer, and no one has a problem with making jokes around me that fall under reasonable limits. I suspect that if I complained about an off color joke, people would modify their behavior and life would go on. Basically, the guys don't treat the office like a locker room, and I don't care about minor things.
Most of the women that I work with could make jokes that would make most men blush. Women's rights aren't about taking away men's rights -- they are about giving the same rights to females. If you work in an environment where having naked pictures of a chick on your machine/desk/etc is considered acceptable behavior (machine shop/mechanics/etc) then it should be equally acceptable for any female employees to post naked pictures of men. If you work in a different environment then the same rules apply to both genders.
As for the sexual harassment: Yeah, I made some pretty nasty remarks and it was done off as a joke. In the US, I'd have lost my job and ended up in prison for the same remark. I'd tell about the situation, but the USies here would be too schocked;-)
Umm, I call bullshit. You aren't going to wind up in prison in the United States for "sexual harassment" unless such harassment involved some sort of threat of bodily harm.
You'll get fired (rightfully so) but you'd be hard pressed to find a law that was broken.
High energy prices in Europe are simply a way to encourage people to use energy efficiently. I don't see what's wrong with that, and as long as the tax money is well spent by the government I don't see the problem with it either.
A lot of Americans would say that's interfering with the free market and that we should let the market find an alternative to internal combustion technology.
Personally I hope oil hits $200 a barrel. It will make the alternatives seem cheap by comparison and people will start investing in them.
I can imagine the judges reaction when he realises that he decision has just sabotaged his own personal email. and the reaction of his/her friends when they find out that he/she is to blame for all of the extra spam they are suddenly getting.
Actually that has happened in the past. Years after the Bell System divestiture, Judge Harold H. Greene found himself unable to order local phone service. Why? Because the system had gotten so chaotic that he couldn't find the right person to talk to who could take the order!
Ah, sometimes I think the Universe does have a sense of irony after all.
What's ironic is I maintain to this day that our banks of USR v.34+ modems hooked up to POTS performed better then the v.90 boxes that replaced them.
Turn on compression, dial up and connect at 33,600. Worked like a champ -- and it didn't take 20 seconds for the modems to negotiate like it did with v.90. *sigh*, those were the days.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing with China is, if North Korea becomes too much of a political liability, they'll just move in and annexe the whole country. IMHO the man in charge has more to fear from China than from the US.
That's not going to happen. Nobody would stand for it (not the South, not the US, not Japan, and not even Russia), the Chinese would have nothing to gain but problems (do you want to clean up the mess that is North Korea?) and ask the Japanese how well the Korean people respond to being occupied by an outside force.
lets just hope a neo con is not at the helm here in the US or we may goto war with China. Seeing that it was China almost pushed the US into the sea during the Korean war (after wave, and wave of china men which overheated our machine guns).
Pushed into the sea? You don't have a lot of knowledge of military history do you? They pushed the United Nations (not the US) forces out of North Korea and managed to recapture Seoul before running out of steam. They didn't have the logistical capacity to go any further. In short order (two months later) the UN recaptured Seoul and pushed them back to the 38th parallel. China didn't almost "push the allies into the sea".
The Chinese lost between 100,000 to 500,000 soldiers killed in action, not counting wounded. The North Koreans lost another 500,000. Nobody knows exactly how many as both sides have ample reason to inflate or deflate the estimate. Contrast that to about 35,000 American KIAs and another 17,000 allied (not counting the South). At the Battle of Chosin Reservoir the Chinese lost ten times as many soliders as the UN did. That's what it took for them to obtain "victory".
I think I'll pass on the Mandarin lessons.
Maybe. A couple of tactical nukes to take out the artillery aimed at Seoul would probably not be very devastating to SK for fallout as long as they are all under the ~10Kt range. But it is a risky gamble.
The power of NK's artillery is vastly overstated. Most of the pieces that can hit Seoul are fixed (i.e: we know where they are) and between counter-battery fire and airstrikes would be silenced within the first hour or so of open warfare. Would Seoul be hit? Sure. Would it be flattened into a modern day version of Stalingrad or Sarajevo? Not likely. You don't even need tactical nukes. The US and SK have plans for this.
Even with the artillery defeated there is a possibility that NK could fly a plane and nuke Seoul or Tokyo, though it is unlikely
Not when their nuclear technology is more primitive then Little Boy or Fat Man. Do they even have a plane that could carry such a weapon? Moot point in any case -- the South and Japan both boast modern air defenses. The North's air force is largely obsolete.
And their missiles could also cause significant damage
Their missiles aren't very accurate and can't be used for anything other then a modern day version of the V-1/V-2 terror bombing campaigns. The military value would be nil.
To put it bluntly, our options suck. The only way that we can have a reasonable assurance of no counterattack would be a massive conventional and nuclear first strike (>100 bombs and missiles) so that we know that we've destroyed their NBC WMDs. The fallout in this case would hit both SK and China hard.
Our options completely suck. Yet the military situation isn't as bad as most people make it out to be. The North can't win a war -- all it can do is make the South lose one by inflicting unacceptable losses. It's not a sure bet that they can do this -- the South and the US have plans in place to deal with the biggest threats from the North. And for the fallout I'd worry less about China and the South and more about Japan -- that's where it would go. It's debatable whether or not modern nukes (in airburst mode) would generate an unacceptable amount of fallout. But it's all moot anyway. It's not going to happen.
The problems go back WAY further, probably 100-150 years, which is far and above the average attention span of the American Populace (I think its down to slightly above that of a goldfish).
Explain to me what we did 100 to 150 years ago that pissed off the World? The emergence of the American superpower didn't happen until after WW2 as I recall history.
The only things I can think of would be the Mexican-American or Spanish-American wars. But if you look at the context of that time I think you'll find that the United States was hardly unique in imposing our will on weaker nations. Yet I don't hear anybody bashing the British/Germans/French/Spanish that much.
I suspect the reason that most people have for anti-American feelings is more related to what we did in the name of fighting communism, what we've done/are doing to secure our energy supplies and what we are doing in the name of fighting terrorism.
But by all means, please point out what the United States did a hundred years ago to piss you off so much.
People who are wealthy enough to live in safety and comfort will develop an aversion to violence, all else being equal.
Have you ever been to the United States? (And yeah, I'm an American, so I can make that joke!)
It's the guy who's got nothing to lose who is the most dangerous.
Yeah, your right. I had to be a wiseass though :)
That risks the scenario of the north opening up the borders and flooding its neighbors with refugees. On top of that, the north may feel they have no other options but invading the south.
They can't invade the South. Even without US help it's been about two decades since the North had military superiority over the South.
North Korea can't win a war against the South. The South can still lose a war against them but the North can't win unless their objective is to go out in a blaze of glory.
As an analogy, how much do you care if your neighbor's uncontrollable dog is threatening someone you don't like?
A lot if that someone I don't like is a huge part of my paycheck. How much of China's economy now depends on exports to the United States?
This time Bush didn't give North Korea nuclear technology like Clinton did in the 1990s. Bush got help from China to cut off North Korea's money--completely.
Clinton gave them nuclear technology that could not be used to make weapons. It's worth noting that they honored their end of the agreement until Bush went and included them in the "Axis of Evil" state of the union speech. That's when they started working on weapons again. Given that under Bush, we seem to invade countries that don't have nukes (Iraq), while engaging in a dialog with those that do (North Korea) or those that are close (Iran), I can't really say that I blame them.
If you want to throw out a cheap shot at Clinton at least have the decency to tell the whole story.
I know flip phones are in, but the hinge is a weak spot on a lot of them. I've had much better luck with the durability of candy bar phones. This Moto phone is a non-flip.
Not going to dispute that because you are completely right. My favorite phone ever was the Kyocera 2325. Bar phone, LCD monochrome display. Had everything a phone should have and nothing more. A few simple (included and free) games to keep amused, good predictive text and the coolest speed dial system I've ever seen. Dial the letters of the contact name and it found them. Never seen a non Kyocera phone with that feature.
But I do actually like my flip phone. It's nice to open to answer, it's smaller and it feels nicer in use. Is it too much to ask for a metal spring/hinge instead of cheap plastic?
I want to see a nice flip phone with a monochrome display (battery life), metal case and the basic software goodies (a good contact system and predictive text). Is that too much to ask for?
My college does not allow camera phones in the dining halls... I don't see what we will expose there other than the horrid food.
A college??? And what exactly do they do if you are caught with one? Kick you out of school?
I Agree. I just want a simple phone with decent standby time and excellent reception. I don't need a camera or an MP3 player or a web browser. I just want a phone... seriously.
The camera is a PITA anyways. Do you know how many employers refuse to let you bring camera phones in? Most defense plants. Hell, I work for healthcare and our regulatory agency says we can't have them either (course everybody does anyway). They are supposed to be left in the employees car.
Verizon has a few halfway decent flip phones without cameras -- but the problem is they are all el-cheapo models that don't even have an external display. What's the point of a flip phone if you have to open it to see who is calling and then push a button to answer the call?
Give me a well made phone (is metal springs instead of plastic too much to ask for?) without a camera or a color screen and a ton of battery life and I'll be happy. Oh, and an outside display :P Take the camera and the color screen away from the Motorola V325 and it'd be the perfect phone.
So if I speed but nobody gets hurt can I please get out of paying my fine?
Well, I'm not sure I think that Americans need to worry about "protecting our culture" because our culture is a collection of the best of the cultures brought over to the New World. I do not worry about Hispanic culture displacing American culture because historically speaking American culture has assimilated the best of new cultures. Immigrants assimilate into American culture and both sides benefit.
Take where I live as an example. Italian culture and cuisine dominates. I would not be at all surprised if Mexican/Latino culture did the same in the coming decades. I do not see this as a problem. We will only benefit.
This is because the situation is different. Most hispanic immigrants *DO* make serious efforts to blend into society. The white power crowd simply doesn't like the fact that latinos are rapidly pushing out whites as the majority population in the USA. These people are idiots and will never accomplish anything. Personally, I think we should deport THOSE people, preferably into the sea.
Bullshit! You are blaming the hostility towards illegal immigrants on "white power"? That's offensive and completely out of line. I don't care about how fast they blend into society. Assimilation is a two-way street and they will influence us just as much as we influence them. There's no problem with that. What I do care about is the fact that most of them are here illegally.
How can I have any respect for somebody that breaks the law to get here? I don't care what color they are. If they broke the law to get here then they need to be deported. And if they get amnesty for doing so then I would like the chance to commit a "free" crime and escape punishment.
The problem with Hispanics is that they are not allowed to that country, nor allowed to blend into society. They re tolerated because they are needed...
Not allowed? That's the issue that most Americans have with Latin American immigration. A lot of them don't bother to do it legally.
I have a friend from Canada who wants to immigrate to the US. She has a masters degree, speaks three languages and has a promise of employment. When it takes her 12 months just to go through the red tape while a Mexican day laborer is allowed to sneak across the border and work under the table -- all the while the Government refusing to do anything about it -- we have a serious problem.
I don't have a problem with Hispanics or anybody else retaining their own culture. Historically speaking assimilation is a two-way street. I do have a serious problem with them breaking the law to get here in the first place.
It's not necessarily political suicide. There was an article in the NYT a couple weeks back from a campaign manager (or something similar) from the Clinton campaign (male version) that reported that based on their latest research, more than half of the US public a foreign policy that will make the US less dependent on foreign oil.
Yes, but if you think the American public will accept the cost of gas doubling due to a "tax" (remember that tax is an almost inherently bad word in American politics) no amount of explaining to them that it will eventually wean us off foreign oil will matter. They will not accept it. It won't happen. No matter what the merits may be.
The thing is raising energy taxes does not imply that you raise the overall tax level. You can easily hand the money back by lowering the income tax or even the VAT. On average this should only create an incentive for people to conserve energy without costing them any money. It is easier said than done but it may just be feasible and sellable if accompagnied by proper middle east oriented FUD.
I don't know if the "middle east" thing would even need to be FUD. The fact is that a lot of the key oil-exporters are oppressive regimes (yes, I'll use that word) that are using their oil revenues to prop themselves up instead of building an economy that will survive the end of the hydrocarbon age. I think that history will view them as having squandered the greatest gift in the history of the human race. That said, I still don't think you could sell a massive gas tax to the American public.
I'm not so sure about Hydrogen, but I fully agree with the use of nuclear fission. In today's terrorism fearing climate I think the explosive part about Hydrogen is not a selling point.
Eh, gasoline and jet fuel explode too. Nobody seems overly worried about them. In any case the threat of terrorism will probably diminish (it will never be eliminated) as we move away from hydrocarbons. We will have less and less reason to meddle in the Middle East when our economy isn't completely dependent on them.
Bio ethanol seems to be a good candidate. Easily produced and easily consumed in modern engines. It's already in use as car fuel in Brazil (I've been told they switch their sugar cane output from raw sugar to bio ethanol and vice versa depending on world market prices for sugar). The US has a big sugar industry I believe, and so does Europe. Both industries are under pressure to lower subsidies and are in need for new markets, so why not?
Well I just picked Hydrogen because it would seem to be the easiest power "storage" device to "create" using electrical power. Hydrogen is also advantageous because the byproduct is H20 -- not CO2. But in the end I suppose it doesn't matter which fuel we use. We will need an energy source for the grid and with current technology I don't see that being anything other then fission. Renewables aren't going to cut it unless we are ready to accept a cut in our standard of living. We'll also need a mobile energy source for cars/ships/aircraft/etc.
But let's not depress ourselves. I firmly believe the free market will eventually find an efficient solution to the energy problem. And if not then natural selection will eventually have found a way to filter out humans and bacteria will once again command the world Yeah!
The only I'm depressed about is that the free market seems to be more interested in short term profits then in long term survivability. Kinda blows the Libertarian theory of private ownership (they allegedly have an incentive to make sure the land/resource/etc is productive in the long term) out of the water :( I'm not depressed about the human race. One way or another we will solve the energy question. I think the future lies in the atom. In 25-50 years I'll tell you if I was right.
I understand the Tragedy of the Commons argument but I'm still not so sure that I agree with the concept of massive taxes on gasoline.
In any case, even if they work in Europe, they'd never work in the United States. For one it would be political suicide to suggest it and for two it would cripple our economy and standard of living, which for better or for worse is based around a suburban automobile dependent culture.
I for one would like to see the Hydrogen economy become a reality. Of course, Hydrogen requires energy to produce and the most obvious (CO2 neutral) energy source (nuclear fission) that we have today is hated by most environmentalists. So it seems our choice is between accepting a reduction in our standard of living or continuing to dump massive amounts of CO2 (coal will be around for quite awhile) into the atmosphere.
*sigh*
lus the added bonus of being tracked constantly, because there will be checkpoints all over and RFID tag enabled stations to read your tires (all new tires soon will have chips in them)
Care to provide a link?
In regard to the sexual harassment, I'm not sure how the stories get so blown out of proportion. I'm a female programmer, and no one has a problem with making jokes around me that fall under reasonable limits. I suspect that if I complained about an off color joke, people would modify their behavior and life would go on. Basically, the guys don't treat the office like a locker room, and I don't care about minor things.
Most of the women that I work with could make jokes that would make most men blush. Women's rights aren't about taking away men's rights -- they are about giving the same rights to females. If you work in an environment where having naked pictures of a chick on your machine/desk/etc is considered acceptable behavior (machine shop/mechanics/etc) then it should be equally acceptable for any female employees to post naked pictures of men. If you work in a different environment then the same rules apply to both genders.
As for the sexual harassment: Yeah, I made some pretty nasty remarks and it was done off as a joke. In the US, I'd have lost my job and ended up in prison for the same remark. I'd tell about the situation, but the USies here would be too schocked ;-)
Umm, I call bullshit. You aren't going to wind up in prison in the United States for "sexual harassment" unless such harassment involved some sort of threat of bodily harm.
You'll get fired (rightfully so) but you'd be hard pressed to find a law that was broken.
High energy prices in Europe are simply a way to encourage people to use energy efficiently. I don't see what's wrong with that, and as long as the tax money is well spent by the government I don't see the problem with it either.
A lot of Americans would say that's interfering with the free market and that we should let the market find an alternative to internal combustion technology.
Personally I hope oil hits $200 a barrel. It will make the alternatives seem cheap by comparison and people will start investing in them.
*You* wanted to move to this country, so *you* should make an effort of blending into society.
Funny how when Americans say that about Hispanic immigrants we are called racists and bigots.
I can imagine the judges reaction when he realises that he decision has just sabotaged his own personal email. and the reaction of his/her friends when they find out that he/she is to blame for all of the extra spam they are suddenly getting.
Actually that has happened in the past. Years after the Bell System divestiture, Judge Harold H. Greene found himself unable to order local phone service. Why? Because the system had gotten so chaotic that he couldn't find the right person to talk to who could take the order!
Ah, sometimes I think the Universe does have a sense of irony after all.
People that don't have cable access and can't get dsl? I can't bring myself to pay for satellite, so dial up it is.
As somebody with experience with satellite I'd have to say that I'd take dial-up over it any day of the week.
Hell, get two POTS lines and bond them first.
What's ironic is I maintain to this day that our banks of USR v.34+ modems hooked up to POTS performed better then the v.90 boxes that replaced them. Turn on compression, dial up and connect at 33,600. Worked like a champ -- and it didn't take 20 seconds for the modems to negotiate like it did with v.90. *sigh*, those were the days.