"It's just that as we became more agricultural and started consuming tasty lamb and beef and chicken"
Tasty, yes. Agricultural, no. We ate those things before that. The man who has cows and sheep and chickens does not eat bugs.
Without those things, you are poor. Good thing there are always bugs to eat. They are nasty though, that is why no one else eats them. Or sometimes, prepared as well as possible, some are, as you say, not so bad.
It's not arbitrary if you're a cow. Cows have hopes and dreams, feelings; the right to exist. And they get to exist in large numbers as long as we like to eat them. I know what you're thinking; the cow doesn't like that part where man kills him and eats him.
Not true. All cows have always died of being eaten by something else. This was the case long before cows ever saw a human. If you tried, and were somehow able, to explain dying peacefully surrounded by your loved ones; they wouldn't understand it. Dying good is being killed quickly and then eaten; a horrible death is being eaten alive while conscious. That's the end of a cow's life in almost every case, since the beginning of the time that there were cows.
Now, possibly, we eat the cows while they are too young. If we as a society, decided to give them more of their lives in exchange for this bargain; a raise, as it were... well, the price of beef would go up. I'd hate that, but I could be convinced. I could see: All cows are allowed to socialize and become old enough to have sex at least once, and females get to have at least one baby, before Bam!, we eat you. Heh, cow rights. I'm ahead of my time.
Now, however weird that sounded, substitute bugs for cows, and see how weird it sounds.
I am pleased to fucking death. That's been out and I missed it?
And Jonas fucking Quinn as a starship captain. Holy crap I am geeking out.
Wooden acting? Compared to what, Enterprise? (The Archer, nice irony there) The sucky thing called Voyager perhaps? Two good things about Voyager though: Seven of Nine (Elaborate.) and Tuvok. Nimoy is my childhood idol, but Tim Russ plays the best Vulcan, sorry, and he's in it too. And Checkov is an old man. Cool.
Thin plot? Whatever. It's a fucking science fiction show. Bad guys are going to end the Earth, and our gallant crew saves it. Yeah it's been done before. It's a good one for doing a pilot and introducing the cast. Bite me.
And they're going to make two more. Holy crap I love the internet!
The government-granted license is simply legal recognition of the fact that individuals can't accept responsibility for actions taken by a large collective of people. It is not plausible or logical that the owner(s), CEO, assembly worker, etc; can be legally responsible for the actions of others. They can only be held accountable for their personal actions in a fair and just society. And indeed, that 'government-granted' license does not protect individuals from personal malfeasance.
And since a corporation is simply people, they should be however free regular people are. And around here, people do not have their 'true purpose determined by the society that granted it its privileges', they just get to exist, and do whatever the hell they want to do. (within the law, of course)
Get a grip man. Dang. If it helps, you're right about the US peaking in 1969.
I had not, but I clicked and skimmed it just now since you have been such a good sport. I still don't understand how big oil's opinion, what they have done or lied about, is the least bit relevant. I've always assumed that everything they have to say on this subject is a lie, and furthermore, are they not allowed to lie? Whether you and I were to agree or not, why would we need them on board? And whatever they do know, are you submitting that they know something your side doesn't? You haven't convinced me, so unless they have some additional proof to support you, I don't see how they can help your argument at all. Actually, I'm not quite that naive, you mean to bolster your argument by demonizing your political enemies.
The doc begins with "U.S. Senator James Inhofe..." who goes on to say he thinks AGW is a hoax. So? He can make a case, given the warming hiatus, polar ice that refuses to comply, hurricanes that are neither stronger or more frequent, sea level rise so subtle it can only be measured by scientists, etc. Most of your predictions have been wrong, which you excuse here with science is learning, and yet he and I get the 'science is settled'.
We ask for proof, and you show us models (glaciers that have been melting for 10,000 years are hardly definitive evidence). So, not only have we invented artificial intelligence, apparently our first act will be to obey it. The model is simply a report of one or more scientist/programmer's opinions.
"Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer."
No. Made by Liberal and Democrat politicians mostly, along with the ineptitude of Republicans who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. And supported by people who call themselves Progressives, which blows my mind.
In the same vein that I don't trust (or care about) big oil's opinion on the effects of atmospheric carbon, I don't trust CEOs and accountants to make nuclear decisions, so I guess we agree on that.
Let me tie it up in a nutshell. After spending 40 years killing the next technology after carbon (nuclear), Liberals have now moved on to killing carbon itself, so as to finally stop this industrial revolution and its resulting freedoms that couldn't be controlled with Marxism. That's how I see it; I can understand someone not wanting to argue with that.
I had not, but I clicked and skimmed it just now since you have been such a good sport. I still don't understand how big oil's opinion, what they have done or lied about, is the least bit relevant. I've always assumed that everything they have to say on this subject is a lie, and furthermore, are they not allowed to lie? Whether you and I were to agree or not, why would we need them on board? And whatever they do know, are you submitting that they know something your side doesn't? You haven't convinced me, so unless they have some additional proof to support you, I don't see how they can help your argument at all. Actually, I'm not quite that naive, you mean to bolster your argument by demonizing your political enemies.
The doc begins with "U.S. Senator James Inhofe..." who goes on to say he thinks AGW is a hoax. So? He can make a case, given the warming hiatus, polar ice that refuses to comply, hurricanes that are neither stronger or more frequent, sea level rise so subtle it can only be measured by scientists, etc. Most of your predictions have been wrong, which you excuse here with science is learning, and yet he and I get the 'science is settled'.
We ask for proof, and you show us models (glaciers that have been melting for 10,000 years are hardly definitive evidence). So, not only have we invented artificial intelligence, apparently our first act will be to obey it. The model is simply a report of one or more scientist/programmer's opinions.
"Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer."
No. Made by Liberal and Democrat politicians mostly, along with the ineptitude of Republicans who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. And supported by people who call themselves Progressives, which blows my mind.
In the same vein that I don't trust (or care about) big oil's opinion on the effects of atmospheric carbon, I don't trust CEOs and accountants to make nuclear decisions, so I guess we agree on that.
Let me tie it up in a nutshell. After spending 40 years killing the next technology after carbon (nuclear), Liberals have now moved on to killing carbon itself, so as to finally stop this industrial revolution and its resulting freedoms that couldn't be controlled with Marxism. That's how I see it; I can understand someone not wanting to argue with that.
If you were reading about lawsuits in the 60s, then you're a bit older than me. But not much. I'm fully aware of what the tobacco companies did. There is a good difference between claiming 'Doubt is our product', and ' recognition of uncertainties'. Similarities, sure: Don't give an inch to your political enemies. But why would one expect the American Petroleum Institute to embrace increased taxation and/or restrictions on carbon? Makes no sense. Logically, wouldn't they be the most stubborn, and last on board? I tell you what, give them credit for all the evil you want; does that change your argument that AGW needs mitigating in any way? This is why I doubt your sincerity, as you mean to Godwin the conversation in the first place by bringing the transgressions of the tobacco industry into it. As if they have anything to do with anything.
I guess you really think they control me somehow, and that without the denier counter-science, I would have been convinced already of your cogent argument. Your argument that Marx doing it for the worker was not quite good enough, but now that we see the true evils of carbon based industrialization, moving to the left will save us. It's not lost on me btw, that both groups are in the same political party. And you didn't have to figure; I thought I was clear about the politics of it. You talk about science, but it's your conclusions and solutions I have a problem with. You're either being used by the Left, or you're one of them.
Did you really mean to talk about science? Releasing millions of years worth of carbon in a couple of hundred must have some effect. The logical conclusion is that we should stop doing that as soon as we can. But we still need the wealth it generates, and actually want more. One could make the argument that we need much, much more if any sort of real human progress is to be made. There are a few billion brown people that are looking forward to their turn shopping for affordable rib-eyes at the Wal-Mart in an air-conditioned Camry. And that's not even thinking about when the total population approaches 40 billion in your grandchildren's lifetime.
You're the science denier; not me. We have the tech right now to simply reverse AGW. Done, consensus, plain old science gives us access to the only other power source stored in the Earth's crust. Which political side has stagnated that science to the point that it is completely paralyzed? It has been so almost our whole lifetimes. There is enough power there to supply us a thousand fold for a practically unlimited time. All it takes is science.
And not even really leading edge science; you and I could pencil out a nice little modular reactor that loads once and runs 20 years. It never turns off, because what it does is power the attached CO2 reclamation unit, and when you want power out, you just turn down the refining burners and have electricity left over. Gas, graphite, fertilizer, plastic; whatever - you can still have your gas jet skis and Legos, and also - Bam! AGW solved. Probably needs a few tests and a prototype; I'm not sure my napkin is holding up here. But nothing crazy that has to be invented. Think of the taxes, effort, endless international meetings, carbon credits and all that 'profit'; if that had been directed to nuclear research, where could we be?
BTW, do you think nuclear power can be un-invented? Is that science too scary? I'll grant you there is a lot of power there, and certainly people can get hurt. This leads me to a tangential issue of mine, the enormous quantities of nuclear waste generated by the antiquated reactors we are still using, lying about the country, that apparently can't be buried at Yucca Mountain. That really is a time bomb, that really could poison the planet and kill millions. Given the 10,000 year lifetime, it is inevitable that something will happen, sooner or later. If you call yourself a scientist, then you know as well as I that there is only one thing that can be done with it. It has to be burnt up in a nuclear reactor, until it is lead, or
Heh. Big tobacco eh? Really? I think someday you'll be ashamed of that one.
"As we go on, we learn."
Very true, but you should see that as an admission that you don't have the authority to impose big changes on our society and quality of life. You need to be damned sure before you can advocate top down authority upon us, which basically amounts to forcing us to make do with less.
Which is why I don't have to win a tit-for-tat on your points: I'm not the one advocating for changes based on AGW mitigation, or whatever justification the Left is currently using to advance the agenda. It's always the same answer for every problem. More public funds; more power over the people; stricter laws, etc., to make everyone better.
In case you're young, before this, it was overpopulation. The Left was wrong about that one. Hell, they might be right about this one. If that turns out to be the case, then it's a shame they cried wolf so many times.
Really? Because you said, 'Ice loss in the Antarctic is causing sea level rise.' That was a big one, as far as why and how everybody is going to die.
Perhaps I exaggerate your position slightly, but is it really 'just news?' It changes nothing? I guess it wouldn't, if saving the planet from the deadly effects of AGW was never the goal in the first place.
You're assuming that movement rate of brain waste products is constant between the paleos and us westerners.
I bet their movement rate is higher than ours. Lymphatic system, circulation; everything is better when you move around a lot. Thus, they have purged their brain dookey in a shorter amount of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the limiting factor on sleep shortness is just physical muscle repair.
Having said that though, it is true that we live to our 70s; whereas they do not, although they are healthier throughout the time they do have. Is it a tradeoff? More importantly, is the shorter lifespan truly due the fact, that with 60 years spent in the jungle, the odds of something bad happening surpasses 100%? Something bad being a snakebite, virus, broken leg; and you're four hours away from a third world hospital that you can't afford to go to.
Reminds me of the time the owner and his wannabe tech friend were poking around the IT closet one night, and mysteriously, our payments database crashed, corrupted, and unrecoverable. I spent all night trying to restore the previous days receipts. Hell, I even tried a hex editor to get something, anything. The file was complete garbage. Probably $100K unaccounted for, I was thinking the bank and investors are not going to like that, the company may be toast.
The next morning, I told the accounting boss (owner's daughter) I had to use the backup, and all the payment records from the previous day were lost. She got the four accounting clerks to re-enter the previous days payments in about 30 minutes. Dang, no big deal.
I learned a valuable lesson that day, and hopefully, so did the boss.
"Economy grew very well" It's a lie. Numbers of dollars has grown; wealth created per person has not. For about 40 years now, when manufacturing began leaving this country.
"Oh, and Nazis were not socialists - Fascism..."
We get more and more careful on this one as time goes by, but they most certainly called themselves socialists, or more specifically, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. And they instituted socialist policies when they came to power.
I think you mean that right wing socialism is not the same thing as left wing socialism. Okay.
This is what I came to post. The people still have the vote, no matter what the rich do with their money.
"OK, so why haven't you done anything then?" We did. We had a revolution, started a country; the whole nine yards. It's still here. And it would be just fine, if these fucking communists would stop their incessant drive to kill it.
It's always the fault of the rich. It was a big theme in Rome too. The entirety of human history rings with the theme "It's their fault. Just take it from them by force - it's the right thing to do. The planet's resources belong to the people, right? So you're just taking back what's yours. Righting a wrong as it were."
Here's the twist; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the rich come under more attacks, they spend less and hoard more. Everyone tries, but the rich actually have something to hoard. Mock it as trickle down all you want, but everyone here works for a richer person. Or people. If those rich quit spending (they call it investing at that level), and the big wheel of the economy slows down, where do you think that money is going to pool up? With the working class?
The rich get richer because the economy slows down, not the other way around. The communists (or worse) who've always called themselves socialists btw, (the Soviets and Nazis called themselves socialists), just keep at it until they finally break everything and get themselves into power. Oh, I know; no one here is that kind of socialist. And I actually believe that. But somebody is pulling these strings.
You're almost right. The crazy shuttle modifications were so that they could bring a Russian satellite back. They are apparently somewhat heavy. And bulky.
Thus the truck of a shuttle we ended up with; about the power of a Saturn V, and yet couldn't even get to geosynchronous, much less go to the Moon or anything.
The interesting question is; did they steal a Russian satellite? Would the Russians blow it up if a shuttle approached? Did they include a self destruct? (I guarantee they have one now.)
Is that the real reason we discontinued the shuttle; since you can't steal Russian satellites anymore, there's no point in having one?
Substitute safety for freedom. It would be the slam dunk decision you describe if it was only about freedom and convenience.
It ain't safe for you to ride the bus through Central LA everyday. Especially not some pasty white dude making 6 figures; you're going to get their attention. You use the past tense; I'm going to guess you didn't really do it for very long. I will say that I've never been to LA; but I did the same thing in Memphis years ago. Only I wasn't a 6 figure eco green hipster, I was actually poor with no car.
Ah, I guess neither one of those characterizations are fair. I would not want to drive an hour in LA, and I spent a lot of money on weed and beer too. Also, to your point, I was able to buy a car quickly with my $3.35/hr., in part, due to all the money I saved riding the bus.
But once you have money you're not allowed to ride the bus anymore. The only people on the bus, are the poor, who are immune to robbers; and robbers.
And this is in response to the US insisting it can subpoena Microsoft's data in Ireland because MS is a US company.
I'm not sure why the US government is getting so arrogant over some things lately; we have never had that sort of power over the pond. In the aftermath of WWII, while our dollars are pouring in for rebuilding, while they were scared to death of the Soviets; they still often told us to go pound sand on many occasions.
I mean good for them; they need to maintain some semblance of sovereignty or apply for statehood. I definitely don't want most of their crazy politics over here, and I want that respect to go both ways.
TFA doesn't explain or link as to how VG caused the citizens to vote a tax increase upon themselves. If that was the deal, I would have recommended against it. Especially the part about the schools and water system.
You know, I bet that wasn't the deal. I bet that closer to the truth, is that the town, county, and state fell all over themselves offering all kinds of crazy shit. Those people gambled, and they lost.
Sort of like Virgin Galactic lost their ship, momentum, place in the space race, shit tons of cash; and so on. I believe one of their people actually died. All those townspeople lost was their self respect, and maybe some money, that their elected officials spent. I don't think VG has made any sort of profit on this town.
So to make out like the evil corporation took advantage of the ignorant little podunk town is really stretching the truth here.
Slashdot Mirror
Wut?
No that was bubble yum. Or was that spider eggs?
Yeah, spider eggs.
Nice
"It's just that as we became more agricultural and started consuming tasty lamb and beef and chicken"
Tasty, yes. Agricultural, no. We ate those things before that. The man who has cows and sheep and chickens does not eat bugs.
Without those things, you are poor. Good thing there are always bugs to eat. They are nasty though, that is why no one else eats them. Or sometimes, prepared as well as possible, some are, as you say, not so bad.
What do you mean, it's arbitrary?
It's not arbitrary if you're a cow. Cows have hopes and dreams, feelings; the right to exist. And they get to exist in large numbers as long as we like to eat them. I know what you're thinking; the cow doesn't like that part where man kills him and eats him.
Not true. All cows have always died of being eaten by something else. This was the case long before cows ever saw a human. If you tried, and were somehow able, to explain dying peacefully surrounded by your loved ones; they wouldn't understand it. Dying good is being killed quickly and then eaten; a horrible death is being eaten alive while conscious. That's the end of a cow's life in almost every case, since the beginning of the time that there were cows.
Now, possibly, we eat the cows while they are too young. If we as a society, decided to give them more of their lives in exchange for this bargain; a raise, as it were... well, the price of beef would go up. I'd hate that, but I could be convinced. I could see: All cows are allowed to socialize and become old enough to have sex at least once, and females get to have at least one baby, before Bam!, we eat you. Heh, cow rights. I'm ahead of my time.
Now, however weird that sounded, substitute bugs for cows, and see how weird it sounds.
"I have to be free to refuse to ... do business with you ..."
Yeah we lost that one already. It was for a good cause, civil rights in the 60s and all, but we gave that right up long ago.
I am pleased to fucking death. That's been out and I missed it?
And Jonas fucking Quinn as a starship captain. Holy crap I am geeking out.
Wooden acting? Compared to what, Enterprise? (The Archer, nice irony there) The sucky thing called Voyager perhaps? Two good things about Voyager though: Seven of Nine (Elaborate.) and Tuvok. Nimoy is my childhood idol, but Tim Russ plays the best Vulcan, sorry, and he's in it too. And Checkov is an old man. Cool.
Thin plot? Whatever. It's a fucking science fiction show. Bad guys are going to end the Earth, and our gallant crew saves it. Yeah it's been done before. It's a good one for doing a pilot and introducing the cast. Bite me.
And they're going to make two more. Holy crap I love the internet!
Did he get to the part where all those things were done to us by Democrats? (except possibly the carried interest tax deal, don't know about that one)
Hell, a couple of them, Reich is partly responsible for himself.
It is really scary how the Democrats can set up a narrative and that instantly becomes the new reality.
Wow.
The government-granted license is simply legal recognition of the fact that individuals can't accept responsibility for actions taken by a large collective of people. It is not plausible or logical that the owner(s), CEO, assembly worker, etc; can be legally responsible for the actions of others. They can only be held accountable for their personal actions in a fair and just society. And indeed, that 'government-granted' license does not protect individuals from personal malfeasance.
And since a corporation is simply people, they should be however free regular people are. And around here, people do not have their 'true purpose determined by the society that granted it its privileges', they just get to exist, and do whatever the hell they want to do. (within the law, of course)
Get a grip man. Dang. If it helps, you're right about the US peaking in 1969.
Dang. You should write for a living.
(Obviously no mod points here. I let them expire, and never have them when I need them.)
I had not, but I clicked and skimmed it just now since you have been such a good sport. I still don't understand how big oil's opinion, what they have done or lied about, is the least bit relevant. I've always assumed that everything they have to say on this subject is a lie, and furthermore, are they not allowed to lie? Whether you and I were to agree or not, why would we need them on board? And whatever they do know, are you submitting that they know something your side doesn't? You haven't convinced me, so unless they have some additional proof to support you, I don't see how they can help your argument at all. Actually, I'm not quite that naive, you mean to bolster your argument by demonizing your political enemies.
The doc begins with "U.S. Senator James Inhofe ..." who goes on to say he thinks AGW is a hoax. So? He can make a case, given the warming hiatus, polar ice that refuses to comply, hurricanes that are neither stronger or more frequent, sea level rise so subtle it can only be measured by scientists, etc. Most of your predictions have been wrong, which you excuse here with science is learning, and yet he and I get the 'science is settled'.
We ask for proof, and you show us models (glaciers that have been melting for 10,000 years are hardly definitive evidence). So, not only have we invented artificial intelligence, apparently our first act will be to obey it. The model is simply a report of one or more scientist/programmer's opinions.
"Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer."
No. Made by Liberal and Democrat politicians mostly, along with the ineptitude of Republicans who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. And supported by people who call themselves Progressives, which blows my mind.
In the same vein that I don't trust (or care about) big oil's opinion on the effects of atmospheric carbon, I don't trust CEOs and accountants to make nuclear decisions, so I guess we agree on that.
Let me tie it up in a nutshell. After spending 40 years killing the next technology after carbon (nuclear), Liberals have now moved on to killing carbon itself, so as to finally stop this industrial revolution and its resulting freedoms that couldn't be controlled with Marxism. That's how I see it; I can understand someone not wanting to argue with that.
I had not, but I clicked and skimmed it just now since you have been such a good sport. I still don't understand how big oil's opinion, what they have done or lied about, is the least bit relevant. I've always assumed that everything they have to say on this subject is a lie, and furthermore, are they not allowed to lie? Whether you and I were to agree or not, why would we need them on board? And whatever they do know, are you submitting that they know something your side doesn't? You haven't convinced me, so unless they have some additional proof to support you, I don't see how they can help your argument at all. Actually, I'm not quite that naive, you mean to bolster your argument by demonizing your political enemies.
The doc begins with "U.S. Senator James Inhofe ..." who goes on to say he thinks AGW is a hoax. So? He can make a case, given the warming hiatus, polar ice that refuses to comply, hurricanes that are neither stronger or more frequent, sea level rise so subtle it can only be measured by scientists, etc. Most of your predictions have been wrong, which you excuse here with science is learning, and yet he and I get the 'science is settled'.
We ask for proof, and you show us models (glaciers that have been melting for 10,000 years are hardly definitive evidence). So, not only have we invented artificial intelligence, apparently our first act will be to obey it. The model is simply a report of one or more scientist/programmer's opinions.
"Bad decisions, and not likely made by an engineer."
No. Made by Liberal and Democrat politicians mostly, along with the ineptitude of Republicans who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. And supported by people who call themselves Progressives, which blows my mind.
In the same vein that I don't trust (or care about) big oil's opinion on the effects of atmospheric carbon, I don't trust CEOs and accountants to make nuclear decisions, so I guess we agree on that.
Let me tie it up in a nutshell. After spending 40 years killing the next technology after carbon (nuclear), Liberals have now moved on to killing carbon itself, so as to finally stop this industrial revolution and its resulting freedoms that couldn't be controlled with Marxism. That's how I see it; I can understand someone not wanting to argue with that.
If you were reading about lawsuits in the 60s, then you're a bit older than me. But not much. I'm fully aware of what the tobacco companies did. There is a good difference between claiming 'Doubt is our product', and ' recognition of uncertainties'. Similarities, sure: Don't give an inch to your political enemies. But why would one expect the American Petroleum Institute to embrace increased taxation and/or restrictions on carbon? Makes no sense. Logically, wouldn't they be the most stubborn, and last on board? I tell you what, give them credit for all the evil you want; does that change your argument that AGW needs mitigating in any way? This is why I doubt your sincerity, as you mean to Godwin the conversation in the first place by bringing the transgressions of the tobacco industry into it. As if they have anything to do with anything.
I guess you really think they control me somehow, and that without the denier counter-science, I would have been convinced already of your cogent argument. Your argument that Marx doing it for the worker was not quite good enough, but now that we see the true evils of carbon based industrialization, moving to the left will save us. It's not lost on me btw, that both groups are in the same political party. And you didn't have to figure; I thought I was clear about the politics of it. You talk about science, but it's your conclusions and solutions I have a problem with. You're either being used by the Left, or you're one of them.
Did you really mean to talk about science? Releasing millions of years worth of carbon in a couple of hundred must have some effect. The logical conclusion is that we should stop doing that as soon as we can. But we still need the wealth it generates, and actually want more. One could make the argument that we need much, much more if any sort of real human progress is to be made. There are a few billion brown people that are looking forward to their turn shopping for affordable rib-eyes at the Wal-Mart in an air-conditioned Camry. And that's not even thinking about when the total population approaches 40 billion in your grandchildren's lifetime.
You're the science denier; not me. We have the tech right now to simply reverse AGW. Done, consensus, plain old science gives us access to the only other power source stored in the Earth's crust. Which political side has stagnated that science to the point that it is completely paralyzed? It has been so almost our whole lifetimes. There is enough power there to supply us a thousand fold for a practically unlimited time. All it takes is science.
And not even really leading edge science; you and I could pencil out a nice little modular reactor that loads once and runs 20 years. It never turns off, because what it does is power the attached CO2 reclamation unit, and when you want power out, you just turn down the refining burners and have electricity left over. Gas, graphite, fertilizer, plastic; whatever - you can still have your gas jet skis and Legos, and also - Bam! AGW solved. Probably needs a few tests and a prototype; I'm not sure my napkin is holding up here. But nothing crazy that has to be invented. Think of the taxes, effort, endless international meetings, carbon credits and all that 'profit'; if that had been directed to nuclear research, where could we be?
BTW, do you think nuclear power can be un-invented? Is that science too scary? I'll grant you there is a lot of power there, and certainly people can get hurt. This leads me to a tangential issue of mine, the enormous quantities of nuclear waste generated by the antiquated reactors we are still using, lying about the country, that apparently can't be buried at Yucca Mountain. That really is a time bomb, that really could poison the planet and kill millions. Given the 10,000 year lifetime, it is inevitable that something will happen, sooner or later. If you call yourself a scientist, then you know as well as I that there is only one thing that can be done with it. It has to be burnt up in a nuclear reactor, until it is lead, or
Heh. Big tobacco eh? Really? I think someday you'll be ashamed of that one.
"As we go on, we learn."
Very true, but you should see that as an admission that you don't have the authority to impose big changes on our society and quality of life. You need to be damned sure before you can advocate top down authority upon us, which basically amounts to forcing us to make do with less.
Which is why I don't have to win a tit-for-tat on your points: I'm not the one advocating for changes based on AGW mitigation, or whatever justification the Left is currently using to advance the agenda. It's always the same answer for every problem. More public funds; more power over the people; stricter laws, etc., to make everyone better.
In case you're young, before this, it was overpopulation. The Left was wrong about that one. Hell, they might be right about this one. If that turns out to be the case, then it's a shame they cried wolf so many times.
Really? Because you said, 'Ice loss in the Antarctic is causing sea level rise.' That was a big one, as far as why and how everybody is going to die.
Perhaps I exaggerate your position slightly, but is it really 'just news?' It changes nothing? I guess it wouldn't, if saving the planet from the deadly effects of AGW was never the goal in the first place.
What school did you go to? No public school I'm familiar with would ever say such a thing. True or not.
Yeah we have TV shows about that first part; but dropping a native in NYC, naked with one primitive tool; well that wouldn't be funny.
Honk, smack, die. 25 minutes left in the 30 minute program. I wonder what channel that would be on.
You're assuming that movement rate of brain waste products is constant between the paleos and us westerners.
I bet their movement rate is higher than ours. Lymphatic system, circulation; everything is better when you move around a lot. Thus, they have purged their brain dookey in a shorter amount of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the limiting factor on sleep shortness is just physical muscle repair.
Having said that though, it is true that we live to our 70s; whereas they do not, although they are healthier throughout the time they do have. Is it a tradeoff? More importantly, is the shorter lifespan truly due the fact, that with 60 years spent in the jungle, the odds of something bad happening surpasses 100%? Something bad being a snakebite, virus, broken leg; and you're four hours away from a third world hospital that you can't afford to go to.
Reminds me of the time the owner and his wannabe tech friend were poking around the IT closet one night, and mysteriously, our payments database crashed, corrupted, and unrecoverable. I spent all night trying to restore the previous days receipts. Hell, I even tried a hex editor to get something, anything. The file was complete garbage. Probably $100K unaccounted for, I was thinking the bank and investors are not going to like that, the company may be toast.
The next morning, I told the accounting boss (owner's daughter) I had to use the backup, and all the payment records from the previous day were lost. She got the four accounting clerks to re-enter the previous days payments in about 30 minutes. Dang, no big deal.
I learned a valuable lesson that day, and hopefully, so did the boss.
"Economy grew very well" It's a lie. Numbers of dollars has grown; wealth created per person has not. For about 40 years now, when manufacturing began leaving this country.
"Oh, and Nazis were not socialists - Fascism..."
We get more and more careful on this one as time goes by, but they most certainly called themselves socialists, or more specifically, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. And they instituted socialist policies when they came to power.
I think you mean that right wing socialism is not the same thing as left wing socialism. Okay.
This is what I came to post. The people still have the vote, no matter what the rich do with their money.
"OK, so why haven't you done anything then?" We did. We had a revolution, started a country; the whole nine yards. It's still here. And it would be just fine, if these fucking communists would stop their incessant drive to kill it.
It's always the fault of the rich. It was a big theme in Rome too. The entirety of human history rings with the theme "It's their fault. Just take it from them by force - it's the right thing to do. The planet's resources belong to the people, right? So you're just taking back what's yours. Righting a wrong as it were."
Here's the twist; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the rich come under more attacks, they spend less and hoard more. Everyone tries, but the rich actually have something to hoard. Mock it as trickle down all you want, but everyone here works for a richer person. Or people. If those rich quit spending (they call it investing at that level), and the big wheel of the economy slows down, where do you think that money is going to pool up? With the working class?
The rich get richer because the economy slows down, not the other way around. The communists (or worse) who've always called themselves socialists btw, (the Soviets and Nazis called themselves socialists), just keep at it until they finally break everything and get themselves into power. Oh, I know; no one here is that kind of socialist. And I actually believe that. But somebody is pulling these strings.
You're almost right. The crazy shuttle modifications were so that they could bring a Russian satellite back. They are apparently somewhat heavy. And bulky.
Thus the truck of a shuttle we ended up with; about the power of a Saturn V, and yet couldn't even get to geosynchronous, much less go to the Moon or anything.
The interesting question is; did they steal a Russian satellite? Would the Russians blow it up if a shuttle approached? Did they include a self destruct? (I guarantee they have one now.)
Is that the real reason we discontinued the shuttle; since you can't steal Russian satellites anymore, there's no point in having one?
Substitute safety for freedom. It would be the slam dunk decision you describe if it was only about freedom and convenience.
It ain't safe for you to ride the bus through Central LA everyday. Especially not some pasty white dude making 6 figures; you're going to get their attention. You use the past tense; I'm going to guess you didn't really do it for very long. I will say that I've never been to LA; but I did the same thing in Memphis years ago. Only I wasn't a 6 figure eco green hipster, I was actually poor with no car.
Ah, I guess neither one of those characterizations are fair. I would not want to drive an hour in LA, and I spent a lot of money on weed and beer too. Also, to your point, I was able to buy a car quickly with my $3.35/hr., in part, due to all the money I saved riding the bus.
But once you have money you're not allowed to ride the bus anymore. The only people on the bus, are the poor, who are immune to robbers; and robbers.
Has that changed?
And this is in response to the US insisting it can subpoena Microsoft's data in Ireland because MS is a US company.
I'm not sure why the US government is getting so arrogant over some things lately; we have never had that sort of power over the pond. In the aftermath of WWII, while our dollars are pouring in for rebuilding, while they were scared to death of the Soviets; they still often told us to go pound sand on many occasions.
I mean good for them; they need to maintain some semblance of sovereignty or apply for statehood. I definitely don't want most of their crazy politics over here, and I want that respect to go both ways.
TFA doesn't explain or link as to how VG caused the citizens to vote a tax increase upon themselves. If that was the deal, I would have recommended against it. Especially the part about the schools and water system.
You know, I bet that wasn't the deal. I bet that closer to the truth, is that the town, county, and state fell all over themselves offering all kinds of crazy shit. Those people gambled, and they lost.
Sort of like Virgin Galactic lost their ship, momentum, place in the space race, shit tons of cash; and so on. I believe one of their people actually died. All those townspeople lost was their self respect, and maybe some money, that their elected officials spent. I don't think VG has made any sort of profit on this town.
So to make out like the evil corporation took advantage of the ignorant little podunk town is really stretching the truth here.