This is further evidence to support my new-found intuition that every law passed in the United States is nothing but a further infringement upon our personal rights in the name of some ethereal 'security.'
One wonders how many more crimes can be invented by ambitious politicians.
Is there a petition somewhere out there which proposes an immidiate freeze on all penal-code legislation? What would Slashdotter's opinions be on such a petition?
it seems inappropriate to deem an extremely useful system "not ready for critical use" simply because it can not deal with a temporary catostrophic power loss which occurs for a dozen hours every few decades.
spending big money to counter a rare contingency such as this seems wasteful as well.
if anything, we should welcome the holiday from the rat race.
look, the actual -numbers- don't matter in this debate. what the dipshit scientist probably meant was that people would make 'the equivilant' of 150k/year.
what does that mean?
it means that a person working in a typical wage paying job would be able to buy nicer washing machines, a nicer computer, a new car more often (or a nicer car just as often as before, or a really nice car less often than before). you could get nicer silverware. maybe nicer warm clothes. maybe McDonald's would become a more luxurious restaurant - the equivilant of your local 'nice' burger place, while your local burger place becomes just that much better. the country clubs could use kobe beef in their burgers.
just look at the past and your questions will be answered. throughout the past century, we had some of the largest innovations in the history of man. at the beginning of the century, people lived in slummy apartments or on rotting farms (we're talking in the US here, btw). by mid-century, people all had their own car and lived in their own little houses or bigger/nicer apartments (i am talking about changes in the middle class, of course).
it was as if every class got "bumped up" a notch. poor people (at or below $20k) now buy cars. you must realize that 100 years ago, even 70 years ago, that was inconcievable - for the poorest class of full-time workers to afford their own car.
what the doctor in this article is referring to are changes in people's consumption abilities; being able to buy nicer things. he does not mean that everyone will suddenly be freed of their wage-slave lives, only that they will be able to buy more cool stuff with that money.
for the cost of a 1950's record player, telephone, and big TV set (or what passed for a big TV set in those days), we get a cheap computer, color tv, CD player, and cell phone. people used to put fans and wood-burning stoves in their houses, now we have air conditioning and electric heating (and, of course, the wood-burning stoves are still pretty nice).
But...but...the whole point of this conversation, indeed the original parent article at hand, suggests that no, greenhouse gasses do not cause global warming...
Did you even read the article? How about any of the/. comments?
No one's disputing that the earth is getting warmer. That's a given. What is at issue here is whether _humans_ contribute to that warming. This study seems to suggest that no, humans have no significant impact on global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
"You do not have a right to record everything you see."
I guess it's time for my weekly brain-wipe?
"Someone can pretend they are chatting on the cell phone, and then the moment you turn you back on them, ZAPP they get a picture of your rear."
Oh my god! Heaven forbid! We must ban these insidious devices at all costs!
I'd give my soul to keep my backside from being preserved in posterity.
This is further evidence to support my new-found intuition that every law passed in the United States is nothing but a further infringement upon our personal rights in the name of some ethereal 'security.'
One wonders how many more crimes can be invented by ambitious politicians.
Is there a petition somewhere out there which proposes an immidiate freeze on all penal-code legislation? What would Slashdotter's opinions be on such a petition?
it seems inappropriate to deem an extremely useful system "not ready for critical use" simply because it can not deal with a temporary catostrophic power loss which occurs for a dozen hours every few decades.
spending big money to counter a rare contingency such as this seems wasteful as well.
if anything, we should welcome the holiday from the rat race.
look, the actual -numbers- don't matter in this debate. what the dipshit scientist probably meant was that people would make 'the equivilant' of 150k/year. what does that mean? it means that a person working in a typical wage paying job would be able to buy nicer washing machines, a nicer computer, a new car more often (or a nicer car just as often as before, or a really nice car less often than before). you could get nicer silverware. maybe nicer warm clothes. maybe McDonald's would become a more luxurious restaurant - the equivilant of your local 'nice' burger place, while your local burger place becomes just that much better. the country clubs could use kobe beef in their burgers. just look at the past and your questions will be answered. throughout the past century, we had some of the largest innovations in the history of man. at the beginning of the century, people lived in slummy apartments or on rotting farms (we're talking in the US here, btw). by mid-century, people all had their own car and lived in their own little houses or bigger/nicer apartments (i am talking about changes in the middle class, of course). it was as if every class got "bumped up" a notch. poor people (at or below $20k) now buy cars. you must realize that 100 years ago, even 70 years ago, that was inconcievable - for the poorest class of full-time workers to afford their own car. what the doctor in this article is referring to are changes in people's consumption abilities; being able to buy nicer things. he does not mean that everyone will suddenly be freed of their wage-slave lives, only that they will be able to buy more cool stuff with that money. for the cost of a 1950's record player, telephone, and big TV set (or what passed for a big TV set in those days), we get a cheap computer, color tv, CD player, and cell phone. people used to put fans and wood-burning stoves in their houses, now we have air conditioning and electric heating (and, of course, the wood-burning stoves are still pretty nice).
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. If these apperatus cost $10,000, they'd be perfect.
But...but...the whole point of this conversation, indeed the original parent article at hand, suggests that no, greenhouse gasses do not cause global warming...
Wait wait wait. Someone actually gave this post a score of "3, Insightful"?????///???//??
Did you even read the article? How about any of the /. comments?
No one's disputing that the earth is getting warmer. That's a given. What is at issue here is whether _humans_ contribute to that warming. This study seems to suggest that no, humans have no significant impact on global warming.