The simple answer is to reduce energy usage, but people don't want to.
The simple answer is to reduce the number of people, but they don't want to stop having sex.
If you want to reduce the population then what you want is to increase people's education and income. As education levels and incomes increase people have fewer children.
The real problem is that there is just too many of "US". We need to reduce our selves. No environment can sustain expentional growth forever.
That's the riddle, or is a kuan? As people's education and income grow they have fewer children. This is being seen in the two most populous nations, China and India. Both of these countries are seeing their birth rates dropping as thier people attain more education and their income increases.
The democrats recently stated this was one of their working goals. I guess it is modeled after Australia's efforts and not California's. I also understand that California's law was struck down by a court for some reason.
Oh gosh, I hope the Dems don't try to do something like this. Instead of banning incandescent lights what they should do, if anything, is to encourage conservation. Say stop subsidizing power companies and allow the market to set prices.
Regardless of what Al Gore says, giving up our cars will not save the planet.
It just might. Perhaps if we start riding bicycles and mass transport like Chinese, CO2 concentration will reach equilibrium where increased photosynthesis by plants due to higher temperature + higher CO2 compensates for remaining human activity.
Actually photosynthesis might not increase with more CO2 in the atmosphere. I wish I had a link to it but I read of one study that concluded some plants actually grow slower when there is an elevated level of CO2. On the other hand other studies have shown poison ivy grows faster.
I think that the key to reducing car dependency is to increase the marginal cost of car use
Last year I read about a study I believe in the Economist magazine that said people budget a specific amount of their income even if not consciously for transportation, 17% I think it said. When fuel prices are low they use more expensive gas guzzling cars but when fuel is high they get fuel efficient cars.
People who waste their time on trendy non-issues like this make me sick.
Nonissue? People dying from an allergic reaction is a nonissue?
There are people dying RIGHT NOW from actual problems in the food industry with handling, inspection
These are handling and sanitation issues and don't have anything to do with genetic engineering. GE does nothing for preventing food from being contaminated. And for people without enough to eat, that's a problem with politics and logistics. Take Zimbabwe, it used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa. But when pres Mugabe forced the white farmers off of their farms then gave the farms to his cronies the country turned into a basket case. Then there's what's happening in Mexico. Because of massive subsidies the US gives to US agribusinesses these companies can export food to Mexico and sale it there cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food. You can blame this on many of those "illegal immigrants" in the US. Because Mexican farmers can't make a living on their farms they migrate into the Mexican cities or north to come to the US. And those who go to the cities drive those already there north. Massive farm subsidies was the reason the WTO talks in Geneva fell apart. India and other coutries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subidizing their agribusinesses so these companies couldn't flood export markets with food that cost less than what local farmers could grow food for. In India thousands of farmers have been committing suicide in part because they can't compeat with subsidized imported food.
corn and other staples will be more expensive. It's the reason China banned ethanol production. It's the reason Castro blasted the United States.
I'd think a reason Casdtro blasted the US is because the US uses corn to make ethanol whereas sugar cane produces more ethanol for a given amount of land. If the US were to get rid of all of the blocks whether tariffs or not of importing sugar cane or the ethanol created using cane as well as the Cuban trade blockade, Brazil and Cuba could provide a significant amount ot fuel. The problem in Brazil is that "farmers" slash and burn or clearcut the rainforest to grow sugar cane.
The best bet for biofuels is something that has less of an impact on the soil and the planet, such as algae based biofuels. Algae is grown in tanks, so the process requires less land, and any chemicals used in the process can be contained so it isn't spread over open land.
Algae is better for biofuel but even better would be to use the algae to produce hydrogen.
That's not an issue with genetically modified foods as such, it's an issue with an hyperimmune response to certain foods, and the foods whose genetic materials are used.
And who's to say more gm foods won't create more allergins? Also who can say definitively other bioreactive chemicals, proteins or not, won't be created as well?
Using your arguement, we shouldn't import brazil nuts, because they cause an hyperimmune response.
Not at all. Most people don't have an allergy to brazil nuts, myself, I love them. The specific problem here is when someone does not know what genetic material has been inserted into an item. While I don't like gmos, as long as they were labeled as such I wouldn't mind if they are on the market. However most businesses who are in the industry are against any labeling. Also I'm against using genetic engineering to make crops produce their own pesticides or for making them herbicide resistant.
I love cities though I don't like living in one. Ideally I'd want to live maybe an hour or two away from a city with some art galleries, museums, and theatres. Every week or two I'd drive to the city then. Or if there was a good mass transit, say light rail, I'd use that. I'd walk a gallery or museum to see the exhibit, eat out, then watch a play. Otherwise I'd prefer to be in a rural area, with mountains, on the coast. That way one day I could go scuba diving then hiking the next.
If there were studies showing GMO food as anything other than a way to grow more, better food on the same land, I'd be the first in line, but there isn't.
Ah but there is. Some people are allergic to brazil nuts, some have gone into shock and have died. Soy was gentically engineered with a gene from the brazil nut. In a study it was shown those with an allergy to brazil nuts were also allergic to the soy. The gene inserted encoded for a protein that's an allergin.
In the 90s there was a great deal of urban renewal, and a lot of people who had moved out of the city starting moving back.
Much of the urban renewal going on is due to gentrification which creates more problems. One, two, or more people may buy property in a rundown neighberhood which they'll fix up. Seeing this others will as well which drives up prices pricing lower income residents out, many of whom rent.
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
I still don't see any authority for the DEA. If youy want to say that gives the president the right to create the DEA then you must also agree it also gives the power to create the Gestapo. Oops, strike that, that's rather redundent.
Also note that the DEA is an executive branch agency, and is fully permitted under the constitution under the executive branch's enumerated powers.
Can you please point to me where the USA Constitution gives the president the authority to create the DEA? I don't recall this permission so going through the COnstitution the only authority I see being given to the president is:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No matter how many tyme I read and search it I see nowhere where the DEA is authorized or where the president is given the authority to create it.
Beyond that, I don't see what the DEA has to do with a national law banning incandescent light bulbs. Did they suddenly become drugs?
?How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
As it has been repeatedly stated it is legal to gamble online, not all types of gambling are illegal. See Gambling Law US.
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
If you had RTFA you would of read, I know this is/. but if people actually read the articles linked to they may learn something, where the admin had tried this tactic but the WTO ruled otherwise: The ruling said that the US had a right to ban online gambling, but sided with Antigua in noting the US was allowing online horse race betting. Horse race betting is gambling so the US does allow online gambling.
I can buy aspirin online, so I should be able to buy herion from offshore sites too, eh? No? Yes?
There's a big difference you are missing. Aspirin is legal, heroin is not. The difference for online gambling, some of which is legal, is where the servers are and where the actual event takes place.
If the US declares it illegal for US citizens, while in the US, to do online gambling, then what the flying holy bloody fark does that have to do with the WTO? Nothing. Is someone being mutilated, tortured, killed, blah, etc.
That's the rub, the government does not ban all online gambling only some.
You do realize that most places allow you to produce a certain amount of beer/wine/whiskey/whatever tax free for your own consumption, right?
Yeap, a person can legally make up to 250 gallons of beer, wine, or whatever in the US. Years ago I used to brew and I'd get comments like I was breaking the law when I'd show someone a batch of beer fermenting and hand them a bottle from the batch I just bottled. I still have my equipment and want to get back into brewing, unfortunately I don't have much space now.
When it comes to supporting drug lords the US "war on drugs" is likely to provide a lot of support. The US is also one of the major supporters of terrorism. Even if Antiguan gambling did do either of these this would simply be be a case of the "pot calling the kettle black".
Yeap! If you really want to hurt or stop organized crime then get rid of those stupid laws that make drugs illegal. Prohibition, whether street drugs or the most widely used drug, alcohol, only makes organized crime stronger.
I know California passed such a law, which the 10th Amendment allows, but I've never heard the US Congress passing any such law or Pres Bush signing it. Could you please point to me where I can see this law myself?
There's nothing pathetic about protecting your citizens from gambling away their mortgage/rent/food money with the ease of a click of a mouse button.
This is true if you live in a anny state but it IS PATHHETIC if you live in the nation of the free. If you want to live in said nanny state then move there, but don't try to make my nation, the land of the free, into your nanny state. The government has no business sticking it's nose in my business, my life, and dictating what I can and can not do so long as I am not harming another!!! If I do harm another then charge me with a crime and let me have my day in court.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple answer is to reduce energy usage, but people don't want to.
The simple answer is to reduce the number of people, but they don't want to stop having sex.
If you want to reduce the population then what you want is to increase people's education and income. As education levels and incomes increase people have fewer children.
FalconThe real problem is that there is just too many of "US". We need to reduce our selves. No environment can sustain expentional growth forever.
That's the riddle, or is a kuan? As people's education and income grow they have fewer children. This is being seen in the two most populous nations, China and India. Both of these countries are seeing their birth rates dropping as thier people attain more education and their income increases.
FalconThe democrats recently stated this was one of their working goals. I guess it is modeled after Australia's efforts and not California's. I also understand that California's law was struck down by a court for some reason.
Oh gosh, I hope the Dems don't try to do something like this. Instead of banning incandescent lights what they should do, if anything, is to encourage conservation. Say stop subsidizing power companies and allow the market to set prices.
FalconRegardless of what Al Gore says, giving up our cars will not save the planet.
It just might. Perhaps if we start riding bicycles and mass transport like Chinese, CO2 concentration will reach equilibrium where increased photosynthesis by plants due to higher temperature + higher CO2 compensates for remaining human activity.
Actually photosynthesis might not increase with more CO2 in the atmosphere. I wish I had a link to it but I read of one study that concluded some plants actually grow slower when there is an elevated level of CO2. On the other hand other studies have shown poison ivy grows faster.
FalconAre you for real?
FalconI think that the key to reducing car dependency is to increase the marginal cost of car use
Last year I read about a study I believe in the Economist magazine that said people budget a specific amount of their income even if not consciously for transportation, 17% I think it said. When fuel prices are low they use more expensive gas guzzling cars but when fuel is high they get fuel efficient cars.
FalconPeople who waste their time on trendy non-issues like this make me sick.
Nonissue? People dying from an allergic reaction is a nonissue?
There are people dying RIGHT NOW from actual problems in the food industry with handling, inspection
These are handling and sanitation issues and don't have anything to do with genetic engineering. GE does nothing for preventing food from being contaminated. And for people without enough to eat, that's a problem with politics and logistics. Take Zimbabwe, it used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa. But when pres Mugabe forced the white farmers off of their farms then gave the farms to his cronies the country turned into a basket case. Then there's what's happening in Mexico. Because of massive subsidies the US gives to US agribusinesses these companies can export food to Mexico and sale it there cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food. You can blame this on many of those "illegal immigrants" in the US. Because Mexican farmers can't make a living on their farms they migrate into the Mexican cities or north to come to the US. And those who go to the cities drive those already there north. Massive farm subsidies was the reason the WTO talks in Geneva fell apart. India and other coutries demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop subidizing their agribusinesses so these companies couldn't flood export markets with food that cost less than what local farmers could grow food for. In India thousands of farmers have been committing suicide in part because they can't compeat with subsidized imported food.
Falconcorn and other staples will be more expensive. It's the reason China banned ethanol production. It's the reason Castro blasted the United States.
I'd think a reason Casdtro blasted the US is because the US uses corn to make ethanol whereas sugar cane produces more ethanol for a given amount of land. If the US were to get rid of all of the blocks whether tariffs or not of importing sugar cane or the ethanol created using cane as well as the Cuban trade blockade, Brazil and Cuba could provide a significant amount ot fuel. The problem in Brazil is that "farmers" slash and burn or clearcut the rainforest to grow sugar cane.
FalconThe best bet for biofuels is something that has less of an impact on the soil and the planet, such as algae based biofuels. Algae is grown in tanks, so the process requires less land, and any chemicals used in the process can be contained so it isn't spread over open land.
Algae is better for biofuel but even better would be to use the algae to produce hydrogen.
FalconThat's not an issue with genetically modified foods as such, it's an issue with an hyperimmune response to certain foods, and the foods whose genetic materials are used.
And who's to say more gm foods won't create more allergins? Also who can say definitively other bioreactive chemicals, proteins or not, won't be created as well?
Using your arguement, we shouldn't import brazil nuts, because they cause an hyperimmune response.
Not at all. Most people don't have an allergy to brazil nuts, myself, I love them. The specific problem here is when someone does not know what genetic material has been inserted into an item. While I don't like gmos, as long as they were labeled as such I wouldn't mind if they are on the market. However most businesses who are in the industry are against any labeling. Also I'm against using genetic engineering to make crops produce their own pesticides or for making them herbicide resistant.
FalconI love cities though I don't like living in one. Ideally I'd want to live maybe an hour or two away from a city with some art galleries, museums, and theatres. Every week or two I'd drive to the city then. Or if there was a good mass transit, say light rail, I'd use that. I'd walk a gallery or museum to see the exhibit, eat out, then watch a play. Otherwise I'd prefer to be in a rural area, with mountains, on the coast. That way one day I could go scuba diving then hiking the next.
FalconIf there were studies showing GMO food as anything other than a way to grow more, better food on the same land, I'd be the first in line, but there isn't.
Ah but there is. Some people are allergic to brazil nuts, some have gone into shock and have died. Soy was gentically engineered with a gene from the brazil nut. In a study it was shown those with an allergy to brazil nuts were also allergic to the soy. The gene inserted encoded for a protein that's an allergin.
Case study: Brazil nut allergen in GE soybeans.
FalconIn the 90s there was a great deal of urban renewal, and a lot of people who had moved out of the city starting moving back.
Much of the urban renewal going on is due to gentrification which creates more problems. One, two, or more people may buy property in a rundown neighberhood which they'll fix up. Seeing this others will as well which drives up prices pricing lower income residents out, many of whom rent.
Falconand all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
I still don't see any authority for the DEA. If youy want to say that gives the president the right to create the DEA then you must also agree it also gives the power to create the Gestapo. Oops, strike that, that's rather redundent.
FalconAlso note that the DEA is an executive branch agency, and is fully permitted under the constitution under the executive branch's enumerated powers.
Can you please point to me where the USA Constitution gives the president the authority to create the DEA? I don't recall this permission so going through the COnstitution the only authority I see being given to the president is:
Article II. - The Executive Branch
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No matter how many tyme I read and search it I see nowhere where the DEA is authorized or where the president is given the authority to create it.
Beyond that, I don't see what the DEA has to do with a national law banning incandescent light bulbs. Did they suddenly become drugs?
Falconthis is about introducing something into a society that has made it illegal
Let me correct that for you:
Falconthis about introducing something into a society that has mde it legal for some and illegal for others
Online gambling IS NOT illegal in the US. It is perfectly legal to bet, and betting is gambling, on horse races online for instance.
Falcon?How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
As it has been repeatedly stated it is legal to gamble online, not all types of gambling are illegal. See Gambling Law US.
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
If you had RTFA you would of read, I know this is /. but if people actually read the articles linked to they may learn something, where the admin had tried this tactic but the WTO ruled otherwise: The ruling said that the US had a right to ban online gambling, but sided with Antigua in noting the US was allowing online horse race betting. Horse race betting is gambling so the US does allow online gambling.
FalconI can buy aspirin online, so I should be able to buy herion from offshore sites too, eh? No? Yes?
There's a big difference you are missing. Aspirin is legal, heroin is not. The difference for online gambling, some of which is legal, is where the servers are and where the actual event takes place.
Falconwe banned ALL online gambling, not just overseas gambling.
Wrong, not all online gambling is illegal. Some online gambling such as horse racing is legal. Here is more on online gambling.
FalconIf the US declares it illegal for US citizens, while in the US, to do online gambling, then what the flying holy bloody fark does that have to do with the WTO? Nothing. Is someone being mutilated, tortured, killed, blah, etc.
That's the rub, the government does not ban all online gambling only some.
FalconYou do realize that most places allow you to produce a certain amount of beer/wine/whiskey/whatever tax free for your own consumption, right?
Yeap, a person can legally make up to 250 gallons of beer, wine, or whatever in the US. Years ago I used to brew and I'd get comments like I was breaking the law when I'd show someone a batch of beer fermenting and hand them a bottle from the batch I just bottled. I still have my equipment and want to get back into brewing, unfortunately I don't have much space now.
FalconWhen it comes to supporting drug lords the US "war on drugs" is likely to provide a lot of support. The US is also one of the major supporters of terrorism. Even if Antiguan gambling did do either of these this would simply be be a case of the "pot calling the kettle black".
Yeap! If you really want to hurt or stop organized crime then get rid of those stupid laws that make drugs illegal. Prohibition, whether street drugs or the most widely used drug, alcohol, only makes organized crime stronger.
Falconlight bulbs
I know California passed such a law, which the 10th Amendment allows, but I've never heard the US Congress passing any such law or Pres Bush signing it. Could you please point to me where I can see this law myself?
FalconThere's nothing pathetic about protecting your citizens from gambling away their mortgage/rent/food money with the ease of a click of a mouse button.
This is true if you live in a anny state but it IS PATHHETIC if you live in the nation of the free. If you want to live in said nanny state then move there, but don't try to make my nation, the land of the free, into your nanny state. The government has no business sticking it's nose in my business, my life, and dictating what I can and can not do so long as I am not harming another!!! If I do harm another then charge me with a crime and let me have my day in court.
Falcon