Ah, but we can take on pale colors and spherical shapes, smell like feet, and have the consistency of a soggy cheese ball! Some of us can even do a really good impression of melted soft-serve vanilla ice cream with sprinkles if we wear our crumpled tan pants low and take off our shirts in the sun!
No. It's been my lifelong dream to fondle the sweaty nutsack of an overweight dungeons-and-dragons playing basement-dweller. You can't ask me to give up that right!
You are alone in a dark basement. You will most likely be fondled by a Grue.
There are much better and far more convenient means to establishing a new world order than what your propose. In fact, your method would be one of the dumbest ways to go about doing it. And that's assuming the government is competent enough to do so in the first place (which if you ever worked for the government, is a big ass assumption.
No, if governments and businesses want to create a cash cow to milk while spread eagling the general public, the create a clear and immediate threat to promote fear and use that fear to reach their goals. The global specter of terrorism is the perfect vehicle to accomplish this, and in many ways has already been used in the ways you proclaim climate science will be.
Businesses follow the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. They will make money, bribe^H^H^H^H make campaign donations, and shit on the general public no matter what happens. Subsidies will continue to exist. Tax breaks will continue to exist.
If climate scientists wanted to make money, they'd go into the private sector and become deniers. Compared to a normal climate scientists income, many other professions pay A LOT better without nearly as many headaches. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that scientists have any sort of power. Even in the most highly paid sciences or in defense research, scientists don't have much in what one could consider power.
There aren't any scientists out there saying we can stop climate change. We passed that point a long time ago. We can only reduce the impact and prepare.
Oil companies will lose their subsidies and tax breaks. Boo hoo. Perhaps then we will finally get a real sustainable energy policy and ditch oil crack habit.that will eventually drive us into the ditch. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
However, you miss the fact that most deniers are also attacking science in general. They stand to gain quite a bit ideologically if they can just wave a hand and discredit entire branches of science that they disagree with. That is incredibly dangerous and opens the doors for a whole world of shit, and not just because of climate change.
If you haven't been paying attention over the past 60 years, this is just the latest salvo in big corporations vs. science they don't like. This has happened multiple times in the past. Only this time, it seems to be coupled with a massive anti-science/anti-intellectual movement making it all the more dangerous.
Until th deniers can put up peer reviewed research to discredit the current scientific consensus, then they are just part of the FUD.
unless, of course, our descendants pick them up and put them in a museum somewhere, which is what I would predict.
You're making a large assumption that we will develop interstellar travel before we experience an ELE or kill each other through our own stupidity and prejudices. You're quite the optimist.
Labor costs on a solar installation are pretty outrageous, and prevents a lot of people from going solar. Most people want to be able to take a noticeable chunk out of their electric bills, and for the average household that's going to take at least a 3KW. Now you can get such a system relatively cheap, but labor prices have, if anything, gone up so that even a small 3KW system is too expensive.
But if you want to get in on solar, it would probably be wise to do it soon. With the GOP aiming to cut renewables, I don't expect what little fed subsidies to remain for much longer.
Around where I am, it's more like $6-$7K/KW. Subsidies suck and, as I mentioned, and labor rates are astronomical.
The USGS itself reports that within 1 km of a coal burning plant radiation levels are up to 5% higher than normal background radiation (and that's on regulated US plants). The fly ash used in commercial products also has to meet strict guidelines before it can be used.
Sequestered? This is from a quick google search: An investigation led by expert hydrogeologists has identified 39 more coal combustion waste (CCW) disposal sites in 21 states that have contaminated groundwater or surface water with toxic metals and other pollutants. Their analysis is based on monitoring data and other information available in state agency files and builds on a report released in February of 2010, which documented similar damage at 31 coal combustion waste dumpsites in 14 states.
And another little snippet: Toxic constituents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quantities from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.
And that's just the fly ash. This doesn't get into how much of these materials go straight up the smokestack. The EPA is in the process of revamping its regulations on coal plants to put stricter controls on these toxins.
Just because something is used in commercial instance does NOT mean it is not a serious pollutant. Petroleum distillates, for example, are quite useful but you don't wan't somebody dumping metric tons of them around your house.
At any rate, you have neither refuted nor given evidence to show that coal is safer than nuclear power, which was what this is about. Being insulting shows a lack of creativity and intelligence. Stick to logical arguments and scientific evidence.
Plutonium and Uranium are non-volatile nuclear fuels. The only way they escape a nuclear reactor is a raging inferno capable of over 6000 F, a massive explosion that shatters the fuel rods and disperses the particles, or (to a much lesser extent) damaged fuel rods with exposed surfaces flacking the material into reactor water. Neither of these two fuels have escaped in any significant quantity.
The biggest concern with nuclear accidents isn't even the fuel, it's the fission by-products. Nuclear fuel is not very radioactive, and due to it's low volatility it doesn't disperse very well outside of extreme events (Chernobyl). The real danger comes from the volatile, highly radioactive, products of nuclear reaction like Cesium and Strontium (Iodine has a half life of 8 days, so is only a short term concern).
You also have a responsibility for factual honesty. Mercury is only one of the contaminants in coal, and even the best scrubbers do not remove all pollutants. But other than mercury, there are also heavy metals, toxic compounds, and radioactive elements as well. This is why waste products like fly ash is treated as a serious environmental pollutant. If a major coal depot or coal plant had a major disaster, it would just as effectively turn the surrounding area into a toxic wasteland. The same goes for oil refineries (which are under even more stringent regulation than nuclear plants due to their potential of becoming an ecological disaster).
The point being, of all of our current power sources, nuclear ranks as one the safest in regards to both pollution and mortality. Fossil fuel sources are ranked as they deadliest. I would much rather live next to a nuclear power plant (and have) than an oil refinery (which is actually illegal) or a coal plant.
Minor correction. 1 Sv is the threshold for radiation sickness. 3-5 Sv is the threshold for poisoning (50% mortality rate). Greater than 8 Sv is pretty much guaranteed death.
Of course, this also depends on the timescale the dose was received in.
And yes, the person you responded to made a HUGE conversion error.:)
Precisely. The manufactured FUD industry has been around for a long time, but really started taking off when the crackdown on tobacco came about.
Now with the internet, it gets a whole lot worse. The general population in the US isn't very well educated (we've been consistently lagging the rest of the developed world), and critical thinking isn't really at the top of the curriculum. It's both appalling and amazing how a few well placed psuedo-scientific articles/posts/etc. can turn the population against well established science. With entertainment/political channels now posing as sources of fact, it's only getting worse.
The old adage of "Believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear," applies very much to today's world.
This is like saying the new Verizon FiOS TOS changes aren't a big deal. For those who don't know, Verizon has now given itself permission to change the admin password on your router, and make any changes therein, and give access to law enforcement. Oh don't worry, they'll send you an email about it. If they feel like it.
FUCK. THAT.
Companies have gotten smarter. They take away little pieces at a time. They make changes to the small print. They use hidden files. It's getting to the point where the only software and hardware you can trust is open source. Otherwise you're just asking to be screwed over.
Capes are like, really big. They should have used something less obvious. Like a long time ago there was this guy who made some people wear these yellow stars. I heard it did wonders for reducing the unemployment population.
Actually, it's called water toxicity. If you ingest too much water it basically ends up diluting your precious bodily fluids (such as the levels of electrolytes in your blood stream). This has a tendency to make major organs like the brain and heart very unhappy.
"Those third world countries have governments too, some occupy far more roles than developed world societies."
Really? There aren't many third world nations I know of that provide the vast amount of social services that most modern governments provide. In fact, most third world countries are "governed" by a rich elite that exploit the populace to make themselves more rich an powerful. The poor have no recourse to address their grievances, nor the means to change the system. And they certainly don't operate for the public good.
That wasn't even the topic of conversation. The topic of conversation was an over-privileged jackass lamenting at how bad we have it here in the states with our government that, according him/her, provides nothing in return which is a load of complete bullshit. If people can't even admit that our comfortable way of life is due in part to our government, then there's no point in discussing the matter. The only way to give someone like that any perspective is to rip them away from the comforts of their lives and drop them someplace where the government really doesn't provide anything.
"And every single one of those empires has fallen apart."
And your point is? Even the best societies will eventually fall and falter due to apathy, complacency, and corruption. Human greed and lust for power all but ensures the eventual demise, downscaling, and/or restructuring. More often than not this accompanied by violence, though in some cases it hasn't (the decline of the British Empire, for example). Even in a pure anarchy, the strongest will crush the weakest. Regardless of whether one wants a government or not, there will be individuals who will force one down your throat. Or kill you. Unless you are the most ruthless and strongest in which case you'll get to crush people under your boot.
The only way to have a long lasting society is to have a long range plain for sustainability. That isn't going to happen by itself, and it certainly won't happen in a society where greed, selfishness, and sociopathic behavior is so richly rewarded.
"It's worth noting that every country with a remotely decent standard of living has a bustling private sector and most of those are democratic societies, meaning they deliberately assign great responsibility to parties outside of government."
A bustling private sector that is regulated by governments acting in the public good, and granted license to provide said services in some cases. Private markets do not operate in the name of the public good.
"I don't much care how irritating you find the truth to be. It's sad, but not my fault."
[citation needed]
"Really? How often did The People have much choice in whether they would support said governments? Without an outright war, that is? That's the only way you'd be able to say they were efficient, and since they didn't, you can't."
Quite often actually. And that has nothing to do with your ludicrous claim that governments produce nothing and are inefficient at everything.
"Hmmmm... or maybe like Obama, who unilaterally decided to bomb a foreign country without even consulting with Congress, which the Constitution requires him to do? I guess to you, getter your ass bombed is far different from getting it cut off."
You do realize we have something called the War Powers Act, right? The president does not need to consult with congress for every military action. I would think that this would be abundantly clear by now.
"You have no clue or perspective yourself, about how privileged or pampered my ass is or is not, has been or has not. Maybe you should learn about somebody before making baseless insults, you moron. Note: that last comment of mine was not "baseless"."
Oh I have a pretty good idea how pampered your ass is. You have a computer and electricity. That's great deal more than most of the world's population. From what you've said, you appear to be American. So you have clean water and food. You have supermarkets and malls. You have fire and police protection. You have emergency medical services. You have a national weather service. You have well supported infrastructure. You more than likely have at least one car.
You live like a fucking king compared to most of the world. You are a pampered, whiny ass that has absolutely no gratitude or thankfulness for the country you live in, nor the government that makes it possible. You have no clue as to what it's like outside your little bubble of first world reality, or even the significant role government plays in making that reality.
"Government is a bureaucracy. By definition, government produces exactly nothing. It takes from others in order to perform its functions."
You know I find irritating? Idiots who claim that our government produces nothing. Go live in a third world country for a year, without all those comfortable amenities you have that you don't even think about. If you manage to survive without getting killed or debilitatingly sick, then come on back and tell us about how our government produces nothing. It either produces or facilitates everything you take for granted in your happy, comfortable, privileged little life.
"And the sad fact is, government, historically, has been woefully inefficient at ANY of the functions it has undertaken. There may have been a few exceptions, in a few places, a few times, but in the vast majority of cases that is the simple truth."
That is just plain bullshit. If governments were woefully inefficient at everything they did then major empires lasting centuries would not have been possible. Nor would we have major countries today that have been around for 500 years or more. Governments exist because the majority of the population view them as beneficial. Those that aren't beneficial get to experience uprising, and being replaced by something that is.
"You cannot even say -- today -- that taxes are a "bargain compared to warlords and tycoons ruling everything" because, today, you have those anyway and you are still paying outrageous taxes."
Yes, he can say that. Do you have any idea what a real warlord is? A real warlord will come up to you and cut your fucking head off just because he feels like it. Then he'll rape your wife/daughters and then order his men to lock them in their house and burn it to the ground. Your sons will either be put in a camp to become future members of his army or killed right along with them. A warlord will use a jeep mounted machine gun and run down dozens of fleeing people for not paying him a tribute. A warlord will slaughter thousands and dump them into mass graves to keep or solidify his grip on power. THAT'S what a warlord is.
Get some fucking perspective. Your privileged, pampered ass has NO CLUE about just how good you have it. If you truly and honestly believe government and taxes are useless and provide nothing, there are plenty of places you can go where you can enjoy a tax free existence and a remarkably short life span.
I think others are assuming an importance to electricity it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like having lighting, heating, and refrigeration , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
I think others are assuming an importance to telecommunications it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like calling places in cases of emergency , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
I think others are assuming an importance to interstate roads it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like to haul stuff around the country or get places , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
So on and so forth. The internet plays a MAJOR role in today's world, and it's only going to get bigger. You're already at a significant disadvantage if you're computer illiterate these days, and many places have started switching to "online only" options for things like filling out applications.
I'd like selfish assholes with chip on their shoulder to contribute something useful instead of making nonsensical comparisons between his desire for hookers and blow and providing wide access to what's increasingly becoming a critical informational resource.
What about roads? What about electricity? Water? Fire stations? Police? Education? Should the poor not have access to these just because they are poor? If so then how the hell are the poor ever supposed to get out of being poor? With more and more becoming "online only" or "computer experience required" not being computer literate or having access to a computer is becoming a tremendous liability.
So you boil an incredibly complex social, economical, and moral issue into a set of narrow and rather simple minded choices. I suppose people like Stephan Hawking or people with other disabilities have no place in your able-bodied culture.
Thanks, but I'll take civilization over a sociopathic, every-person-for-themselves paradigm any day of the week.
That's really pathetic, but at least you admit it.
Even if I was a millionaire, I would still be writing code, doing scientific research, and maybe even writing a book or three. Why? Because as part of our species it is my job to help further humanity and help ensure the future of our species. Personal rewards are just icing on the cake.
I view life as something more meaningful than making myself comfortable and sleeping, eating, and shitting through my days. But perhaps I'm in the minority.
I don't wonder at all. When it comes to radiation and nuclear power in general, the public is just plain stupid. To demonstrate, look at how the potassium iodide pills flew off the shelves in the US. Selfish American Idiocy alive and well.
If the general public knew what the mortality rates were for different power generation schemes and the true environmental pollution and destruction statistics of those schemes, they might make a logical decision that despite the risks nuclear power is the far better choice for the near term, especially given the new reactor designs and a thorium based fuel cycle.
But that would require people wanting to be educated on the subject. For the average American, that' asking too much. Especially if they have preconceived notions about the dangers of radiation.
Slashdot Mirror
You sank my battleship!
Better yet, make the webcam always snapshot goatse. Guaranteed to stop them.
Ah, but we can take on pale colors and spherical shapes, smell like feet, and have the consistency of a soggy cheese ball! Some of us can even do a really good impression of melted soft-serve vanilla ice cream with sprinkles if we wear our crumpled tan pants low and take off our shirts in the sun!
Reality is nothing more than the balance of lies you choose to believe in and the truths you choose not to.
No. It's been my lifelong dream to fondle the sweaty nutsack of an overweight dungeons-and-dragons playing basement-dweller. You can't ask me to give up that right!
You are alone in a dark basement. You will most likely be fondled by a Grue.
You need to loosen your tin foil hat.
There are much better and far more convenient means to establishing a new world order than what your propose. In fact, your method would be one of the dumbest ways to go about doing it. And that's assuming the government is competent enough to do so in the first place (which if you ever worked for the government, is a big ass assumption.
No, if governments and businesses want to create a cash cow to milk while spread eagling the general public, the create a clear and immediate threat to promote fear and use that fear to reach their goals. The global specter of terrorism is the perfect vehicle to accomplish this, and in many ways has already been used in the ways you proclaim climate science will be.
Businesses follow the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. They will make money, bribe^H^H^H^H make campaign donations, and shit on the general public no matter what happens. Subsidies will continue to exist. Tax breaks will continue to exist.
If climate scientists wanted to make money, they'd go into the private sector and become deniers. Compared to a normal climate scientists income, many other professions pay A LOT better without nearly as many headaches. I'm also not sure where you get the idea that scientists have any sort of power. Even in the most highly paid sciences or in defense research, scientists don't have much in what one could consider power.
There aren't any scientists out there saying we can stop climate change. We passed that point a long time ago. We can only reduce the impact and prepare.
Oil companies will lose their subsidies and tax breaks. Boo hoo. Perhaps then we will finally get a real sustainable energy policy and ditch oil crack habit.that will eventually drive us into the ditch. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
However, you miss the fact that most deniers are also attacking science in general. They stand to gain quite a bit ideologically if they can just wave a hand and discredit entire branches of science that they disagree with. That is incredibly dangerous and opens the doors for a whole world of shit, and not just because of climate change.
If you haven't been paying attention over the past 60 years, this is just the latest salvo in big corporations vs. science they don't like. This has happened multiple times in the past. Only this time, it seems to be coupled with a massive anti-science/anti-intellectual movement making it all the more dangerous.
Until th deniers can put up peer reviewed research to discredit the current scientific consensus, then they are just part of the FUD.
unless, of course, our descendants pick them up and put them in a museum somewhere, which is what I would predict.
You're making a large assumption that we will develop interstellar travel before we experience an ELE or kill each other through our own stupidity and prejudices. You're quite the optimist.
Only if we develop space travel before DJ K'Hul Kra'znk uses them in his ultra retro intergalactic remix of Gettin' Ze'nkay With It.
If only everywhere had such subsidies.
Labor costs on a solar installation are pretty outrageous, and prevents a lot of people from going solar. Most people want to be able to take a noticeable chunk out of their electric bills, and for the average household that's going to take at least a 3KW. Now you can get such a system relatively cheap, but labor prices have, if anything, gone up so that even a small 3KW system is too expensive.
But if you want to get in on solar, it would probably be wise to do it soon. With the GOP aiming to cut renewables, I don't expect what little fed subsidies to remain for much longer.
Around where I am, it's more like $6-$7K/KW. Subsidies suck and, as I mentioned, and labor rates are astronomical.
Lies?
The USGS itself reports that within 1 km of a coal burning plant radiation levels are up to 5% higher than normal background radiation (and that's on regulated US plants). The fly ash used in commercial products also has to meet strict guidelines before it can be used.
Sequestered? This is from a quick google search:
An investigation led by expert hydrogeologists has identified 39 more coal combustion waste (CCW) disposal sites in 21 states that have contaminated groundwater or surface water with toxic metals and other pollutants. Their analysis is based on monitoring data and other information available in state agency files and builds on a report released in February of 2010, which documented similar damage at 31 coal combustion waste dumpsites in 14 states.
And another little snippet:
Toxic constituents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quantities from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.
And that's just the fly ash. This doesn't get into how much of these materials go straight up the smokestack. The EPA is in the process of revamping its regulations on coal plants to put stricter controls on these toxins.
Just because something is used in commercial instance does NOT mean it is not a serious pollutant. Petroleum distillates, for example, are quite useful but you don't wan't somebody dumping metric tons of them around your house.
At any rate, you have neither refuted nor given evidence to show that coal is safer than nuclear power, which was what this is about. Being insulting shows a lack of creativity and intelligence. Stick to logical arguments and scientific evidence.
Plutonium and Uranium are non-volatile nuclear fuels. The only way they escape a nuclear reactor is a raging inferno capable of over 6000 F, a massive explosion that shatters the fuel rods and disperses the particles, or (to a much lesser extent) damaged fuel rods with exposed surfaces flacking the material into reactor water. Neither of these two fuels have escaped in any significant quantity.
The biggest concern with nuclear accidents isn't even the fuel, it's the fission by-products. Nuclear fuel is not very radioactive, and due to it's low volatility it doesn't disperse very well outside of extreme events (Chernobyl). The real danger comes from the volatile, highly radioactive, products of nuclear reaction like Cesium and Strontium (Iodine has a half life of 8 days, so is only a short term concern).
You also have a responsibility for factual honesty. Mercury is only one of the contaminants in coal, and even the best scrubbers do not remove all pollutants. But other than mercury, there are also heavy metals, toxic compounds, and radioactive elements as well. This is why waste products like fly ash is treated as a serious environmental pollutant. If a major coal depot or coal plant had a major disaster, it would just as effectively turn the surrounding area into a toxic wasteland. The same goes for oil refineries (which are under even more stringent regulation than nuclear plants due to their potential of becoming an ecological disaster).
The point being, of all of our current power sources, nuclear ranks as one the safest in regards to both pollution and mortality. Fossil fuel sources are ranked as they deadliest. I would much rather live next to a nuclear power plant (and have) than an oil refinery (which is actually illegal) or a coal plant.
Minor correction. 1 Sv is the threshold for radiation sickness. 3-5 Sv is the threshold for poisoning (50% mortality rate). Greater than 8 Sv is pretty much guaranteed death.
Of course, this also depends on the timescale the dose was received in.
And yes, the person you responded to made a HUGE conversion error. :)
Precisely. The manufactured FUD industry has been around for a long time, but really started taking off when the crackdown on tobacco came about.
Now with the internet, it gets a whole lot worse. The general population in the US isn't very well educated (we've been consistently lagging the rest of the developed world), and critical thinking isn't really at the top of the curriculum. It's both appalling and amazing how a few well placed psuedo-scientific articles/posts/etc. can turn the population against well established science. With entertainment/political channels now posing as sources of fact, it's only getting worse.
The old adage of "Believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear," applies very much to today's world.
This is like saying the new Verizon FiOS TOS changes aren't a big deal. For those who don't know, Verizon has now given itself permission to change the admin password on your router, and make any changes therein, and give access to law enforcement. Oh don't worry, they'll send you an email about it. If they feel like it.
FUCK. THAT.
Companies have gotten smarter. They take away little pieces at a time. They make changes to the small print. They use hidden files. It's getting to the point where the only software and hardware you can trust is open source. Otherwise you're just asking to be screwed over.
Capes are like, really big. They should have used something less obvious. Like a long time ago there was this guy who made some people wear these yellow stars. I heard it did wonders for reducing the unemployment population.
Actually, it's called water toxicity. If you ingest too much water it basically ends up diluting your precious bodily fluids (such as the levels of electrolytes in your blood stream). This has a tendency to make major organs like the brain and heart very unhappy.
Drowning is suffocation.
"I sense a dense pocket of stupidity here."
As do I.
"Those third world countries have governments too, some occupy far more roles than developed world societies."
Really? There aren't many third world nations I know of that provide the vast amount of social services that most modern governments provide. In fact, most third world countries are "governed" by a rich elite that exploit the populace to make themselves more rich an powerful. The poor have no recourse to address their grievances, nor the means to change the system. And they certainly don't operate for the public good.
That wasn't even the topic of conversation. The topic of conversation was an over-privileged jackass lamenting at how bad we have it here in the states with our government that, according him/her, provides nothing in return which is a load of complete bullshit. If people can't even admit that our comfortable way of life is due in part to our government, then there's no point in discussing the matter. The only way to give someone like that any perspective is to rip them away from the comforts of their lives and drop them someplace where the government really doesn't provide anything.
"And every single one of those empires has fallen apart."
And your point is? Even the best societies will eventually fall and falter due to apathy, complacency, and corruption. Human greed and lust for power all but ensures the eventual demise, downscaling, and/or restructuring. More often than not this accompanied by violence, though in some cases it hasn't (the decline of the British Empire, for example). Even in a pure anarchy, the strongest will crush the weakest. Regardless of whether one wants a government or not, there will be individuals who will force one down your throat. Or kill you. Unless you are the most ruthless and strongest in which case you'll get to crush people under your boot.
The only way to have a long lasting society is to have a long range plain for sustainability. That isn't going to happen by itself, and it certainly won't happen in a society where greed, selfishness, and sociopathic behavior is so richly rewarded.
"It's worth noting that every country with a remotely decent standard of living has a bustling private sector and most of those are democratic societies, meaning they deliberately assign great responsibility to parties outside of government."
A bustling private sector that is regulated by governments acting in the public good, and granted license to provide said services in some cases. Private markets do not operate in the name of the public good.
"I don't much care how irritating you find the truth to be. It's sad, but not my fault."
[citation needed]
"Really? How often did The People have much choice in whether they would support said governments? Without an outright war, that is? That's the only way you'd be able to say they were efficient, and since they didn't, you can't."
Quite often actually. And that has nothing to do with your ludicrous claim that governments produce nothing and are inefficient at everything.
"Hmmmm... or maybe like Obama, who unilaterally decided to bomb a foreign country without even consulting with Congress, which the Constitution requires him to do? I guess to you, getter your ass bombed is far different from getting it cut off."
You do realize we have something called the War Powers Act, right? The president does not need to consult with congress for every military action. I would think that this would be abundantly clear by now.
"You have no clue or perspective yourself, about how privileged or pampered my ass is or is not, has been or has not. Maybe you should learn about somebody before making baseless insults, you moron. Note: that last comment of mine was not "baseless"."
Oh I have a pretty good idea how pampered your ass is. You have a computer and electricity. That's great deal more than most of the world's population. From what you've said, you appear to be American. So you have clean water and food. You have supermarkets and malls. You have fire and police protection. You have emergency medical services. You have a national weather service. You have well supported infrastructure. You more than likely have at least one car.
You live like a fucking king compared to most of the world. You are a pampered, whiny ass that has absolutely no gratitude or thankfulness for the country you live in, nor the government that makes it possible. You have no clue as to what it's like outside your little bubble of first world reality, or even the significant role government plays in making that reality.
Grow up.
8 Mb is still twice as fast as the average American has access to. And I'll bet spotted dick to lamb fries that it's cheaper for you as well.
Insightful? Really?
"Government is a bureaucracy. By definition, government produces exactly nothing. It takes from others in order to perform its functions."
You know I find irritating? Idiots who claim that our government produces nothing. Go live in a third world country for a year, without all those comfortable amenities you have that you don't even think about. If you manage to survive without getting killed or debilitatingly sick, then come on back and tell us about how our government produces nothing. It either produces or facilitates everything you take for granted in your happy, comfortable, privileged little life.
"And the sad fact is, government, historically, has been woefully inefficient at ANY of the functions it has undertaken. There may have been a few exceptions, in a few places, a few times, but in the vast majority of cases that is the simple truth."
That is just plain bullshit. If governments were woefully inefficient at everything they did then major empires lasting centuries would not have been possible. Nor would we have major countries today that have been around for 500 years or more. Governments exist because the majority of the population view them as beneficial. Those that aren't beneficial get to experience uprising, and being replaced by something that is.
"You cannot even say -- today -- that taxes are a "bargain compared to warlords and tycoons ruling everything" because, today, you have those anyway and you are still paying outrageous taxes."
Yes, he can say that. Do you have any idea what a real warlord is? A real warlord will come up to you and cut your fucking head off just because he feels like it. Then he'll rape your wife/daughters and then order his men to lock them in their house and burn it to the ground. Your sons will either be put in a camp to become future members of his army or killed right along with them. A warlord will use a jeep mounted machine gun and run down dozens of fleeing people for not paying him a tribute. A warlord will slaughter thousands and dump them into mass graves to keep or solidify his grip on power. THAT'S what a warlord is.
Get some fucking perspective. Your privileged, pampered ass has NO CLUE about just how good you have it. If you truly and honestly believe government and taxes are useless and provide nothing, there are plenty of places you can go where you can enjoy a tax free existence and a remarkably short life span.
I think others are assuming an importance to electricity it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like having lighting, heating, and refrigeration , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
I think others are assuming an importance to telecommunications it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like calling places in cases of emergency , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
I think others are assuming an importance to interstate roads it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like to haul stuff around the country or get places , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
So on and so forth. The internet plays a MAJOR role in today's world, and it's only going to get bigger. You're already at a significant disadvantage if you're computer illiterate these days, and many places have started switching to "online only" options for things like filling out applications.
I'd like selfish assholes with chip on their shoulder to contribute something useful instead of making nonsensical comparisons between his desire for hookers and blow and providing wide access to what's increasingly becoming a critical informational resource.
What about roads? What about electricity? Water? Fire stations? Police? Education? Should the poor not have access to these just because they are poor? If so then how the hell are the poor ever supposed to get out of being poor? With more and more becoming "online only" or "computer experience required" not being computer literate or having access to a computer is becoming a tremendous liability.
So you boil an incredibly complex social, economical, and moral issue into a set of narrow and rather simple minded choices. I suppose people like Stephan Hawking or people with other disabilities have no place in your able-bodied culture.
Thanks, but I'll take civilization over a sociopathic, every-person-for-themselves paradigm any day of the week.
That's really pathetic, but at least you admit it.
Even if I was a millionaire, I would still be writing code, doing scientific research, and maybe even writing a book or three. Why? Because as part of our species it is my job to help further humanity and help ensure the future of our species. Personal rewards are just icing on the cake.
I view life as something more meaningful than making myself comfortable and sleeping, eating, and shitting through my days. But perhaps I'm in the minority.
I don't wonder at all. When it comes to radiation and nuclear power in general, the public is just plain stupid. To demonstrate, look at how the potassium iodide pills flew off the shelves in the US. Selfish American Idiocy alive and well.
If the general public knew what the mortality rates were for different power generation schemes and the true environmental pollution and destruction statistics of those schemes, they might make a logical decision that despite the risks nuclear power is the far better choice for the near term, especially given the new reactor designs and a thorium based fuel cycle.
But that would require people wanting to be educated on the subject. For the average American, that' asking too much. Especially if they have preconceived notions about the dangers of radiation.