Looking at your Wikipedia list, China's per capita CO2 output is 3.84 tonnes/year vs the USA at 20.4.
US population - 305 million.
Chinese population - 1.325 billion.
I make that 6222 million tonnes generated by the US versus 5088 million by China - certainly getting closer, but by no means overtaking yet
You're comparing the per capita for 2004 and failing to read the article covering 2006. Try again.
And the total population of all those 9 countries above the US in per-capita emissions?
Less than 10 million.
Irrelevant. The OP claimed that the US was the highest in both amount and per capita. I showed that he was wrong on both counts.
Whichever way you look at it, the US is still the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions, no matter how you try to spin the numbers.
Again, read the first article linked, not just the wiki list. FTA:
"Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."
6. Population time bomb. One Child per Family means there's a lot of boys and not many girls to go around. What are they going to do for wives when they grow up?
Well, they could either (1) turn gay or (2) wives could have multiple husbands as is happening in India (one wife has five husbands).
Taliban is the closest on your list. And yes, I understand that you do not understand good that is coming to you. There is no point on arguing here. You made your not understanding very clear.
Then enlighten me that I may learn.
"If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world" That is your opinion. Islamic government worked through very large portion of history. Since when military superiority makes the ideology right?
And yet Islamic government seems to have failed more recently. And when did I ever bring up military superiority?
"He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority." Trustworthiness is a new subject. What is it that you are accusing Muslims of in the matter of trustworthiness?
You misunderstand the analogy. If you can not make an Islamic system work in a single country, how is it to work in the whole world?
The best examples would be the Islamic rule of quite substantial part of the world during Khulafa of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali. After that all of them made some mistakes, but in general there were quite many just Khalifs who were much better than any of the rulers of Muslim countries today.
You list individuals, but not systems. Is not a system that fails completely when it has a single flaw at the top a bad system?
For example, the rule in Andalus, where Jews and Christians enjoyed life that would never be even imaginable for Jews and Muslims under Christian rule at that time.
And today?
For starters, before this totalitarian democracy madness started, religious minorities had a right to exercise their own rule on the members of their own communities. Example: Jews in Tzarist Russia in XIX century. Same goes for minority communities in Muslim countries.
And for those who wish to leave their community? How would such a system work when the two communities come into conflict?
"Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?" This is just non sequitur.
You sugested we should have suspended our law to punish those suspected of dealing in alcohol when it was banned. I am asking why you would not suspend Islamic law to punish someone, for example a heretic.
Yes. You are paying for the privilege to be protected in an Islamic country.
Why should protection be a privlege? Should not all members of a country be protected? Why is it that only the non-Muslims need to pay for such a privlege?
I think you do not know what are you talking about. I suggest you learn about what people want.
I do know what people around me want. Perhaps you should learn too.
Islamic rule on non-Muslims is tax, nothing more.
And this is seen as unjust to those of us in the west, to treat two people differently. Tell me, what is the punishment for not paying this tax? Do Muslims pay a similar tax?
Just do not spread all that filth of your habits and falsehood of your beliefs to the rest of the society.
Most of us view much of what you believe the same way.
"For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. " That is absolutely not correct. Is there evidence to that in Islamic sources?
It would appear my memmory is of Saudi Arabia requiring that.
1. What countries do you mean? Right now there is no single Islamic government that rules according to Allah's law.
Iran, Saudi Arabia how Afghanistan used to be (not to say the current system is much better) for starters. If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world, I do not trust it to work in a large area. He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority. Prove it will work in small areas first. If those are not examples, then has there ever been a government that rules according to Allah's law? Also, why are they not ruling according to Allah's law? They are (or were) run by Islamic governments, after all.
2. I understand your disagreement, because your mind is cloaked with artificial man-made ideas of Western civilization. There is no point on arguing here.
So then why do you try to argue if I am incapable of comprehension? As I obviously must be incapable since I do not agree with you. Or is it that you use this justification for me not agreeing with you to reassure yourself that you could not possibly be wrong?
I know about that point of history. I give you a counterexample. In 2001 Taliban almost completely eliminated opium production in Afghanistan. My point is that this is not how it is done. The elimination of alcohol was a second- or third- priority for US in 20s, first priority being whatever misconceptions you have in the book called American constitution. If it were first-priority, the problem would be solved by suspending any rights of those who are bootlegging, running underground bars, etc... In short, American government was not hard enough on this crime.
First, it is not a book, it is a set of documents. Second, Yes, because that is the foundation of our entire legal system. Without using the U.S. Constitution, we have no law as it is the foundation of it all. Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?
I think one of us does not understand the point of the opponent. I am assuming it's me. Care to elaborate?
You asked if free speech had any effect on society. I gave instances of items that had large impacts on society.
Tribute - correct (not to Khalif, but that's technical details). Fewer freedoms - only ideological freedoms. Not economic freedoms, for example. The history of Andalus and Uthmani empire is the proof of that. Christians and Jews prospered under the rule of Khalifate.
My apologies, it has been a while since I have had to spell Khalif and I tried to spell it phonetically.
Tribute is something we would abhor as we see it as an infringement on our freedoms. If we have to pay for something, it is not a freedom, it is a privilege. Further, economic freedoms are only a small matter. (Isn't interest banned?) There are several other things as well, such as being able to associate with other people as we choose. The restrictions we read about that are placed on women would be considered abhorrent here. Further, any requirements placed on religion, would not be tolerated. For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. This is not something that most Christians I know would do, or even accept as a condition. It does not matter to them that you believe Mohamed is a prophet, they would refuse to acknowledge him as one.
That is ok with me. "To you - your religion, to me - mine" (Qur'an, Surah Kaafiroon). I was never going to impose it on you (and it is irrelevant to me that I do not even have leverage to do that), because that is against the order of Allah, who said: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an, 2:256)
See the comment above about having to acknowledge Mohamed. Further, under the government you propose, you would be able to offer people the option of following any religious rules you choose (as you suggest with alcohol and other drugs) or death, regardless of what our religions believe.
Ordinary people should not be afraid of Islam, because only good for then will come out of future Islamic domination.
A number of us look at Islamic dominated countries and disagree.
There will be much less street crime because most of the street crime is alcohol or drug fueled or gang-related and all those things will be gone during Islamic rule.
We tried outlawing Drugs and Alcohol in the U.S. almost a century ago. It ended up creating more crime. Look up Al Capone some time.
So please think about the weight behind your right of free speech: is it just to make you feel good about yourself or does it have some effect on society?
The Pentagon Papers, The Color Purple, Political Speech, The Federalist Papers are all things covered under Free Speech.
As for real important freedoms, you will retain them: right to economic endeavors, right to practice religions, e.g. Christianity or Judaism.
Provided we pay a tribute to the Calif and suffer some fewer freedoms that Muslims are granted, among other things.
Islam is good for you. Embrace it.
I think I shall decline and continue under my current religion.
As for offering a rebuttal, it's their magazine, their printing press. Why should they allow a rebuttal? Am I allowed to write a column in the New York Times if they print something I disagree with? No. Is Microsoft allowed to force Slashdot to post a pro-Vista rebuttal on the main page? No. Do we want that sort of stupid to be a law? No. It might seem nice and fair if you don't think about it, but when you do, you'll see a thousand ways it would be abused and used to bog down free speech to the point no one says anything someone else might not like for fear of having to let the someone else use their resources to yammer on and on about how wronged they were. Careful. The Democrats have been talking about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine".
As a Canuck, I can tell you that the human rights tribunal stuff is very scary...because they operate under the effective assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent, they do not conform to the crimina code of Canada, and there is no jury of peers. Sounds like the Human Rights Tribunal violates Human Rights by the very way the Tribunal is set up.
So all you need to do is get 10,000 people to file suit simultaneously in some frivolous suit and have the government pay for it. Flood the system in lawsuits and bring it to a standstill. If they refuse to prosecute under the law, sue the Canadian DA equivalent for not doing his/her job.
This is what I was thinking of suggesting as well. One thing to remember is that some states will require a licensed electricion to do certain work on household wiring, particularly work involving the main breaker box. Given most people I've run into, it's a good idea to have an electrician do the work anyway, as they know the building code for the state and are less likely to hurt themselves.
Too bad he didn't include power consumption. If I'm going to use an SSD for anytime soon, it will be in a laptop where power is my key concern. Performance is more of a desktop/high end issue right now.
From the article:
On one notable mission, a group of Iraqi fighters surrendered to the [UAV] as it flew over their heads. Marines were directed to their position, where they then captured the fighters. Ahhh ha ha. Suckers. The UAV was supplying live feed to a US battleship for targeting coordinates. This was the second UAV to fly over them. Just previously they had received some presents curtesy of the USS Wisconsin's and USS Missouri's 16 inch guns. They decided they wanted to live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)#Gulf_War
"This place has no atmosphere" is the name of the book. The titles use of 'Atmosphere' was in the resturaunt sence. It was a pun as the book took place in underground cities on the Moon (where there is air to push against). And, as you know, the Moon has no atmosphere (above ground).
Speaking of which. If they want Zero G and low G sports, I suggest reading through the Science Fiction section a bit. The Enders Game battles were some of the first to pop into my mind. Then there are the human butterfly (strap wings to yourself and fly) sports on the moon from "This place has no atmosphere". There was one in the Tom Swift series that started with "The City in the Stars". I'll have to reread it to check what it was about. Some form of low G basketball if I remember right. There was another series that had a sport where you tried to get around the (quite large) station as fast as you could. You used tow ropes to pull yourself along by realing in your line by hand. A relay/sprint in zero G if you will.
I'm not seeing anything in the article that says they either did or did not get warrants. Then again, I don't know if warrants are even required in Brazil.
No. In the U.S., the government can file for trademarks and patents and the only way they can be used by the general public is if they are licensed. The money then (currently) goes into the general fund. It is not public domain.
Because it makes the algorithms for splitting up work simpler? I remember reading a review where they took a dual processor motherboard, put a dual core in one socket and a single core in the other. Some applications crashed in multithreading mode due to the non power of two number of cores.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get it in the grocery store here in Virginia, USA.
Looking at your Wikipedia list, China's per capita CO2 output is 3.84 tonnes/year vs the USA at 20.4. US population - 305 million. Chinese population - 1.325 billion. I make that 6222 million tonnes generated by the US versus 5088 million by China - certainly getting closer, but by no means overtaking yet
You're comparing the per capita for 2004 and failing to read the article covering 2006. Try again.
And the total population of all those 9 countries above the US in per-capita emissions? Less than 10 million.
Irrelevant. The OP claimed that the US was the highest in both amount and per capita. I showed that he was wrong on both counts.
Whichever way you look at it, the US is still the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions, no matter how you try to spin the numbers.
Again, read the first article linked, not just the wiki list. FTA:
"Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."
I can't think of any country that would benefit more by this sort of thing.
I can. Maybe the US since they do have the highest total annual CO2 emissions and the highest CO2 emissions per capita
Wrong on both counts. China passed the US on CO2 emissions. The US is 10th on a per capita basis. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Well then, between China and India and countries that allow men to marry multiple wives this should be settled over the next 20 years.
6. Population time bomb. One Child per Family means there's a lot of boys and not many girls to go around. What are they going to do for wives when they grow up?
Well, they could either (1) turn gay or (2) wives could have multiple husbands as is happening in India (one wife has five husbands).
PSI levels above 400 may be life-threatening to ill and elderly persons. Healthy people may experience adverse symptoms that affect normal activity.
I wonder what they would write about levels above 550!
The air quality in Beijing is little better than being on the outskirts of a forest fire.
The better questions is, what happens when it's over 9000
Taliban is the closest on your list. And yes, I understand that you do not understand good that is coming to you. There is no point on arguing here. You made your not understanding very clear.
Then enlighten me that I may learn.
"If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world" That is your opinion. Islamic government worked through very large portion of history. Since when military superiority makes the ideology right?
And yet Islamic government seems to have failed more recently. And when did I ever bring up military superiority?
"He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority." Trustworthiness is a new subject. What is it that you are accusing Muslims of in the matter of trustworthiness?
You misunderstand the analogy. If you can not make an Islamic system work in a single country, how is it to work in the whole world?
The best examples would be the Islamic rule of quite substantial part of the world during Khulafa of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and 'Ali. After that all of them made some mistakes, but in general there were quite many just Khalifs who were much better than any of the rulers of Muslim countries today.
You list individuals, but not systems. Is not a system that fails completely when it has a single flaw at the top a bad system?
For example, the rule in Andalus, where Jews and Christians enjoyed life that would never be even imaginable for Jews and Muslims under Christian rule at that time.
And today?
For starters, before this totalitarian democracy madness started, religious minorities had a right to exercise their own rule on the members of their own communities. Example: Jews in Tzarist Russia in XIX century. Same goes for minority communities in Muslim countries.
And for those who wish to leave their community? How would such a system work when the two communities come into conflict?
"Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?" This is just non sequitur.
You sugested we should have suspended our law to punish those suspected of dealing in alcohol when it was banned. I am asking why you would not suspend Islamic law to punish someone, for example a heretic.
Yes. You are paying for the privilege to be protected in an Islamic country.
Why should protection be a privlege? Should not all members of a country be protected? Why is it that only the non-Muslims need to pay for such a privlege?
I think you do not know what are you talking about. I suggest you learn about what people want.
I do know what people around me want. Perhaps you should learn too.
Islamic rule on non-Muslims is tax, nothing more.
And this is seen as unjust to those of us in the west, to treat two people differently. Tell me, what is the punishment for not paying this tax? Do Muslims pay a similar tax?
Just do not spread all that filth of your habits and falsehood of your beliefs to the rest of the society.
Most of us view much of what you believe the same way.
"For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. " That is absolutely not correct. Is there evidence to that in Islamic sources?
It would appear my memmory is of Saudi Arabia requiring that.
1. What countries do you mean? Right now there is no single Islamic government that rules according to Allah's law.
Iran, Saudi Arabia how Afghanistan used to be (not to say the current system is much better) for starters. If an Islamic government can not even work in a small area of the world, I do not trust it to work in a large area. He who has been trustworthy in small matters, shall be given greater authority. Prove it will work in small areas first. If those are not examples, then has there ever been a government that rules according to Allah's law? Also, why are they not ruling according to Allah's law? They are (or were) run by Islamic governments, after all.
2. I understand your disagreement, because your mind is cloaked with artificial man-made ideas of Western civilization. There is no point on arguing here.
So then why do you try to argue if I am incapable of comprehension? As I obviously must be incapable since I do not agree with you. Or is it that you use this justification for me not agreeing with you to reassure yourself that you could not possibly be wrong?
I know about that point of history. I give you a counterexample. In 2001 Taliban almost completely eliminated opium production in Afghanistan. My point is that this is not how it is done. The elimination of alcohol was a second- or third- priority for US in 20s, first priority being whatever misconceptions you have in the book called American constitution. If it were first-priority, the problem would be solved by suspending any rights of those who are bootlegging, running underground bars, etc... In short, American government was not hard enough on this crime.
First, it is not a book, it is a set of documents. Second, Yes, because that is the foundation of our entire legal system. Without using the U.S. Constitution, we have no law as it is the foundation of it all. Would you consider suspending the entire Islamic law for anyone suspected of a crime?
I think one of us does not understand the point of the opponent. I am assuming it's me. Care to elaborate?
You asked if free speech had any effect on society. I gave instances of items that had large impacts on society.
Tribute - correct (not to Khalif, but that's technical details). Fewer freedoms - only ideological freedoms. Not economic freedoms, for example. The history of Andalus and Uthmani empire is the proof of that. Christians and Jews prospered under the rule of Khalifate.
My apologies, it has been a while since I have had to spell Khalif and I tried to spell it phonetically.
Tribute is something we would abhor as we see it as an infringement on our freedoms. If we have to pay for something, it is not a freedom, it is a privilege. Further, economic freedoms are only a small matter. (Isn't interest banned?) There are several other things as well, such as being able to associate with other people as we choose. The restrictions we read about that are placed on women would be considered abhorrent here. Further, any requirements placed on religion, would not be tolerated. For instance, I have heard that it would be required for Christians to acknowledge Mohamed as a prophet. This is not something that most Christians I know would do, or even accept as a condition. It does not matter to them that you believe Mohamed is a prophet, they would refuse to acknowledge him as one.
That is ok with me. "To you - your religion, to me - mine" (Qur'an, Surah Kaafiroon). I was never going to impose it on you (and it is irrelevant to me that I do not even have leverage to do that), because that is against the order of Allah, who said: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an, 2:256)
See the comment above about having to acknowledge Mohamed. Further, under the government you propose, you would be able to offer people the option of following any religious rules you choose (as you suggest with alcohol and other drugs) or death, regardless of what our religions believe.
Ordinary people should not be afraid of Islam, because only good for then will come out of future Islamic domination.
A number of us look at Islamic dominated countries and disagree.
There will be much less street crime because most of the street crime is alcohol or drug fueled or gang-related and all those things will be gone during Islamic rule.
We tried outlawing Drugs and Alcohol in the U.S. almost a century ago. It ended up creating more crime. Look up Al Capone some time.
So please think about the weight behind your right of free speech: is it just to make you feel good about yourself or does it have some effect on society?
The Pentagon Papers, The Color Purple, Political Speech, The Federalist Papers are all things covered under Free Speech.
As for real important freedoms, you will retain them: right to economic endeavors, right to practice religions, e.g. Christianity or Judaism.
Provided we pay a tribute to the Calif and suffer some fewer freedoms that Muslims are granted, among other things.
Islam is good for you. Embrace it.
I think I shall decline and continue under my current religion.
So all you need to do is get 10,000 people to file suit simultaneously in some frivolous suit and have the government pay for it. Flood the system in lawsuits and bring it to a standstill. If they refuse to prosecute under the law, sue the Canadian DA equivalent for not doing his/her job.
I'm going to ask how you knew it was an American and not simply someone speaking English.
Just make sure you don't wind up the same way as he did.
This is what I was thinking of suggesting as well. One thing to remember is that some states will require a licensed electricion to do certain work on household wiring, particularly work involving the main breaker box. Given most people I've run into, it's a good idea to have an electrician do the work anyway, as they know the building code for the state and are less likely to hurt themselves.
Too bad he didn't include power consumption. If I'm going to use an SSD for anytime soon, it will be in a laptop where power is my key concern. Performance is more of a desktop/high end issue right now.
While I'm not sure if we'd drop the nuke on France, given than in Starship Troopers they had nuclear hand grenades, most of the rest makes sense.
On one notable mission, a group of Iraqi fighters surrendered to the [UAV] as it flew over their heads. Marines were directed to their position, where they then captured the fighters. Ahhh ha ha. Suckers. The UAV was supplying live feed to a US battleship for targeting coordinates. This was the second UAV to fly over them. Just previously they had received some presents curtesy of the USS Wisconsin's and USS Missouri's 16 inch guns. They decided they wanted to live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)#Gulf_War
Power it via a hand crank. I just rotate the propeller to turn myself and propel myself in the direction I want to go.
"This place has no atmosphere" is the name of the book. The titles use of 'Atmosphere' was in the resturaunt sence. It was a pun as the book took place in underground cities on the Moon (where there is air to push against). And, as you know, the Moon has no atmosphere (above ground).
In zero G, I think a propeller would be more useful.
Speaking of which. If they want Zero G and low G sports, I suggest reading through the Science Fiction section a bit. The Enders Game battles were some of the first to pop into my mind. Then there are the human butterfly (strap wings to yourself and fly) sports on the moon from "This place has no atmosphere". There was one in the Tom Swift series that started with "The City in the Stars". I'll have to reread it to check what it was about. Some form of low G basketball if I remember right. There was another series that had a sport where you tried to get around the (quite large) station as fast as you could. You used tow ropes to pull yourself along by realing in your line by hand. A relay/sprint in zero G if you will.
I'm not seeing anything in the article that says they either did or did not get warrants. Then again, I don't know if warrants are even required in Brazil.
No. In the U.S., the government can file for trademarks and patents and the only way they can be used by the general public is if they are licensed. The money then (currently) goes into the general fund. It is not public domain.
Because it makes the algorithms for splitting up work simpler? I remember reading a review where they took a dual processor motherboard, put a dual core in one socket and a single core in the other. Some applications crashed in multithreading mode due to the non power of two number of cores.