I may be double-wooshing but that wasn't a point he was making, it is the answer he expects from the very people he criticizes, in this case (if you weren't just trying to be funny), that means you. As such you likely made his point rather than dismissed it.
if thats ok I suppose if I get a copy of your house key I should be able to take whatever I want.
Well, for your analogy to be accurate: If you get yourself a house identical to mine, find pictures of the inside of mine and decide to make copies of my furniture and other stuff at your own cost, I have absolutely no problem with it. Even if I had spent lots of money designing my interior decoration, buying the stuff, etc. If you can do it for a minute fraction of what it cost me, I'll be nothing but happy for you.
I don't know how experienced you are with the recycling industry but even with very easy to recycle material (we processed paper), recycling is pretty energy intensive.
Sure you get economy of scales going if you can find a way to run a continuous process (as opposed to an interrupted, batch process) but how much of that is applicable to solar pannels?
You can't just toss them into a vat, grind them, melt them and mould new ones out of what comes out. But even if you could, the separation processes would pretty much kill any net energy 'gain' they put into the grid in the first place.
They work well, we use them in several of our locations. They're quite practical in many other applications. But until I see them power the sort of industrial processes required to make them, I'll stick to my side of that 'bet'.
Now if you OP had suggested a solar thermal plant, I wouldn't have risked angering the mighty priests of our new eco-religion with my opinion.
They might not be all that cost-effective but they do have potential to draw out more energy our of the sun than was drawn out of non-renewable sources to manufacture them.
Do not kid yourself as to how much energy goes into making a steel pipe, block of concrete or pane of glass. That's a lot of kilowatts to live up to.
And my bet is that that requires more energy than they ever produced... Then you need roughly that much power to make new ones out of the recycled materials. Overall they're still a net loss. Won't always be and I certainly commend all the science that goes into their improvement... But by that standard, cold fusion is also a viable solution.
You didn't read it properly, what caused the incident is a *man*. To be fair, let's say human (as this would work just as well with a female). My mention of mental problems is not really that important to the point I made.
A creature with free will and capable of making decisions, in this case very wrong decisions. You can blame guns and republicans and propaganda all you want but the root of my argument is that a person did this. Blaming ideas, guns, tv or whatever else is a scapegoat.
What caused this incident to happen is a man with apparently quite serious mental problems. Not those 'dangerous' ideas you feel should be censored because you disagree with them and not the fact that guns weren't illegal enough.
Stupid gullible and easily 'herdable' people aren't the cause of the problem, they're the symptom.
You don't cure a appendicitis by popping in pain pills and you won't cure society by controlling stupid gullible people into acting the way *you* think they should act. If you want to do something about that, promote critical thinking.
Of course then you run the risk of those stupid people outsmarting you and depriving you of your high-horse perspective.
Do you prefer the alternative of a system that thinks you are too dumb to make your own decisions?
It's fine to think people are too stupid to manage the responsibilities that come with their liberties right up to the point where you're the one whose liberties are taken away because someone above you lumped you in with the 'dumb people'. If you're not willing to have faith in your fellow humans, don't expect them to think much of you in return. I assure you that those who make such rules will not make a distinction between you and the senseless idiots you find undeserving of personal freedom. It may not be the 2nd amendment in your case (or mine, really, I don't really want to own a gun), but that principle applies to all liberties.
I think we'll only know for sure once we get there as this is largely a matter of belief and philosophy, not one of absolute knowledge. Keep in mind that these are issues solved over many generations, not either of our lifetimes.
If you could model systems as complex as global populations and every factors that influence them to the point of reaching conclusive certitude in your position, then I suggest you first apply your algorithm to the stock market and become rich enough to buy the entire world.
In the meantime I'll work on educating and industrializing my fellow humans and you can work on... well either killing and/or not reproducing with them I guess.
Alright, who's in charge of deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Population explosions are usually a survival mechanism. Past a certain level of prosperity and education, you have bigger problems with population decline. If you want to 'control populations', give them liberty and education. There are more than enough resources left on earth to reach that goal but our great civilized cultures would rather see the starving masses die off than elevated to our own level if one is to believe people like you.
You vote with your vote for/against parties, you vote with your wallet for/against corporations. Ironically, wallet democracy typically is a lot more effective. Companies are very quick to drop strategies that do not sell well.
As a Canadian, I have to say I can only agree on the surface. Our underbelly is just as dark if not darker than that of the US. We just seem to have better PR and a population so hooked on government-provided goodies that its general view of the government is that of benevolent (if childish) provider.
Yeah, no shit. It's not his job to be Ron Paul. As a Democrat Feingold supports all sorts of economic policies that Republicans and Libertarians think violate individual liberty due to their naively constructed notions thereof, and he puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to keeping government from forcing religion down our throats.
The libertarian (and Paul's) position is that the government has no business concerning matters of religion be it promoting *or* forbidding them. Sure he wouldn't vote for a law preventing school prayer but keep in mind that he wouldn't vote for a law that mandates it either. His stance on abortion is similar despite his personal religious convictions.
Keep in mind that with state and local governments, you have an extra voting option: your feet. It may sound silly but it is quite significant. It is (relatively) easy to move out of a state if you don't like the laws and states will ultimately have to compete with each-other to come up with good laws or face exodus of their tax income.
Just a note on his voting record: If he voted against gay adoption in DC, it most likely was because he thinks the federal government has no business deciding on such things, not because he may (or may not) agree with them personally. He explained his stance on abortion the same way. Now that's not to say he doesn't state his personal view on that last matter to gain political support among people who share it but if any politician can be trusted to vote on constitutional principle rather than personal belief, I'd say he's it.
It would also promote efficiency. 'unlimited' data leads to a lot of waste in my opinion. When there's some constraint on bandwidth (even relatively mild), it makes people consider cost/benefit of whatever they put/get online.
Actually, according to an interview I saw with his lawyer, the authorities always knew where he was and never had problem getting a hold of him. He's not on the run or in hiding except for the media for obvious reasons.
In fact, according to the same interview, the judge refused to see him when he was summoned and instead decided to issue the arrest warrant.
This is just me repeating what his lawyer said in an interview, btw... Not something I have first hand knowledge of, but I think that if the second bit is true, the entire point would be to make a big deal out of a the non-issue that is his legal situation.
Changing a DNS entry does not deprive anyone of "life, liberty or property".
You're mistaken on the purpose of the Constitution. It isn't there to provide life liberty and prosperity. It is there to limit the federal government to a specific set of powers. This is the federal government overstepping by a pretty broad margin the scope of powers defined in the constitution by exploiting either of the two loopholes: the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause.
Trying to argue that this falls under national defence wouldn't hold water either.
There are plenty of competent, sane people to fill those positions, we don't need to select for any of several psychoses.
The people with the kind of integrity and intelligence required, though common, also lack desire to be in control. I think that what is needed is a sense of personal duty. It should be your duty to try to be elected not because you want to be but because you *don't*.
And that goes for a lot of you reading this. You don't have to aim for President of the US there. Any public office will do. Run for sheriff, town councillor, etc. Learn the constitution and stand by its (and your) principles. If you can't run, encourage others to study these principles and run. We don't even need power and influence to defeat the establishment, we can very easily manage with sheer numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
I may be double-wooshing but that wasn't a point he was making, it is the answer he expects from the very people he criticizes, in this case (if you weren't just trying to be funny), that means you. As such you likely made his point rather than dismissed it.
In Quebec, the $ goes after the number. $ is not only used for USD.
if thats ok I suppose if I get a copy of your house key I should be able to take whatever I want.
Well, for your analogy to be accurate: If you get yourself a house identical to mine, find pictures of the inside of mine and decide to make copies of my furniture and other stuff at your own cost, I have absolutely no problem with it. Even if I had spent lots of money designing my interior decoration, buying the stuff, etc. If you can do it for a minute fraction of what it cost me, I'll be nothing but happy for you.
It's like we stopped developing automobiles because some people became afraid of them.
I'm pretty sure, we're getting there already too.
Imagine it only capable of uploading 16 colour 640x400 imagery.
Well, assuming she's just born, chances are Facebook will go belly up before she's 10.
I don't know how experienced you are with the recycling industry but even with very easy to recycle material (we processed paper), recycling is pretty energy intensive.
Sure you get economy of scales going if you can find a way to run a continuous process (as opposed to an interrupted, batch process) but how much of that is applicable to solar pannels?
You can't just toss them into a vat, grind them, melt them and mould new ones out of what comes out. But even if you could, the separation processes would pretty much kill any net energy 'gain' they put into the grid in the first place.
They work well, we use them in several of our locations. They're quite practical in many other applications. But until I see them power the sort of industrial processes required to make them, I'll stick to my side of that 'bet'.
Now if you OP had suggested a solar thermal plant, I wouldn't have risked angering the mighty priests of our new eco-religion with my opinion.
They might not be all that cost-effective but they do have potential to draw out more energy our of the sun than was drawn out of non-renewable sources to manufacture them.
Do not kid yourself as to how much energy goes into making a steel pipe, block of concrete or pane of glass. That's a lot of kilowatts to live up to.
And my bet is that that requires more energy than they ever produced... Then you need roughly that much power to make new ones out of the recycled materials. Overall they're still a net loss. Won't always be and I certainly commend all the science that goes into their improvement... But by that standard, cold fusion is also a viable solution.
You didn't read it properly, what caused the incident is a *man*. To be fair, let's say human (as this would work just as well with a female). My mention of mental problems is not really that important to the point I made.
A creature with free will and capable of making decisions, in this case very wrong decisions. You can blame guns and republicans and propaganda all you want but the root of my argument is that a person did this. Blaming ideas, guns, tv or whatever else is a scapegoat.
What caused this incident to happen is a man with apparently quite serious mental problems. Not those 'dangerous' ideas you feel should be censored because you disagree with them and not the fact that guns weren't illegal enough.
Stupid gullible and easily 'herdable' people aren't the cause of the problem, they're the symptom.
You don't cure a appendicitis by popping in pain pills and you won't cure society by controlling stupid gullible people into acting the way *you* think they should act. If you want to do something about that, promote critical thinking.
Of course then you run the risk of those stupid people outsmarting you and depriving you of your high-horse perspective.
Do you prefer the alternative of a system that thinks you are too dumb to make your own decisions?
It's fine to think people are too stupid to manage the responsibilities that come with their liberties right up to the point where you're the one whose liberties are taken away because someone above you lumped you in with the 'dumb people'. If you're not willing to have faith in your fellow humans, don't expect them to think much of you in return. I assure you that those who make such rules will not make a distinction between you and the senseless idiots you find undeserving of personal freedom. It may not be the 2nd amendment in your case (or mine, really, I don't really want to own a gun), but that principle applies to all liberties.
I think we'll only know for sure once we get there as this is largely a matter of belief and philosophy, not one of absolute knowledge. Keep in mind that these are issues solved over many generations, not either of our lifetimes.
If you could model systems as complex as global populations and every factors that influence them to the point of reaching conclusive certitude in your position, then I suggest you first apply your algorithm to the stock market and become rich enough to buy the entire world.
In the meantime I'll work on educating and industrializing my fellow humans and you can work on... well either killing and/or not reproducing with them I guess.
Alright, who's in charge of deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Population explosions are usually a survival mechanism. Past a certain level of prosperity and education, you have bigger problems with population decline. If you want to 'control populations', give them liberty and education. There are more than enough resources left on earth to reach that goal but our great civilized cultures would rather see the starving masses die off than elevated to our own level if one is to believe people like you.
You vote with your vote for/against parties, you vote with your wallet for/against corporations. Ironically, wallet democracy typically is a lot more effective. Companies are very quick to drop strategies that do not sell well.
As a Canadian, I have to say I can only agree on the surface. Our underbelly is just as dark if not darker than that of the US. We just seem to have better PR and a population so hooked on government-provided goodies that its general view of the government is that of benevolent (if childish) provider.
If I may be so naive... Wouldn't it be better to exchange wealth?
Yeah, no shit. It's not his job to be Ron Paul. As a Democrat Feingold supports all sorts of economic policies that Republicans and Libertarians think violate individual liberty due to their naively constructed notions thereof, and he puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to keeping government from forcing religion down our throats.
The libertarian (and Paul's) position is that the government has no business concerning matters of religion be it promoting *or* forbidding them. Sure he wouldn't vote for a law preventing school prayer but keep in mind that he wouldn't vote for a law that mandates it either. His stance on abortion is similar despite his personal religious convictions.
Keep in mind that with state and local governments, you have an extra voting option: your feet. It may sound silly but it is quite significant. It is (relatively) easy to move out of a state if you don't like the laws and states will ultimately have to compete with each-other to come up with good laws or face exodus of their tax income.
As someone posted above:
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
So you have rape stories in the leaks too. They're just a bit worse than the charges laid against Assange.
Just a note on his voting record: If he voted against gay adoption in DC, it most likely was because he thinks the federal government has no business deciding on such things, not because he may (or may not) agree with them personally. He explained his stance on abortion the same way. Now that's not to say he doesn't state his personal view on that last matter to gain political support among people who share it but if any politician can be trusted to vote on constitutional principle rather than personal belief, I'd say he's it.
It would also promote efficiency. 'unlimited' data leads to a lot of waste in my opinion. When there's some constraint on bandwidth (even relatively mild), it makes people consider cost/benefit of whatever they put/get online.
Actually, according to an interview I saw with his lawyer, the authorities always knew where he was and never had problem getting a hold of him. He's not on the run or in hiding except for the media for obvious reasons.
In fact, according to the same interview, the judge refused to see him when he was summoned and instead decided to issue the arrest warrant.
This is just me repeating what his lawyer said in an interview, btw... Not something I have first hand knowledge of, but I think that if the second bit is true, the entire point would be to make a big deal out of a the non-issue that is his legal situation.
As a robot designed to post on slashdot, my owner probably disagrees. True laziness is when you have robots do your thinking for you.
Changing a DNS entry does not deprive anyone of "life, liberty or property".
You're mistaken on the purpose of the Constitution. It isn't there to provide life liberty and prosperity. It is there to limit the federal government to a specific set of powers. This is the federal government overstepping by a pretty broad margin the scope of powers defined in the constitution by exploiting either of the two loopholes: the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause.
Trying to argue that this falls under national defence wouldn't hold water either.
There are plenty of competent, sane people to fill those positions, we don't need to select for any of several psychoses.
The people with the kind of integrity and intelligence required, though common, also lack desire to be in control. I think that what is needed is a sense of personal duty. It should be your duty to try to be elected not because you want to be but because you *don't*.
And that goes for a lot of you reading this. You don't have to aim for President of the US there. Any public office will do. Run for sheriff, town councillor, etc. Learn the constitution and stand by its (and your) principles. If you can't run, encourage others to study these principles and run. We don't even need power and influence to defeat the establishment, we can very easily manage with sheer numbers.