Nice rational post. The imbecility of the people who demand that the Nazis (aka. the National Socialist German Workers' Party) weren't socialists because, well... the Nazis were bad and socialism is good just drives me crazy.
Eh... While I would concede your point in that sense, the whole philosophy of the formation of the US was contrary to the rest of the civilized world. So, I am sticking with my 233. For better and worse, the US has always been a little contrary.
First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT...
Based upon this statement alone, my previous post was not clear. Every scientist I have spoken with, including the ones who are "substantially confident" that humans have had "significant contributions" to global warming recognize that there are areas of weakness in the modeling. (Hence the quoted caveats of my last sentence, which are in fact quotes.) And, at least the scientists I know, are genuinely excited to have "new" information to refine their knowledge base.
Consequently, I never intended to imply that scientists made it a hot button issue. I was thinking of environmentalists, chemical energy producers, and especially politicians - but your point about the media is well taken.
Finally, concerning coin and power, the evidences are all around. One could point to international balances of trade via treaties and trade programs, corporations that allow you to offset your "carbon foot print", environmental groups who have radically altered what we can accomplish for the costs involved, and the UN justifying their ability to levy taxes because of global warming. To suggest that the global warming scare, legitimate or not, hasn't caused a shift in economic priorities or shifts in political power is the only weakness to your response. And, if you cannot see how climate change has been used for social engineering (um, political social engineering, not black hat social engineering), from the cars we drive to the washing machines we use, to the recreational activities that "thinking people" approve of, to the taxes we pay... well, you are just not looking.
If you think it is that simple or will be that cheap you are living in a dream world. Fortunately, we have historical evidence; what was the reduction in greenhouse gases last year when a gallon of gasoline was approximately double what it currently is? I am currently paying $2.49/gal. If $2.53/gal would reduce it 50%, I should think $5.24/gal (the max I saw) would have reduced it substantially above that. I am fairly sure it didn't.
I am not arguing for or against the attempt to curb greenhouse gasses, here. But to portray those who have legitimate concerns about how it will effect the economy as being so small minded and stingy that they will not even part with 3.5 cents/gallon is disingenuous at best.
But global warming (what? oops) climate change is FACT FACT I TELLS YA! We are all going to be underwater in a decade! Cap and trade! Taxes to the UN! Billions of extra dollars to be spent, now, NOW, NOW!
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue. Of course the science needs to evolve and of course scientists are refining their models. But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness from those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering that this issue has and is enabling.
No. The reason they dropped the case is due to prosecutorial misconduct, including suppressing favorable evidence and falsifying evidence. (It will actually make an interesting movie one day.)
At any rate, whether you think he is innocent, guilty or somewhere in between it is a "wake the fuck up call".
When the DOJ will engage is such behavior against a sitting and powerful Senator, we, the nobody citizens, are in a very precarious situation.
Why are you posting AC? Don't you want everyone to know who you are so we can take appropriate precautions? BTW, you certainly have turned in your drivers license by now, correct? Don't want any accidents affecting my loved ones...
And, certainly, you don't fly air craft or drive truck or bus for a living. I realize that if you were diagnosed MANY years ago that all of these restrictions may have felt like an undue burden but... well, once can never be too careful.
Dude, there is a reason why medical conditions do not need to be readily accessible. Gattica seems unlikely now, but if you had said it should be illegal to smoke in bars 30 years ago, you wouldn't have even been laughed at; they would simply have smiled at you because you were obviously a crack-pot or feeble minded.
should be "genie" (in portuguese they are translated to the same word, sorry).
Are they really? I can't imagine that Genie (==Djinn, a supernatural fiery creature which possesses free will) would or could be used so interchangeably with genius (==someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality).
They have such entirely separate meanings that, aside from their superficially close English spelling, it is strange to think that they would be translated to the same word. What language is Portugeuese based upon? Thinking that it may be Latin, I searched on the meaning of geni, thinking there might be some commonality there. The answer would be no. In the Latin, geni relates to the knee.
(PS. I am a native English speaker (have a B.S. in English) with no knowledge of Portuguese and am genuinely curious.)
...but get miffed in moderate breezes and refuse to work at all if you blow their antennae off.
LOL. I am sure what you are saying makes sense within a given context but I am not sure what that context is.
All I can see is very disgruntled bees, bitching about management when it is breezy and bees on strike if you blow off their antnnae. Presumably with a mini hand-gun, I guess. =D
From the summary: "In comparison, the best high-power lithium-ion batteries today discharge in a minute and a half, and conventional lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in laptops, can take hours to discharge..."
Um, isn't that the point? In fact, isn't it a goal to have a "longer lasting" battery?
If a knowledgeable person can clarify why this is a BOO-YAA moment, I would really appreciate it. I read the article (I know, please don't hold it against me), and will concede that maybe the inclusion of lap-tops was poor writing because they are actually examples where this would not be useful technology but the article also mentions that it would be useful for quickly recharging cell phones. But, again, while it may be useful to have a quickly charging cellphone, a quickly discharging cell phone... not so much.
I don't want to be tracked, not by Google, not by the Government, not by my spouse, not by my work. It is a violation of my existence. (Little v not capital V.) I don't want it. And, I don't want to have to explain to any of the above, in 15 or 30 years, why I am not SUBVERSIVE because I don't want to be tracked.
Oh, and I am a boring person. Anyone that knows me pretty much knows where I am at any moment. So realistically, it doesn't matter.
Of course, all of his points are substantiated and rational but don't let that stop you from your blind hatred of any view not your own.
News flash: Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. The only ones who ever claim he was were his political opponents, and only so they could bash fiscal conservatism.
I agree this would appear to solve all the problems. I would go one step further, however, and remove any sexual connotation. Any two people (per current convention) could enter into a legally binding contract to share benefits, obligations, and dependencies (off-spring).
Marriage, a term and concept very important to some, would remain an institution of the Church, Temple, Mosque, Coven, or what-have-you. Whether your union was a Marriage or not would be determined and recognized by the people you associate with, not the State. The State's only compelling interest would be served: specifically, who is responsible for your affairs if you die or become incapacitated.
Such an approach would be dispassionate and non-intrusive. Isn't this what we want from our Government?
If they are doing it to save the earth, maybe California can forgo the tax revenue assessed on qualifying "energy saving" models, at least for a while. That should bring prices, if not on par, closer and encourage sales of these models in general.
And the truth is, it's theft from the shareholder. You know, the people that actually OWN the company ! You'd think they'd be more concerned about it, but they're not.
True. Relatively few shareholders, however, care that they own (a piece of) a company. Most are stock speculators that only care about the value of the stock relative to yesterday (or tomorrow), not the value of the stock relative to the value of the company. How, for example, the big three US automotive companies have not been trading for pennies for years is beyond me.
Additionally, those few who do care about the company are often not in a position to influence CEO compensation. The fact that I won't invest in ABC company because the CEO is overcompensated or may withdraw my 500 (of 50,000,000) shares if the CEO becomes overcompensated isn't even noted. If Mr. Buffet indicates he is unhappy with a CEO's compensation, however, I suspect that has a little more traction. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Mr. Buffets and collective actions by shareholders are about as effective as collective actions by any group of people with disparate interests.
Congratulations on being a status-quo dumb ass. As I said, in general summation, I believe it to be a non-issue, especially the dual-citizen lawsuit nonsense. It is not the issue but the handling of it that is the problem. It did not show any of the "change", openness, decisive resolution, or good statesmanship that Obama promised to bring us. Judging by your ridiculous and presumably pejorative Fox News Channel comment, you likely are not a fan of the insular secrecy of the Bush administration but here you are acting outraged that people (who absolutely have an axe to grind) would question the secrecy and stonewalling of the issue by Obama when it should be so damn easy to resolve. A two minute phone call would do it.
There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed
Evidence, not proof, evidence. And, you are correct. After the Clinton campaign brought this up during the Primary, what would have been really nice is if Obama, with a derisive roll of the eyes towards those who deserve it, had simply said, "somebody take a reporter and get a copy of my birth certificate so we can end this idiocy." And then ended it.
But no, we have the usual non-response "ignore it and it will go away" attitude that we have learned to know and love under the current administration. His grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and he has some obvious ties there. Could her memory be faulty? Sure. But, since the issue has been raised, and it is one of those definitively defined things in that pesky little inconvenience known as the Constitution, it should be resolved by some Federal non-partisan authority.
Oh, and a document of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of a natural born citizen. It and a birth certificate are two different documents.
So, yeah, while I think the preponderance of evidence indicates Obama's natural-birth citizenship, I would have preferred a different response.
Thus far, my opinion is getting to be: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Which isn't exactly true. The totalitarian government of "Brave New World" was much nicer than the totalitarian government of "1984".)
Slashdot Mirror
Nice rational post. The imbecility of the people who demand that the Nazis (aka. the National Socialist German Workers' Party) weren't socialists because, well... the Nazis were bad and socialism is good just drives me crazy.
Eh... While I would concede your point in that sense, the whole philosophy of the formation of the US was contrary to the rest of the civilized world. So, I am sticking with my 233. For better and worse, the US has always been a little contrary.
233 years, actually.
First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT...
Based upon this statement alone, my previous post was not clear. Every scientist I have spoken with, including the ones who are "substantially confident" that humans have had "significant contributions" to global warming recognize that there are areas of weakness in the modeling. (Hence the quoted caveats of my last sentence, which are in fact quotes.) And, at least the scientists I know, are genuinely excited to have "new" information to refine their knowledge base.
Consequently, I never intended to imply that scientists made it a hot button issue. I was thinking of environmentalists, chemical energy producers, and especially politicians - but your point about the media is well taken.
Finally, concerning coin and power, the evidences are all around. One could point to international balances of trade via treaties and trade programs, corporations that allow you to offset your "carbon foot print", environmental groups who have radically altered what we can accomplish for the costs involved, and the UN justifying their ability to levy taxes because of global warming. To suggest that the global warming scare, legitimate or not, hasn't caused a shift in economic priorities or shifts in political power is the only weakness to your response. And, if you cannot see how climate change has been used for social engineering (um, political social engineering, not black hat social engineering), from the cars we drive to the washing machines we use, to the recreational activities that "thinking people" approve of, to the taxes we pay... well, you are just not looking.
I am not arguing for or against the attempt to curb greenhouse gasses, here. But to portray those who have legitimate concerns about how it will effect the economy as being so small minded and stingy that they will not even part with 3.5 cents/gallon is disingenuous at best.
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue. Of course the science needs to evolve and of course scientists are refining their models. But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness from those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering that this issue has and is enabling.
At any rate, whether you think he is innocent, guilty or somewhere in between it is a "wake the fuck up call".
When the DOJ will engage is such behavior against a sitting and powerful Senator, we, the nobody citizens, are in a very precarious situation.
And, certainly, you don't fly air craft or drive truck or bus for a living. I realize that if you were diagnosed MANY years ago that all of these restrictions may have felt like an undue burden but... well, once can never be too careful.
Dude, there is a reason why medical conditions do not need to be readily accessible. Gattica seems unlikely now, but if you had said it should be illegal to smoke in bars 30 years ago, you wouldn't have even been laughed at; they would simply have smiled at you because you were obviously a crack-pot or feeble minded.
should be "genie" (in portuguese they are translated to the same word, sorry).
Are they really? I can't imagine that Genie (==Djinn, a supernatural fiery creature which possesses free will) would or could be used so interchangeably with genius (==someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality).
They have such entirely separate meanings that, aside from their superficially close English spelling, it is strange to think that they would be translated to the same word. What language is Portugeuese based upon? Thinking that it may be Latin, I searched on the meaning of geni, thinking there might be some commonality there. The answer would be no. In the Latin, geni relates to the knee.
(PS. I am a native English speaker (have a B.S. in English) with no knowledge of Portuguese and am genuinely curious.)
LOL. I am sure what you are saying makes sense within a given context but I am not sure what that context is.
All I can see is very disgruntled bees, bitching about management when it is breezy and bees on strike if you blow off their antnnae. Presumably with a mini hand-gun, I guess. =D
From the summary: "In comparison, the best high-power lithium-ion batteries today discharge in a minute and a half, and conventional lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in laptops, can take hours to discharge..."
Um, isn't that the point? In fact, isn't it a goal to have a "longer lasting" battery?
If a knowledgeable person can clarify why this is a BOO-YAA moment, I would really appreciate it. I read the article (I know, please don't hold it against me), and will concede that maybe the inclusion of lap-tops was poor writing because they are actually examples where this would not be useful technology but the article also mentions that it would be useful for quickly recharging cell phones. But, again, while it may be useful to have a quickly charging cellphone, a quickly discharging cell phone... not so much.
Not just corpses.... "Vote early, vote often"(TM) is owned by Chicago, and probably Illinois at large.
Well sure... the question is what is Goofy?
Damn straight. You and the GP.
Oh, and I am a boring person. Anyone that knows me pretty much knows where I am at any moment. So realistically, it doesn't matter.
I just don't want to be tracked.
I think it is supposed to be "smarty pants". Maybe not, maybe it is just late Friday afternoon and I am punchy - either way, you owe me a new screen.
Now this ^^ is truly worthy of an insightful moderation.
Great series. +1 cool mod for legitimately working the phrase into the thread.
Of course, all of his points are substantiated and rational but don't let that stop you from your blind hatred of any view not your own.
News flash: Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. The only ones who ever claim he was were his political opponents, and only so they could bash fiscal conservatism.
Very appropriate and good response. Wish I had mod points for you.
I agree this would appear to solve all the problems. I would go one step further, however, and remove any sexual connotation. Any two people (per current convention) could enter into a legally binding contract to share benefits, obligations, and dependencies (off-spring).
Marriage, a term and concept very important to some, would remain an institution of the Church, Temple, Mosque, Coven, or what-have-you. Whether your union was a Marriage or not would be determined and recognized by the people you associate with, not the State. The State's only compelling interest would be served: specifically, who is responsible for your affairs if you die or become incapacitated.
Such an approach would be dispassionate and non-intrusive. Isn't this what we want from our Government?
If they are doing it to save the earth, maybe California can forgo the tax revenue assessed on qualifying "energy saving" models, at least for a while. That should bring prices, if not on par, closer and encourage sales of these models in general.
And the truth is, it's theft from the shareholder. You know, the people that actually OWN the company ! You'd think they'd be more concerned about it, but they're not.
True. Relatively few shareholders, however, care that they own (a piece of) a company. Most are stock speculators that only care about the value of the stock relative to yesterday (or tomorrow), not the value of the stock relative to the value of the company. How, for example, the big three US automotive companies have not been trading for pennies for years is beyond me.
Additionally, those few who do care about the company are often not in a position to influence CEO compensation. The fact that I won't invest in ABC company because the CEO is overcompensated or may withdraw my 500 (of 50,000,000) shares if the CEO becomes overcompensated isn't even noted. If Mr. Buffet indicates he is unhappy with a CEO's compensation, however, I suspect that has a little more traction. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Mr. Buffets and collective actions by shareholders are about as effective as collective actions by any group of people with disparate interests.
Congratulations on being a status-quo dumb ass. As I said, in general summation, I believe it to be a non-issue, especially the dual-citizen lawsuit nonsense. It is not the issue but the handling of it that is the problem. It did not show any of the "change", openness, decisive resolution, or good statesmanship that Obama promised to bring us. Judging by your ridiculous and presumably pejorative Fox News Channel comment, you likely are not a fan of the insular secrecy of the Bush administration but here you are acting outraged that people (who absolutely have an axe to grind) would question the secrecy and stonewalling of the issue by Obama when it should be so damn easy to resolve. A two minute phone call would do it.
There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed
Evidence, not proof, evidence. And, you are correct. After the Clinton campaign brought this up during the Primary, what would have been really nice is if Obama, with a derisive roll of the eyes towards those who deserve it, had simply said, "somebody take a reporter and get a copy of my birth certificate so we can end this idiocy." And then ended it.
But no, we have the usual non-response "ignore it and it will go away" attitude that we have learned to know and love under the current administration. His grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and he has some obvious ties there. Could her memory be faulty? Sure. But, since the issue has been raised, and it is one of those definitively defined things in that pesky little inconvenience known as the Constitution, it should be resolved by some Federal non-partisan authority.
Oh, and a document of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of a natural born citizen. It and a birth certificate are two different documents.
So, yeah, while I think the preponderance of evidence indicates Obama's natural-birth citizenship, I would have preferred a different response.
Thus far, my opinion is getting to be: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Which isn't exactly true. The totalitarian government of "Brave New World" was much nicer than the totalitarian government of "1984".)