"But if you know of a third option, I am all ears."
Third option: Non-carbon generated electricity that is cheaper than carbon. (That's an economic, as in real, 'cheaper', not tax/subsidy to make it cheaper)
"Why would it ignore China and India?"
Because the last one did, and if it hadn't have, they would have told us to go pound sand anyway. They are going to do what they want.
Let me tell you what they want. They want a 3 bedroom 2 bath house with central heat and air and 2 cars in the driveway. Each. Do the math on that times billions of people.
So the cheap electricity option is not even really an option, is it?
But since we never actually sent a warhead from Iowa to Moscow, in the end, all we did was wave it. The dick is the rocket in this analogy. Analogies can be hard...
"It's a design that can't reach orbit, no matter how hard you try."
You went too far. I'm not a rocket scientist, but even I know that if you were able to lengthen the engine duration significantly, then it could easily get to orbit and past. Some breakthrough or another; who's to say? I understand that the limiting factor would then be air, and if they solved that, then it would be something else...
But to state what they can't do, no matter what, under any circumstances, is just silly.
AIDS man? Really? Let that go. I bet you call yourself conservative. Wrap your conservative head around this:
Free People, get to be, who they want to be.
That's freedom. I want to be pretty, and go to the mall and shop for shoes. I'm a 50 year old dude. I know you don't want your children to see that. I don't hate you for that. I thought I had a point but I guess I don't.
It's gonna be a toughie. You might have to let some more things go. Sorry.
But that doesn't mean you have to have a bearded linebacker fairy princess for your child's kindergarten teacher. That seems unreasonable to the vast majority of us. What would be cool, would be for conservative leadership to get out in front of the issue, and lead us to where most of us want to be, and are bound to end up in any case. Without real leadership, the courts have to substitute, and it's a long, slow, painful process, as we have seen.
But to do that, and be the majority again, you'd have to separate your conservatism from your faith. Jesus wants you to do that. He wants you to govern the land properly, and pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Remember being persecuted and thrown to the lions btw?
You love the Constitution also. Does it really conflict with the Bible? Some fairly religious dudes wrote it. The Constitution, I mean.
If you're proud, then you have to have made a choice. The mantra has been, that there is no choice; it's wired into the DNA. Which is, of course, illogical.
He should have just said unashamed. But there's politics behind it, I understand, and I don't hold anything against him personally. In fact, I support him in the one thing that this is really all about: Sticking it to the insurance companies that rule us.
Not sure what I think, so all I can go on is what he's actually done. Governing a state full of Democrats, he got universal healthcare, job growth, and wages that rose faster than inflation. That seems good for the little guy, at least on the surface. And they still liked him right up until he ran for President.
So the 'however bad Obama is, Romney would have been worse' is starting to wear thin with me, and now I'm not even sure what it's based on.
I went to the build site because I wanted to disagree with you. I was thinking that the base of $1700 might not be too bad for both an infinitely upgradeable case along with a decent gaming PC to get started with.
So the stock power supply is 850 watt; you'd want the 1500 watt since it is proprietary and you can't count on getting one a year or two from now. So you pick that for an extra $200, and guess what?
The stock AMD Radeon R9 270 with 2GB GDDR5 is "only compatible" with an 850 watt PSU; you have to go up at least $400 on the video card to get one that is compatible with a 1500 watt PSU.
So they are rip off artists, and you really can't say enough bad about them. Carry on.
When they were doing the pop-up thing at the bottom of the page, I tried the disable advertising, but that only killed the normal unobtrusive ads that never bothered me.
But about the second time the audio ad blasted me out of bed in the middle of the night, I began remembering to close/. when done. I wonder how that played in the marketing meetings afterwards. Who am I kidding? We know it never came up..
The first question I'd like to ask is: "Doesn't that mean that atomic bombs and power plants have to be a hoax and really large conspiracy?"
If they don't follow: it's the same math; the math concerning the radioactive decay of elements. If the math about the half life of uranium (4.5 billion years), is wrong, then power plants and bombs wouldn't work, would they?
"You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts"
Sure you can. Even if you don't convince them, they still stand refuted. That's the problem, isn't it? You know there is little chance of convincing any of them.
Let's ask what we would like to see. We would like to see them accept mainstream science. (and hopefully realize that there is no conflict between science and faith, but we don't really care about that part.) What's a more likely scenario?
1. All creationists collectively slap foreheads and go "Oh!" 2. Creationism slowly falls apart as they try to apply science to it. (Just like they are attempting to do at MSU.)
To be honest, it sounds like a lot of you are just spoiling for a fight with them.
If Snowden had a good Washington lawyer here, it's likely that lawyer would have some history in Washington, isn't it? Serving on public committees, perhaps even in a government post, under some administration or another. The best lawyers have fat resumes full of stuff like that. Maybe he should have a country lawyer from the Urals...
BTW, have we offered to send an American lawyer over there to represent him? As you lay out all these little things against him, it's obvious that your mind was already made up, and then it all just falls into place for you.
"You have no proof that he didn't take money from anyone"
Just as I have no proof that you have stopped beating your wife. Should we also take that fact into consideration?
"lied repeatedly for years"
Oh goodness. He broke his word, to the men in charge, once, after the fact. That hardly counts as lying at the time, which implies that this was his plan from day one out of high school.
He found himself faced with a choice between his word to men and his word to the Constitution. In his mind, it came to that.
Here's the thing, even if you're right, and he's wrong, in that; everything was fine and nothing needed to be exposed, the legality of all the snooping was well in hand, and the NSA was doing a good job; that still does not make him traitor. It appeared to him, and appears to myself and others, that this needed to be exposed. Exposed is exposed; not quietly mentioned in the halls of the NSA.
Maybe we're wrong, and now we are going to suffer the consequences of terrorism. So be it. Don't call me traitor.
I know this thread is done but just in case you see this; what you describe are the very early stages of deployment.
I have no doubt that the Soviet Union was the intended target. And I have little doubt that the internet of today contains things they never thought of back in the day. Also, I don't mean to take anything away from the universities and corporations and individuals that developed it. Those same universities developed the bomb too, and that still counts as National Defense.
In hindsight, it seems obvious that somebody in a high position recognized the offensive potential of the internet. Almost all weapons can be used either defensively or offensively. The defensive use of the internet (or more precisely, a packet based error correcting network) is easy to see; we can still communicate in spite of fog of war and infrastructure smashage scenarios and all that. The offensive use is only recently becoming clear to me.
To deploy it offensively, all you had to do was give it away. It has permeated every country on the globe like a virus, greatly reducing the power of repressive regimes that control information.
Dang. Angry much? I see that you hate people. A shame that.
A bigger shame is how values like freedom and liberty (which are bolstered by information), are equated nowadays with the right wing of politics, and how a lot of people like you fall for it.
Nothing to disagree with there. The Sauds will eventually fall or reform under the relentless pressure. Honestly, I wish we'd get the hell off Iran's back a bit; I'd give them anything they want, including respect, which is what they want most of all, if they agreed to leave Israel alone.
But to your point, the internet can't just be aimed and fired. WikiLeaks hit us, but I'd say it was more of a graze. It turns out that most of our government are honest and hardworking, so the weapon of truth didn't hurt us too badly. Some damage, where we needed it. We really fell from grace for a bit, given the way we treated those prisoners in Iraq. But those people went to jail and suffered consequences, so...
If one of the end results of the internet is to keep us more honest, then it's even more powerful than I'd realized.
"ultra-fundamentalists" & "totalitarian religious repression and atrocity"
You're going to have to be more specific. You mean ISIS? Yeah, the internet is like that; actual information for it's own sake, that is free to everyone, even ISIS's information. But if you're worried about the bad guys using the internet for their propaganda, don't. In that case, it's just speeding things up that had to happen in any case.
The internet brought down Mubarak and Qaddafi. Assad hangs on kind of powerless. We didn't deploy the internet against them specifically; it seeks it's own targets in it's own time. It is the people using it, exchanging information, that is like the warhead of the internet. It bypasses all the typical authoritarian controls, and renders the dictatorship powerless to control the masses.
The ISIS people have always been there; they were going to come out when the dictators of the Middle East fell. And the Middle East needs to deal with this if they are going to come out of the middle ages. Probably better to get it out now, rather than 50 years from now.
"successful by the values of Western states?"
Umm. Well, Egypt may get it's shit together. (We get a little credit for that btw, going all in on Egypt's army, and now that's the island of stability in the area.) But the internet is really pressuring Russia and China right now. They resist, and we shall see, but it seems they fight a rising tide trying to control information on the internet.
Don't forget the internet was invented by DARPA. Just like missiles and nukes and subs and carriers, the internet is a weapon. It is slow, but very sure to penetrate and destroy dictatorships and repressive governments worldwide. It's slow enough to say that we just deployed it recently. Even so, a number of governments have already fallen or been pressured by it; we see repressive regimes like China throwing all kinds of defenses up against it. I don't see how even China can stand against it for very long.
Assange gets this, at least on some level. That would mean America wins, and he sees America as the enemy. Oh well, suck it Assange. The business of America is business. The only real way to do business, is when people are free, and can spend their money on stuff they want. That's us winning. (Not to excuse our recent spate on NSA abuses; they are going to always try to do that, and it's up to us voters to keep them in check.)
Slashdot Mirror
"But if you know of a third option, I am all ears."
Third option: Non-carbon generated electricity that is cheaper than carbon. (That's an economic, as in real, 'cheaper', not tax/subsidy to make it cheaper)
"Why would it ignore China and India?"
Because the last one did, and if it hadn't have, they would have told us to go pound sand anyway. They are going to do what they want.
Let me tell you what they want. They want a 3 bedroom 2 bath house with central heat and air and 2 cars in the driveway. Each. Do the math on that times billions of people.
So the cheap electricity option is not even really an option, is it?
But since we never actually sent a warhead from Iowa to Moscow, in the end, all we did was wave it. The dick is the rocket in this analogy. Analogies can be hard...
"It's a design that can't reach orbit, no matter how hard you try."
You went too far. I'm not a rocket scientist, but even I know that if you were able to lengthen the engine duration significantly, then it could easily get to orbit and past. Some breakthrough or another; who's to say? I understand that the limiting factor would then be air, and if they solved that, then it would be something else...
But to state what they can't do, no matter what, under any circumstances, is just silly.
AIDS man? Really? Let that go.
I bet you call yourself conservative. Wrap your conservative head around this:
Free People, get to be, who they want to be.
That's freedom. I want to be pretty, and go to the mall and shop for shoes. I'm a 50 year old dude.
I know you don't want your children to see that. I don't hate you for that. I thought I had a point but I guess I don't.
It's gonna be a toughie. You might have to let some more things go. Sorry.
But that doesn't mean you have to have a bearded linebacker fairy princess for your child's kindergarten teacher. That seems unreasonable to the vast majority of us. What would be cool, would be for conservative leadership to get out in front of the issue, and lead us to where most of us want to be, and are bound to end up in any case. Without real leadership, the courts have to substitute, and it's a long, slow, painful process, as we have seen.
But to do that, and be the majority again, you'd have to separate your conservatism from your faith. Jesus wants you to do that. He wants you to govern the land properly, and pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Remember being persecuted and thrown to the lions btw?
You love the Constitution also. Does it really conflict with the Bible? Some fairly religious dudes wrote it. The Constitution, I mean.
You know, I guess the movies might say otherwise, but it was never okay to beat up sissies, once you've grown up.
Take it from somebody who was there, deep in the south, long ago.
You know, that's a good point.
If you're proud, then you have to have made a choice. The mantra has been, that there is no choice; it's wired into the DNA. Which is, of course, illogical.
He should have just said unashamed. But there's politics behind it, I understand, and I don't hold anything against him personally. In fact, I support him in the one thing that this is really all about: Sticking it to the insurance companies that rule us.
Not sure what I think, so all I can go on is what he's actually done. Governing a state full of Democrats, he got universal healthcare, job growth, and wages that rose faster than inflation. That seems good for the little guy, at least on the surface. And they still liked him right up until he ran for President.
So the 'however bad Obama is, Romney would have been worse' is starting to wear thin with me, and now I'm not even sure what it's based on.
You threw in divine. It's "great" sea monsters. You ever seen a blue whale or giant squid? They're pretty monstrous.
When scientists run down religion just for the sake of it, it's actually worse than the other way around, because we like to think we know better.
Bad comparison. Apollo 1 was new. Spaceflight was new.
Launches like this are perceived as routine crap nowadays; whether that's true or not is immaterial.
Well, it's material on these boards (for now), but not to the general public. I think this will hurt them pretty bad.
I went to the build site because I wanted to disagree with you. I was thinking that the base of $1700 might not be too bad for both an infinitely upgradeable case along with a decent gaming PC to get started with.
So the stock power supply is 850 watt; you'd want the 1500 watt since it is proprietary and you can't count on getting one a year or two from now. So you pick that for an extra $200, and guess what?
The stock AMD Radeon R9 270 with 2GB GDDR5 is "only compatible" with an 850 watt PSU; you have to go up at least $400 on the video card to get one that is compatible with a 1500 watt PSU.
So they are rip off artists, and you really can't say enough bad about them. Carry on.
Same boat here.
When they were doing the pop-up thing at the bottom of the page, I tried the disable advertising, but that only killed the normal unobtrusive ads that never bothered me.
But about the second time the audio ad blasted me out of bed in the middle of the night, I began remembering to close /. when done. I wonder how that played in the marketing meetings afterwards. Who am I kidding? We know it never came up..
The first question I'd like to ask is: "Doesn't that mean that atomic bombs and power plants have to be a hoax and really large conspiracy?"
If they don't follow: it's the same math; the math concerning the radioactive decay of elements. If the math about the half life of uranium (4.5 billion years), is wrong, then power plants and bombs wouldn't work, would they?
"You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts"
Sure you can. Even if you don't convince them, they still stand refuted. That's the problem, isn't it? You know there is little chance of convincing any of them.
Let's ask what we would like to see. We would like to see them accept mainstream science. (and hopefully realize that there is no conflict between science and faith, but we don't really care about that part.) What's a more likely scenario?
1. All creationists collectively slap foreheads and go "Oh!"
2. Creationism slowly falls apart as they try to apply science to it. (Just like they are attempting to do at MSU.)
To be honest, it sounds like a lot of you are just spoiling for a fight with them.
If Snowden had a good Washington lawyer here, it's likely that lawyer would have some history in Washington, isn't it? Serving on public committees, perhaps even in a government post, under some administration or another. The best lawyers have fat resumes full of stuff like that. Maybe he should have a country lawyer from the Urals...
BTW, have we offered to send an American lawyer over there to represent him? As you lay out all these little things against him, it's obvious that your mind was already made up, and then it all just falls into place for you.
"You have no proof that he didn't take money from anyone"
Just as I have no proof that you have stopped beating your wife. Should we also take that fact into consideration?
"lied repeatedly for years"
Oh goodness. He broke his word, to the men in charge, once, after the fact. That hardly counts as lying at the time, which implies that this was his plan from day one out of high school.
He found himself faced with a choice between his word to men and his word to the Constitution. In his mind, it came to that.
Here's the thing, even if you're right, and he's wrong, in that; everything was fine and nothing needed to be exposed, the legality of all the snooping was well in hand, and the NSA was doing a good job; that still does not make him traitor. It appeared to him, and appears to myself and others, that this needed to be exposed. Exposed is exposed; not quietly mentioned in the halls of the NSA.
Maybe we're wrong, and now we are going to suffer the consequences of terrorism. So be it. Don't call me traitor.
So, they were afraid that the honored soldier would just go off shooting people if he had bullets in his gun?
I don't get that; an empty weapon. Unarmed is great. A sword, if you want to be ceremonial. Why an empty weapon?
Politics. That is gun control politics taken way, out, past any logical, anything. They set him up.
Wow. It's like a different language, but in English.
I know this thread is done but just in case you see this; what you describe are the very early stages of deployment.
I have no doubt that the Soviet Union was the intended target. And I have little doubt that the internet of today contains things they never thought of back in the day. Also, I don't mean to take anything away from the universities and corporations and individuals that developed it. Those same universities developed the bomb too, and that still counts as National Defense.
In hindsight, it seems obvious that somebody in a high position recognized the offensive potential of the internet. Almost all weapons can be used either defensively or offensively. The defensive use of the internet (or more precisely, a packet based error correcting network) is easy to see; we can still communicate in spite of fog of war and infrastructure smashage scenarios and all that. The offensive use is only recently becoming clear to me.
To deploy it offensively, all you had to do was give it away. It has permeated every country on the globe like a virus, greatly reducing the power of repressive regimes that control information.
Dang. Angry much? I see that you hate people. A shame that.
A bigger shame is how values like freedom and liberty (which are bolstered by information), are equated nowadays with the right wing of politics, and how a lot of people like you fall for it.
Nothing to disagree with there. The Sauds will eventually fall or reform under the relentless pressure. Honestly, I wish we'd get the hell off Iran's back a bit; I'd give them anything they want, including respect, which is what they want most of all, if they agreed to leave Israel alone.
But to your point, the internet can't just be aimed and fired. WikiLeaks hit us, but I'd say it was more of a graze. It turns out that most of our government are honest and hardworking, so the weapon of truth didn't hurt us too badly. Some damage, where we needed it. We really fell from grace for a bit, given the way we treated those prisoners in Iraq. But those people went to jail and suffered consequences, so...
If one of the end results of the internet is to keep us more honest, then it's even more powerful than I'd realized.
I don't remember guns bringing down Mubarak. It was big crowds of Egyptians using Twitter and Facebook and email.
Well, destroying large corporations should be good for small and medium businesses. You just kind of sold me on "risk-averse institutional investors".
Yes. That's us winning. Winning citizens buy things, and sell things, and trade, and hang out, and go on vacations.
That was our real goal the whole time. We're still the good guys.
"ultra-fundamentalists" & "totalitarian religious repression and atrocity"
You're going to have to be more specific. You mean ISIS? Yeah, the internet is like that; actual information for it's own sake, that is free to everyone, even ISIS's information. But if you're worried about the bad guys using the internet for their propaganda, don't. In that case, it's just speeding things up that had to happen in any case.
The internet brought down Mubarak and Qaddafi. Assad hangs on kind of powerless. We didn't deploy the internet against them specifically; it seeks it's own targets in it's own time. It is the people using it, exchanging information, that is like the warhead of the internet. It bypasses all the typical authoritarian controls, and renders the dictatorship powerless to control the masses.
The ISIS people have always been there; they were going to come out when the dictators of the Middle East fell. And the Middle East needs to deal with this if they are going to come out of the middle ages. Probably better to get it out now, rather than 50 years from now.
"successful by the values of Western states?"
Umm. Well, Egypt may get it's shit together. (We get a little credit for that btw, going all in on Egypt's army, and now that's the island of stability in the area.) But the internet is really pressuring Russia and China right now. They resist, and we shall see, but it seems they fight a rising tide trying to control information on the internet.
Also, it could turn on us, if we lose our way.
Don't forget the internet was invented by DARPA. Just like missiles and nukes and subs and carriers, the internet is a weapon. It is slow, but very sure to penetrate and destroy dictatorships and repressive governments worldwide. It's slow enough to say that we just deployed it recently. Even so, a number of governments have already fallen or been pressured by it; we see repressive regimes like China throwing all kinds of defenses up against it. I don't see how even China can stand against it for very long.
Assange gets this, at least on some level. That would mean America wins, and he sees America as the enemy. Oh well, suck it Assange. The business of America is business. The only real way to do business, is when people are free, and can spend their money on stuff they want. That's us winning. (Not to excuse our recent spate on NSA abuses; they are going to always try to do that, and it's up to us voters to keep them in check.)