You understand, don't you, that there are people who DO NOT AGREE with your assertion that these leaders were properly elected, right? From that perspective, doesn't that make most of your points moot?
Well, I do understand that there are people who think that. I also know that some people think that, say, Ted Kennedy is actually a form of Scotch Drinking Orangutan. But that's only half true. Just because white-hot hatred of someone makes it soothing to see conspiracies where there's really just Florida voters who, possibly, can't handle the IQ-test that is a butterfly ballot, doesn't make the election less valid in actual terms. And even if you are hung up on that election, you've got the 2004 election, which Kerry lost in spectacular fit of Kerryness.
But it really doesn't matter, because talking about how half of any group didn't get things the way they wanted, and thus it's unfair (no matter WHO won) is silly. If Kerry had won, and was doing things EXACTLY like you want (talking congress into repealing DMCA, running out of the middle east as fast as the troops can move, talking the two-thirds of the legislature that wanted the PATRIOT act out of wantin it, etc), would you consider MY rant that since half of us didn't want him in office, that he should do a 180 and act by my wishes? No?
Where were you for the dmca, patriot act, iraq war, etc... Remember when half the country did put up a big stink and the leaders totally ignored it?
Well, since way more than half of the people that were elected by all of us to Congress decided the PATRIOT Act was an important set of tools, the question (rather than why "helf the people" weren't listened to) is why way more than half of them elected legislators that didn't do their bidding. Or did they?
If half of the people couldn't talk the "leaders" into changing their minds on what to do... what would you say for the other half (who elected them) if they turned their backs on what they said they'd do? You can't have it both ways.
So no, global warming is not debunked. It is real and it is happening. The real question is why.
Why is always a good question. But you can understand why, I hope, that some people relexively recoil at the immediate conclusion - offered from certain circles - about how, directly, we should be altering (or not!) various economies around the world because of what people in those circles say they already know about the process. It's just a foregone conclusion, for some reason, that the US should truck around their groceries less, but that China or India should be able to increase their use of less-regulated, very dirty internal combustion widgets at a fantastic rate. It's the odd political baggage that seems to accompany many of the proposed cures, here, that makes some people question motives - and thence question the validity of premises upon which so many of those motives are built.
Look, buddy. It's people like you, who insist on talking about facts, and reality, and other such stuff that are insensitive and completely wreck the notion that the universe is a warm, fuzzy, inherently fair place. Next thing you'll say is that taller people have an easier time getting stuff off the top shelves.
If you can't provide a service for people there is no reason you should be aloud to operate.
You mean, like being there for the spelling-challenged people that can't spell words like "allowed"? Doesn't it make you feel just a little odd, talking about what businesses the government should "allow" you to start?
Should be require every mom-and-pop store and restaurant to buy a TDD (Teletype Device for the Deaf) so that deaf people can call them on the phone and place orders?
No! Every store should have to employ someone who signs in American Sign Language (and every other dialect too, of course, in case you get a foreign handicapped person) to be ready to answer a video conference call. Also, in case of a Helen Keller type situation, you'll need someone who can spell things out in brail, real-time. Also, if that person weighs 500 or so pounds, the required electric wheelchairs (which should be able to auto-navigate the store in case you're blind, and read out to you in brail, what's on the shelves as you go by) should be able to handle at least half a ton skinniness-challenged shopper.
Your analogy isn't that bad considering many of those behind the disinformation campaign on AGW were also behind denying that smoking is bad for you.
I think you'll find that many people who are reflexively uncomfortable with some of what's talked about (politically, economically, etc) to address such pieces of climate change as can be addressed... will probably also be people who weren't, in any way, fooled by the tobacco apologists. Much of the discomfort on this subject, I think (I know it's true for me) comes because of the other idealogical baggage that seems to often ride along with those who most loudly evangelize on this particular topic.
I won't start a laundry list of the ride-along issues, because no honest reader will say they don't know what I mean. But the point is that there is such other nonsense that gets some mileage out of the same mouths as the people that dwell on the AGW (and related) topics that those truly interested in educating the non-scientific public on this complex topic should make every effort to distance themselves from those that also... think that genetically modified corn that can grow with less water is also a form of mind control from the guy that used to run Enron, who was really a 30th degree Mason and head bottle washer for the Tri-Lateral Commission, blahditty blah blah.
Separated from the baggage, the issue is a lot easier to talk about. People who find villainy in soccer moms with gas-using mini-vans, and use that as their opening line while trying to educate soccer moms because they think Soccer Mom may just also disagree with them on their interpretation of Marx... well, that's just too common.
Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved... Tell me more about the company since you appear to know so much about it and how its run... you dumbass.
Good thing I'm not talking about the company, per se. I'm talking about the general way in which things tend to happen when (no matter how much of the "community" you ask to get involved) people with a lot of time on their hands - and frequently with an axe to grind - become central to the research behind reporting.
It's the problem behind groupthink here, behind wikipedia flame orgies, etc. Just because you've got an on-sabbatical CPA pouring over the financial records of someone that a journalist in investigating doesn't mean that some other key perspecitve or fact-exposing insight is being properly taken into account or seen in the proper context.
Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional. Um, other than being professional political operatives, in that case.
You, sir, are REALLY missing the point. I don't care WHAT Nancy Pelosi says, and frankly, the people the you so loathe would probably be much happier if she DID have a lot more to say. The point is that it's the people in her own party that are anxious to stay out of her proximity while trying to get elected. Because they know she's poison. For example, a typical Democrat trying to win a seat in... say, Virginia... doesn't really want to make a big deal out of trumpeting her as the speaker of the house he just can't wait to answer to. Her politics are way off the radar, in much the way that some loopy right-wingers are way, way off the mark.
She's just fine a representative of her local constituents, because she probably is a good fit for that microcosm. But as the person who would set the agenda for legislative activies for all of Congress, she's a little disturbing... a not least to a lot of people in her own party. Which is why she's mysteriously absent from the scene in the days right ahead of a mid-term election. Doesn't that say something to you, too?
If you "people" (& I use that word loosely) don't lose big next week it will be time for another American Revolution.
I see. Because that would mean that the majority of the voters in your country electing legislators didn't like the people you're backing? Is there any chance that the fractured, shrill, it's-all-about-who-we're-against tone of so many Democrat campaigns this year aren't exactly inspiring? There are plenty of losers on both sides of the fence. But your "it's revolution time" sentiment is actually what a lot of your idealogical opponents were feeling after decades of your party dominating congress and experiencing huge inflation, high unemployment, and many other gripes.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that you feel the need to revolt, rather than make a lucid, positive case for what you'd actually do with legislative power? How would you keep taxes down? How would you keep unemployment below 5%, as it is now? How would you talk the Europeans into actually acting on Iran? It doesn't matter what your answers are... what matters is that maybe they'd be something other than "the Republicans are doing it all wrong, and we're gonna have us some hearings!" That's the Pelosi refrain, and that's my point. Much of the Democratic party seems to get that, too. Why don't you?
The people who "normally" get the disproportionate share of sound bite coverage are Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi & Tony "Fucking" Snow.
Gee, do you think maybe that's because they are the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense in the middle of armed conflict, the secretary of state, and the president's spokesman (you know, the person who's JOB is to brief journalists every day)?
So, when Clinton was in office, you didn't hear soundbites from him, or Al Gore, or Madeline Albright? No? Like, when she came back triumphantly from North Korea having solved that whole problem? Gee, I seem to remember hearing endless coverage of that at the time. If your thought is that, when you don't like the administration in office, YOU should be able to dictate who does their talking, but when you DO like the administration, they're just fine talking for themselves, then your hypocrisy is quite something. But it's a little academic, because when I turn on CNN, most of the talking head interviews I see, which are very critical of the administration, are all former Clintonites, sound-biting away. Did you refer to him as "George 'Fucking' Stephanopoulis" back in the day? Or Sandy 'Fucking Classified Document Thief' Berger?
Where have you been fucking living the last six years?
My point is that some of the movers and shakers (or at least, the people who seem to get a disporportionate share of the sound-bite coverage under normal circumsatnces - people like her) are astoundingly absent from the PR circuit right now. She's a popular (understandibly) demon for many people because she's lefter than most, and the dems don't really want to shout LEFTY LEFT LEFTIST! too loud while trying to get normal people elected. So someone's talked her into S-ing-TFU for the last week.
And if enough Citizen Researchers say so, by golly, we'll have a witch burning! I mean, if the crowd says so, it's got to be true! Also, the crowd can just edit the related entries on Wikipedia and make it true, with footnotes.
Um... or are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff? And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior? So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do?
Using generalizations the way you do, talking about "the people in Baghdad", tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding
The verdict was read. So far (as of my writing): happy people in the street (um, well, some burning Saddam pictures, but they seem to be smiling while doing it), and not the usual drama of a bicycle-bomb-in-the-market type of insurgent craziness. It is reasonable to say "the people in Baghdad" in the sense that more of them were doing something celebratory than violent, no matter how much that might have given some media outlets a wet dream.
And it's spelled "Karl" Rove
Ah hah! His evil operatives just want you to think so.
Meaning, "co" - "incident" - as in, two things, happening at the same time, yes. Have you not actually be following the trial? The Iraqi court has been pretty much right on the schedule they planned, but actually delayed a bit by some diversions (like one judge getting the heave-ho for speaking his opinion on things out of context, or Saddam's supporters wacking some of the legal team, that sort of thing).
I'm guessing, from your tone, that you probably think that supporting the new Iraqi government is a bad thing. We lost 100 military personnel last month doing that. Are you suggesting that's also part of some plot? Things are unfolding there as things are unfolding. Most things that happen there are painted as toxic-ly as possible in the media, and are definitely being used (however absurdly in some cases) as political attacks on the administration. Are you including that non-stop drumbeat in your it's-all-about-the-election rant, or only the things that are good? The people in Baghdad were out in the streets celebrating the sentence today. I supposed you think Carl Rove was out there with a megaphone directing the people?
I thought that this was an automatic appeal. After the appeal the sentence must be carried out within 1 month.
Correct. This automatically goes to appeal. The defense has 30 days to file motions in that venue, and there is no set time limit on the appeal process. But once the appeals court says it's done, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days (assuming the sentence stands).
You've also got another scenario: big ol' nasty fuel/oxidizer leak. You could hop in a passive (enclosed) car for a 32 f/s/s-quickening ride out to a bunker, or, you could use the ejection method, and light a big ol' ejection rocket right on top of the giant leaking tower of flammable stuff. I think you'd want both options, so that you can react to a range of hazards. If they need to bug out, they'll usually know why... and they may very well not be in the capsule (yet) when they see they need to. For that matter, the pad workers may have the need hours before the crew even saddles up.
The Republican Party has decided to use the same system to safely shuttle away incumbent lawmakers from the Whitehouse.
Riotous! Um, other than that whole "lawmakers work in the senate and the congress" part. It's the C-in-C, a part of the Executive branch, that operates from the White House. But never mind what they're planning... it looks like Nancy Pelosi has already used this system, since her party has managed to completely eject her from view so that she doesn't actually say anything in front of a camera before the election. System works great, apparently!
Um... what, because when UK journalists report the story, it's Americans getting all excited? Or would you be trying to pretend that an actually disturbing development, field by Iran's posture, is somehow the US's fault, rather than being the regional scariness that it is?
No, you fail at remembering there people with cash
on
Oceans Empty By 2048?
·
· Score: 1
No, if Tuna went for $300 a can, no one would buy it. You fail at economics.
Dude, you're taking all of the fun out of people being total loons on this subject. How are they supposed to get a good, solid, tin-foil-needed mental breakdown going if you just go and point out that their theories are absurd? Completely rude, on a Friday night, to make a rambling drunk fool actually... be a fool. That's OK, though, because he's holding his hands over his ears and going, "la la la!"
Come on, now. We all know what we're talking about here: entire Simpsons episodes. Large chunks of "The Daily Show" or a whole stand-up routine from some Chris Rock HBO special. That's the stuff that's going to get them in hot water, and they know it. And - what a shock! - it's a pain in the ass that their users keep putting that stuff up there. Of course, if they weren't making money off of it, that might change things... but they ARE making money off of it, needless to say.
So when people complain that I'm weird for liking a data center cold enough in which to hang meat, I'll have the last laugh? Enjoy your warm, short life in those cozy, tropical getaways, suckers! I'll be here configuring a new web appliance in one of my racks, freezing my ass off and barely able to type with my cold, stiff hands. Hah! I win!
Slashdot Mirror
You understand, don't you, that there are people who DO NOT AGREE with your assertion that these leaders were properly elected, right? From that perspective, doesn't that make most of your points moot?
Well, I do understand that there are people who think that. I also know that some people think that, say, Ted Kennedy is actually a form of Scotch Drinking Orangutan. But that's only half true. Just because white-hot hatred of someone makes it soothing to see conspiracies where there's really just Florida voters who, possibly, can't handle the IQ-test that is a butterfly ballot, doesn't make the election less valid in actual terms. And even if you are hung up on that election, you've got the 2004 election, which Kerry lost in spectacular fit of Kerryness.
But it really doesn't matter, because talking about how half of any group didn't get things the way they wanted, and thus it's unfair (no matter WHO won) is silly. If Kerry had won, and was doing things EXACTLY like you want (talking congress into repealing DMCA, running out of the middle east as fast as the troops can move, talking the two-thirds of the legislature that wanted the PATRIOT act out of wantin it, etc), would you consider MY rant that since half of us didn't want him in office, that he should do a 180 and act by my wishes? No?
Where were you for the dmca, patriot act, iraq war, etc... Remember when half the country did put up a big stink and the leaders totally ignored it?
Well, since way more than half of the people that were elected by all of us to Congress decided the PATRIOT Act was an important set of tools, the question (rather than why "helf the people" weren't listened to) is why way more than half of them elected legislators that didn't do their bidding. Or did they?
If half of the people couldn't talk the "leaders" into changing their minds on what to do... what would you say for the other half (who elected them) if they turned their backs on what they said they'd do? You can't have it both ways.
"An anonymous reader writes..."
Fabulous!
The phrase "minor-attracted adults" makes baby Orwell cry.
I know. People who use phrases like that to sugar-coat creepy personality quirks have... "baseball-bat-attracting heads."
500 pounds is a quarter ton.
Yes, but you're forgetting about the payload, man! That 500-pound person is at the store to pick up about 500 pounds of tasty snacks.
So no, global warming is not debunked. It is real and it is happening. The real question is why.
Why is always a good question. But you can understand why, I hope, that some people relexively recoil at the immediate conclusion - offered from certain circles - about how, directly, we should be altering (or not!) various economies around the world because of what people in those circles say they already know about the process. It's just a foregone conclusion, for some reason, that the US should truck around their groceries less, but that China or India should be able to increase their use of less-regulated, very dirty internal combustion widgets at a fantastic rate. It's the odd political baggage that seems to accompany many of the proposed cures, here, that makes some people question motives - and thence question the validity of premises upon which so many of those motives are built.
Look, buddy. It's people like you, who insist on talking about facts, and reality, and other such stuff that are insensitive and completely wreck the notion that the universe is a warm, fuzzy, inherently fair place. Next thing you'll say is that taller people have an easier time getting stuff off the top shelves.
If you can't provide a service for people there is no reason you should be aloud to operate.
You mean, like being there for the spelling-challenged people that can't spell words like "allowed"? Doesn't it make you feel just a little odd, talking about what businesses the government should "allow" you to start?
Should be require every mom-and-pop store and restaurant to buy a TDD (Teletype Device for the Deaf) so that deaf people can call them on the phone and place orders?
No! Every store should have to employ someone who signs in American Sign Language (and every other dialect too, of course, in case you get a foreign handicapped person) to be ready to answer a video conference call. Also, in case of a Helen Keller type situation, you'll need someone who can spell things out in brail, real-time. Also, if that person weighs 500 or so pounds, the required electric wheelchairs (which should be able to auto-navigate the store in case you're blind, and read out to you in brail, what's on the shelves as you go by) should be able to handle at least half a ton skinniness-challenged shopper.
*sigh*
Your analogy isn't that bad considering many of those behind the disinformation campaign on AGW were also behind denying that smoking is bad for you.
... think that genetically modified corn that can grow with less water is also a form of mind control from the guy that used to run Enron, who was really a 30th degree Mason and head bottle washer for the Tri-Lateral Commission, blahditty blah blah.
I think you'll find that many people who are reflexively uncomfortable with some of what's talked about (politically, economically, etc) to address such pieces of climate change as can be addressed... will probably also be people who weren't, in any way, fooled by the tobacco apologists. Much of the discomfort on this subject, I think (I know it's true for me) comes because of the other idealogical baggage that seems to often ride along with those who most loudly evangelize on this particular topic.
I won't start a laundry list of the ride-along issues, because no honest reader will say they don't know what I mean. But the point is that there is such other nonsense that gets some mileage out of the same mouths as the people that dwell on the AGW (and related) topics that those truly interested in educating the non-scientific public on this complex topic should make every effort to distance themselves from those that also
Separated from the baggage, the issue is a lot easier to talk about. People who find villainy in soccer moms with gas-using mini-vans, and use that as their opening line while trying to educate soccer moms because they think Soccer Mom may just also disagree with them on their interpretation of Marx... well, that's just too common.
Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved ... Tell me more about the company since you appear to know so much about it and how its run ... you dumbass.
Good thing I'm not talking about the company, per se. I'm talking about the general way in which things tend to happen when (no matter how much of the "community" you ask to get involved) people with a lot of time on their hands - and frequently with an axe to grind - become central to the research behind reporting.
It's the problem behind groupthink here, behind wikipedia flame orgies, etc. Just because you've got an on-sabbatical CPA pouring over the financial records of someone that a journalist in investigating doesn't mean that some other key perspecitve or fact-exposing insight is being properly taken into account or seen in the proper context.
The old style media was so good at that, right?
Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional. Um, other than being professional political operatives, in that case.
You, sir, are REALLY missing the point. I don't care WHAT Nancy Pelosi says, and frankly, the people the you so loathe would probably be much happier if she DID have a lot more to say. The point is that it's the people in her own party that are anxious to stay out of her proximity while trying to get elected. Because they know she's poison. For example, a typical Democrat trying to win a seat in... say, Virginia... doesn't really want to make a big deal out of trumpeting her as the speaker of the house he just can't wait to answer to. Her politics are way off the radar, in much the way that some loopy right-wingers are way, way off the mark.
She's just fine a representative of her local constituents, because she probably is a good fit for that microcosm. But as the person who would set the agenda for legislative activies for all of Congress, she's a little disturbing... a not least to a lot of people in her own party. Which is why she's mysteriously absent from the scene in the days right ahead of a mid-term election. Doesn't that say something to you, too?
If you "people" (& I use that word loosely) don't lose big next week it will be time for another American Revolution.
I see. Because that would mean that the majority of the voters in your country electing legislators didn't like the people you're backing? Is there any chance that the fractured, shrill, it's-all-about-who-we're-against tone of so many Democrat campaigns this year aren't exactly inspiring? There are plenty of losers on both sides of the fence. But your "it's revolution time" sentiment is actually what a lot of your idealogical opponents were feeling after decades of your party dominating congress and experiencing huge inflation, high unemployment, and many other gripes.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that you feel the need to revolt, rather than make a lucid, positive case for what you'd actually do with legislative power? How would you keep taxes down? How would you keep unemployment below 5%, as it is now? How would you talk the Europeans into actually acting on Iran? It doesn't matter what your answers are... what matters is that maybe they'd be something other than "the Republicans are doing it all wrong, and we're gonna have us some hearings!" That's the Pelosi refrain, and that's my point. Much of the Democratic party seems to get that, too. Why don't you?
The people who "normally" get the disproportionate share of sound bite coverage are Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi & Tony "Fucking" Snow.
Gee, do you think maybe that's because they are the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense in the middle of armed conflict, the secretary of state, and the president's spokesman (you know, the person who's JOB is to brief journalists every day)?
So, when Clinton was in office, you didn't hear soundbites from him, or Al Gore, or Madeline Albright? No? Like, when she came back triumphantly from North Korea having solved that whole problem? Gee, I seem to remember hearing endless coverage of that at the time. If your thought is that, when you don't like the administration in office, YOU should be able to dictate who does their talking, but when you DO like the administration, they're just fine talking for themselves, then your hypocrisy is quite something. But it's a little academic, because when I turn on CNN, most of the talking head interviews I see, which are very critical of the administration, are all former Clintonites, sound-biting away. Did you refer to him as "George 'Fucking' Stephanopoulis" back in the day? Or Sandy 'Fucking Classified Document Thief' Berger?
Where have you been fucking living the last six years?
My point is that some of the movers and shakers (or at least, the people who seem to get a disporportionate share of the sound-bite coverage under normal circumsatnces - people like her) are astoundingly absent from the PR circuit right now. She's a popular (understandibly) demon for many people because she's lefter than most, and the dems don't really want to shout LEFTY LEFT LEFTIST! too loud while trying to get normal people elected. So someone's talked her into S-ing-TFU for the last week.
And if enough Citizen Researchers say so, by golly, we'll have a witch burning! I mean, if the crowd says so, it's got to be true! Also, the crowd can just edit the related entries on Wikipedia and make it true, with footnotes.
Um... or are we still using editors before we go public with this stuff? And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources, understand the legal ramifications of publishing stuff, and all of that old stodgy professional behavior? So, really, this is just about making things sensational enough to get a lot of people to volunteer to do the basic research that staffers used to do?
Using generalizations the way you do, talking about "the people in Baghdad", tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding
The verdict was read. So far (as of my writing): happy people in the street (um, well, some burning Saddam pictures, but they seem to be smiling while doing it), and not the usual drama of a bicycle-bomb-in-the-market type of insurgent craziness. It is reasonable to say "the people in Baghdad" in the sense that more of them were doing something celebratory than violent, no matter how much that might have given some media outlets a wet dream.
And it's spelled "Karl" Rove
Ah hah! His evil operatives just want you to think so.
That's just a coincidence, right?
Meaning, "co" - "incident" - as in, two things, happening at the same time, yes. Have you not actually be following the trial? The Iraqi court has been pretty much right on the schedule they planned, but actually delayed a bit by some diversions (like one judge getting the heave-ho for speaking his opinion on things out of context, or Saddam's supporters wacking some of the legal team, that sort of thing).
I'm guessing, from your tone, that you probably think that supporting the new Iraqi government is a bad thing. We lost 100 military personnel last month doing that. Are you suggesting that's also part of some plot? Things are unfolding there as things are unfolding. Most things that happen there are painted as toxic-ly as possible in the media, and are definitely being used (however absurdly in some cases) as political attacks on the administration. Are you including that non-stop drumbeat in your it's-all-about-the-election rant, or only the things that are good? The people in Baghdad were out in the streets celebrating the sentence today. I supposed you think Carl Rove was out there with a megaphone directing the people?
I thought that this was an automatic appeal. After the appeal the sentence must be carried out within 1 month.
Correct. This automatically goes to appeal. The defense has 30 days to file motions in that venue, and there is no set time limit on the appeal process. But once the appeals court says it's done, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days (assuming the sentence stands).
You've also got another scenario: big ol' nasty fuel/oxidizer leak. You could hop in a passive (enclosed) car for a 32 f/s/s-quickening ride out to a bunker, or, you could use the ejection method, and light a big ol' ejection rocket right on top of the giant leaking tower of flammable stuff. I think you'd want both options, so that you can react to a range of hazards. If they need to bug out, they'll usually know why... and they may very well not be in the capsule (yet) when they see they need to. For that matter, the pad workers may have the need hours before the crew even saddles up.
The Republican Party has decided to use the same system to safely shuttle away incumbent lawmakers from the Whitehouse.
Riotous! Um, other than that whole "lawmakers work in the senate and the congress" part. It's the C-in-C, a part of the Executive branch, that operates from the White House. But never mind what they're planning... it looks like Nancy Pelosi has already used this system, since her party has managed to completely eject her from view so that she doesn't actually say anything in front of a camera before the election. System works great, apparently!
BS political scare stories
Um... what, because when UK journalists report the story, it's Americans getting all excited? Or would you be trying to pretend that an actually disturbing development, field by Iran's posture, is somehow the US's fault, rather than being the regional scariness that it is?
No, if Tuna went for $300 a can, no one would buy it. You fail at economics.
For example...
The real explanation is much more mundane.
... be a fool. That's OK, though, because he's holding his hands over his ears and going, "la la la!"
Dude, you're taking all of the fun out of people being total loons on this subject. How are they supposed to get a good, solid, tin-foil-needed mental breakdown going if you just go and point out that their theories are absurd? Completely rude, on a Friday night, to make a rambling drunk fool actually
Come on, now. We all know what we're talking about here: entire Simpsons episodes. Large chunks of "The Daily Show" or a whole stand-up routine from some Chris Rock HBO special. That's the stuff that's going to get them in hot water, and they know it. And - what a shock! - it's a pain in the ass that their users keep putting that stuff up there. Of course, if they weren't making money off of it, that might change things... but they ARE making money off of it, needless to say.
So when people complain that I'm weird for liking a data center cold enough in which to hang meat, I'll have the last laugh? Enjoy your warm, short life in those cozy, tropical getaways, suckers! I'll be here configuring a new web appliance in one of my racks, freezing my ass off and barely able to type with my cold, stiff hands. Hah! I win!