Try going to McDonald's or any place where "I need to eat and get back to work ASAP" serves up food. You can't get what you're looking for. Back in Texas, we have "Souper Salad." Those places are awesome... get what you need/want and fast and cheap. Out here on the east coast, that chain and none like it exists out here.
On the West Coast, where culture and technology comes from, we have an invention known as "Fresh Choice" where you may assemble your own salad and eat it at your own pace, yea verily, even back in your cubicle. We've had Souper Salads out here in California, too, not sure if any are left. Regardless, I'll have the soup. Iceberg fail.
It's called a salad bar and they can be found all over the US.
>>>if you live on mostly meats without much in the way of carbs, you'll be just fine and your body will consume those "bad fats."
What BS. The bad fats will simply accumulate in the walls of your arteries, giving them a "foam" appearance until a clot is formed. Then you die like the doctor who came-up with this "eat lots of fat" diet.
You mean that eating lots of fat will cause you to slip on ice in a snow storm? Dr. Atkins died from a head wound at the age of 73. He slipped on ice and bashed his head against concrete.
Also, there is nothing in the Atkins diet that forbids the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The trick is to limit carbs. You could actually maintain an Atkins lifestyle and still remain a vegetarian, although you will be eating an awful lot of leafy green vegetables.
Disclaimer: I tried the Atkins diet for about a year. Not only did my weight dropped to a healthy level, but my blood work actually improved. I had a physical before I started Atkins and then again a year later. My blood pressure dropped from normal-high to normal. My cholesterol level dropped to normal levels. My BMI was excellent. My doctor was amazed and complemented me on my exercise healthy diet. Of course, I was not exercising and the doctor thought I was eating nuts and twigs. I was in great shape and all I did was eat nothing but bacon, eggs, chicken, cheese, beef, salad and other low carb foods such as berries and salad. A typical lunch when someone else was paying was a fatty ribeye with butter and a salad drenched in Ranch dressing. Or, I might opt for a hamburger, minus the bun with blue cheese and a salad with blue cheese dressing.
I had to get off of the Atkins diet when the economy turned south. Pasta, rice and bread is cheap. Ribeye steaks are expensive.
When chickens are raised on a diet or worms that grow in fresh cow dung, the consistency, flavor, and overall health of their eggs is substantially higher than what is generally available in the supermarket.
For some reason, the more you talk up animal products, the more I want to become a vegan.
Funny you would say that. Have you seen the crap that vegetables are grown in? As someone who grows his own vegetables, let me tell you how to make the most healthy soil available.
1) Start with fresh manure from a herbivore. That's crap from a vegetarian to you city folk. Bunny crap works the best when mixed with urine soaked saw dust. Horse manure mixed with urine soaked bedding, cow, goat,llama or other large, herbivore mammal will also work. 2) Allow it to rot for a few months. (This is a good additive as is, but we can make it better) 3) Feed the rotted manure it to worms. Red Wigglers are the most common. 4) Separate the live worms from the worm crap. 5) The crap that is left is the best soil you will ever run across and it will produce the greatest vegetables on the planet.
That's right. Crap from crap fed worms is the best soil imaginable. Of course, that re-crapped crap is what is absorbed into the plants, mixed with water, CO2 and sunlight to make the vegetables you eat. And they are delicious!
Of course, some animal products can be beneficial as well. Bone meal (ground up animal bones), blood meal and fish emulsion are also beneficial, but nothing compares to good old worm shit.
Don't think that just because you are vegetarian that you are not eating crap. Manure is the most important product in agriculture behind sunlight and water.
"The guy didn't say anything about current warming, carbon dioxide, human activities or anything else."
Well, perhaps not in this article. Thanks to google, it's not hard to find where Henrik Svensmark's climate change chips lie. Here's something to get you started, complete with a potent musical background:
So you are saying he's not a scientist? I have to ask because we are all talking like he is a scientist, but, as we all know, there is a consensus among all scientists that global warming is real and caused by SUV's, and Republicans. Only ignorant hicks, Bible thumpers, and creationist believe otherwise.
Right, but the site says, "Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period". It doesn't say "Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period because it causes the release of other greenhouse gases."
Your may be 100% correct, but what you say is not what the EPA says. And assuming that you are correct, anything that raises the temperature for seven years or so would have the same long term effect as methane to the climate. You are also alluding to a infinite feedback loop that we would still be in today from past hot spells our planet has gone through.
Either way, I'm still a bit alarmed that the climate policy arm of the US government has such a huge error in logic on their site, and no one seems to notice. Quite to the contrary, everyone seems overly willing to give up their rights to a government that doesn't catch something so obvious that an idiot like me pointed it out after reading it once.
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.
"Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period" and "Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years".
Am I the only one who sees a huge logic flaw in that 100-year figure given the 9-15 year figure? How do the intelligent people here on Slashdot keep their bullshit meter from flying off the handle?
Modding this "Overrated" does not make it any less true.
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.
"Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period" and "Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years".
Am I the only one who sees a huge logic flaw in that 100-year figure given the 9-15 year figure? How do the intelligent people here on Slashdot keep their bullshit meter from flying off the handle?
Yes, but lower price means more people can afford it, which in turn increases demand. So even if they don't get a trillion dollars for it, they can still make a lot of money.
Or they can act like De Beers and limit the release in order to control the price.
I'm betting that you know exactly why Card Check has become necessary: Because there has been widespread intimidation by management. No such intimidation from unions.
There is nothing that can be completed through Card Check that can not be accomplished through a private ballot election. Just as employers should not know how each individual worker voted, the unions should not know either. You say there is no union intimidation? Here is a video of workers claiming that union members went to workers' homes and harassed them.
My grandfather used to show me the creases on top of his head from when he was in the railroad union and corporate thugs would commonly attack union workers and organizers. These guys fought and many died so that you could have a weekend, sick days, maybe a vacation once in a while. So that you could have safe working conditions. And even if you aren't a regular employee, if you're a contractor or, what's the word...consultant then you're still enjoying the benefits of unions.
I'll grant that unions have their place and serve(d) a valuable purpose, but should be limits to the unions' power. Just as you are worried about management harassing workers, I'm worried about unions harassing workers. Card check tells the unions who voted for the unions and who did not. This allows them to harass and intimidate those that did not vote for the union. If you care about workers' rights to choose a union, then you have to respect the workers' choice. The integrity of that election is lost when one side knows how each worker voted.
You feel that workers need to be protected from management. This has been accomplished through various laws passed in the years since your grandfather was workin' on the railroad. Unions played an important role in getting those laws passed. Now law protects workers from management. What protects workers from unions? I know that you feel that workers don't need protection from unions, but I disagree. If unions have no desire to single out workers who don't want unions, then there is nothing lost from a private ballot. Yet, unions still want to know how each worker votes. Why do you think that is, if not to "persuade" those workers to elect to become unionized?
Also, I live in a "right to work" state. I have never been beaten by management.
He's in favor of Card-Check. That's why I said he's "pro-prosperity". Tim Bishop is moderate to liberal. We've had years of attacks on unions and look at where were at today. The organized labor movement is inextricably tied to the middle class. When one does better the other does better and vice versa. It is as close to a natural law as you will find in economics.
Let's not confuse a union election and card-check. I have no problems with employees wanting to unionize. It becomes a problem when workers must state publicly whether or not they want to join a union. I don't want the union or my employer knowing how I choose. First, my employer could target me for voting for a union, and I'm sure you'll agree with that part. It's the union knowing how I vote that I don't like. There are laws protecting me from my employer. There are not so many laws protecting me from my fellow employees who might want a union or the union itself. The pressure and intimidation from my coworkers and union thugs is much more dangerous, IMHO. Go check out some of the videos on youtube showing the level of intimidation union members can dish out. HERE are union members disrupting a Special Olympics ceremony. Imagine what they could do at your little girl's soccer game if you should vote in a way they don't like!
Under the existing law today, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Card-check would literally strip the private ballot from this process. Why would unions, who claim to be for the worker, want the worker's ballot to be public, EVEN WHEN THE WORKER WANTS IT TO REMAIN PRIVATE!!!????!!!
No, it's not the same thing. A corporation is an aggregate of capital. A labor union is an aggregate of workers. In other words, one is made up of human beings, and the other is made up of money which has been carefully disassociated from its owner in order to convey protections from liability.
No, a corporation is an aggregate of stock holders, which are also human beings. However, a corporation must assume a self-awareness to protect the interests of those stock holders (owners). Just a union claims to speak for the workers, a corporation claims to speak for the stockholders.
I know there are some wrong-headed people who will say "money=speech" but nobody is willing to stand up and say, "money is a person".
I have no problem stripping corporate money from politics. But you have to apply the same rules for unions as you do for corporations. You can't force a worker to give up part of his paycheck every month and then give some of that money to a politician that the worker may not support. Unions are literally forcing workers to contribute to a political campaign. If unions were truly looking out for the worker's best interest and wanted the worker to be represented in the political process, they would give the money back to the worker and say, "donate this to the politician of your choice or give it back if you don't like any of the politicians". That doesn't happen. Unions give 94% to the Democrat party in 2010. I have a hard time believing that 94% of all workers are Democrats.
Are you really comparing the killing of one man, on foreign soil, conspiring with and surrounded by enemies of this country, who had openly declared war on the country and was actively trying to find ways to kill as many Americans as possible with the hanging of hundreds or thousands of men in the streets found guilty of being homosexuals?
See, this is the kind of moral equivalence bullshit you guys pull all the time and it really makes you look seriously mathematically challenged at best. You truly see the two examples I've given above as equal. You really don't see how the killing of an admitted traitor who is plotting terrorist acts is somehow not as evil as the hanging of thousands of men who may or may not have been gay (Seriously how do you PROVE someone is gay?).
Interest Contributions Lawyers/Law Firms $174,015 Transportation Unions $164,750 Education $140,600 Securities & Investment $132,800 Public Sector Unions $115,000 Health Professionals $102,825 Building Trade Unions $75,250 Real Estate $67,450 Industrial Unions $59,050 Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice $52,900
Also from the same site, he took $18,000 from New York Life and $16,450 from Estee Lauder Companies. So, yeah, he does take corporate money.
But as for the unions, that's over half a million dollars from unions alone. Unions are his biggest contributor by far. Surely, a man as pure as Bishop couldn't be affected by money. He's not corrupt enough to be bribed by these people right?
How does Tim Bishop feel about Card-Check? Does he feel that unions leaders should know how you vote for things like, "should we have a union"? Is he the least bit concerned that someone might drop by the kid's schools to try to persuade the parents to vote for a union? Does he not see the value of the secret ballot, the bedrock of any democracy? He would protect a workers' right to become unionized right? He would also have to protect with the same vigor the right to NOT become unionized, otherwise it's not really a choice. A man this pure would have to support the worker over the unions and allow them to accept or reject a union without the possibility of "persuasion" from union members, wouldn't he?
How does Tim Bishop feel about non union members being forced to pay union dues if they have a job? Should workers be forced to pay union dues, which will go to support political candidates that the workers may not agree with? Does Tim feel that it's OK to take forced contributions from workers who don't support him, but must contribute to his campaign in order to have a job? Isn't forcing workers to join a union the exact same thing as forbidding a union? They both remove the choice, right?
I don't know if you realize this, but a Democrat taking union money is the same thing as a Republican taking corporate money. You say Republicans are bought and paid for by corporations. I say that Democrats are bought and paid for by unions. It's the same thing.
I'm sure Mr Bishop does some good things from time to time, like what TFA is talking about, but don't play like he's squeaky clean. Given that unions make up the bulk of his political contributions and the two issues above, which he sides with unions on both of them, I believe corruption is proven. This guy is bought and paid for by unions.
You've just explained why Romneycare is constitutional, but Obamacare is not. If you think it's a great plan, move to Massachusetts.
I think the beauty of the state provided health care system as opposed to federally provided health care system is not only that you can move to a state the provides the coverage you want, but you also have the opportunity to move AWAY from a state that provides coverages you DON'T want.
So, to redo your quote: If you think it's a crappy plan, move out of Massachusetts.
And the EU is doing so well right now, right? We tried that, with the AoC. It didn't work.
No one is suggesting the Articles of Confederation. What is being suggested is that the Constitution be followed as it was intended.
Step 1: Admit that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" does not give the Federal Government unlimited power. Step 2: Read the 10th Amendment. Step 3: GoTo Step 1
The BEST thing about this is that we won't be supporting (as much) people who hate us and want to blow us up. (What is about this that Republicans don't understand? That SUVs = terrorists.) Also the jobs that are created will be on-shore (or just off-shore).
Oh, no! We understand completely. That is why we keep pushing for domestic oil production. We're even OK with oil from places close by like Canada and Mexico. Personally, I'd even be OK with a tax on domestically produced energy to fund renewable energy research. Liberals even oppose this idea.
It's the liberals and "tree-huggers" that oppose this. Republicans have been pushing for domestic production for decades, only to be blocked by liberals in powerful places. ANWR is a fine example. I remember hearing how it would take ten years for the ANWR to be at full production. That was 11 years ago. And yet, even today, we may not drill in ANWR.
Liberals have always been against domestic oil production. I remember going to my wife's graduation, before Global Warming was even a blip on the radar, and being handed a flier talking about Cheney's links with "Big Oil". It's not global warming that liberals are worried about. I think they are just mad that someone is making money off of oil and they absolutely hate "fat cats". Southern talking, string tie wearing, "found oil in my back yard while shooting possum", big oil fat cats are the ones they hate the most.
Do you think the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban in Afghanistan somehow started those wars in order to loot and conquer their own nations?
Um... Iraq attacked Kuwait to... wait for it... LOOT AND CONQUER.
And, can you tell me why we have spent 10+ years in Afghanistan? Can you tell me why we are still in Iraq? If it were for the oil, as I'm even still hearing today, wouldn't we have finished taking it by now?
And yes, the Taliban wanted us to get out of their way so they could do things like hang gays in the streets, force women to walk around under cover, and teach courses on "How to beat your wife".
It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq)
I am not sure I get your argument here. Sounds a lot like "I bullied that guy in high school because all my friends were doing that, too".
You have to consider that the US is probably the only nation in history who goes to war for purposes other than loot and conquer. It should also be noted that the US usually goes to war against a local bully. Iraq, for example, it hardly what I'd call the nerdy kid on his way to violin lessons. Iraq had invaded every one of its neighbors, except for Syria and had a nasty habit of brutally repressing its own population. Afghanistan harbored a group that attacked us and was equally harsh on the people within its own borders.
But, you use your analogy, the US and its allies force submission of a weaker kid at school, and GIVES him lunch money.
Is the light color really okay? That's my main concern. I've often been underwhelmed with the spectrum offered.
That's my main question. The "daylight" CFL's are getting harder and harder to find. One went out on my ceiling fan and I had to replace it with one my wife bought in an economy pack. The color difference is obvious. My daughter pointed at it yesterday and said, "Look Dad! That light bulb is gold!" The yellow color drives me nuts and makes everything look dingy and dirty. Now I'm stuck with it for at least a few years as my wife bought a ton of these damn yellow bulbs.
I'd be really pissed if I spent $60 for a yellow light bulb that I'd be stuck with for 20 years!
Why not improve the gnome classic desktop from gnome 3 instead? This zombie-gnome2 effort seems like a waste of time to me.
Can you put a weather widget on the top bar on Gnome3 Classic? How about a CPU temp sensor? How about a graph that shows CPU, RAM, swap, and network usage? Maybe a sensor that shows the CPU speed for each core with the ability to change them to ondemand or performace? Can you put the taskbar on bottom bar? Can you put just a gnome foot (start button) on the bottom left like Windows and the full menu on top (Gnome-foot, Places, System)?
The last time I tried Gnome3, none of these things were possible. These were not an option on Gnome3 Classic either. I want my old Gnome2 back, not the "look" of Gnome2 stuck on top of Gnome3. I don't want "New Coke" in an "Old Coke" can.
This approach is doomed to failure. The better approach is Mint's Cinnamon project. There they maintain a gnome2 like desktop environment, but it rests on gnome3. There are ppa's (https://launchpad.net/~merlwiz79/+archive/cinnamon-ppa) that let you install it into official Ubuntu distros, so no need to install a full-on mint distro. It would be even better if canonical moved these packages into universe or something.
You are missing the point! I don't want Gnome3 and I don't want a Gnome2-looking interface stuck on Gnome3. It wasn't the look of Gnome2 that I liked. It was the flexibility and feature completeness. I could drag app links to the bar on top. I could use the bar on bottom as my taskbar. I could put a "widget" on my top bar that showed me my process or usage, RAM usage, network activity, swap activity, CPU temperature, fan speed, CPU speed, case temp, etc, etc, etc, all without adding any special repos. I can't do any of that on Gnome3. Not because Gnome3 doesn't LOOK like Gnome2, but because it's Gnome3.
I don't want Gnome3, period! I run XFCE and KDE now, thank you very much.
Not dismissing what's obviously a pretty daunting technical challenge, but still. The problem is...
Why would you buy a $250 3D Nvidia card if you didn't care about performance?
Well, you could dual boot. In this case you would want all the performance you can get while gaming in Windows. Since you are probably not gaming much in Linux, all you really need is enough power for desktop effects, which require a 3D driver.
Or you could just by a $50 Nvidia GPU and use this driver with it. I don't thing it's limited to the latest and greatest Nvidia cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does all this "dismantle civilization" stuff come from? Changing power sources is dismantling civilization?
No. ELIMINATING power sources is dismantling civilization. We could gladly change power sources. Unfortunately, none exist.
Try going to McDonald's or any place where "I need to eat and get back to work ASAP" serves up food. You can't get what you're looking for. Back in Texas, we have "Souper Salad." Those places are awesome... get what you need/want and fast and cheap. Out here on the east coast, that chain and none like it exists out here.
On the West Coast, where culture and technology comes from, we have an invention known as "Fresh Choice" where you may assemble your own salad and eat it at your own pace, yea verily, even back in your cubicle. We've had Souper Salads out here in California, too, not sure if any are left. Regardless, I'll have the soup. Iceberg fail.
It's called a salad bar and they can be found all over the US.
>>>if you live on mostly meats without much in the way of carbs, you'll be just fine and your body will consume those "bad fats."
What BS. The bad fats will simply accumulate in the walls of your arteries, giving them a "foam" appearance until a clot is formed. Then you die like the doctor who came-up with this "eat lots of fat" diet.
You mean that eating lots of fat will cause you to slip on ice in a snow storm? Dr. Atkins died from a head wound at the age of 73. He slipped on ice and bashed his head against concrete.
Also, there is nothing in the Atkins diet that forbids the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The trick is to limit carbs. You could actually maintain an Atkins lifestyle and still remain a vegetarian, although you will be eating an awful lot of leafy green vegetables.
Disclaimer: I tried the Atkins diet for about a year. Not only did my weight dropped to a healthy level, but my blood work actually improved. I had a physical before I started Atkins and then again a year later. My blood pressure dropped from normal-high to normal. My cholesterol level dropped to normal levels. My BMI was excellent. My doctor was amazed and complemented me on my exercise healthy diet. Of course, I was not exercising and the doctor thought I was eating nuts and twigs. I was in great shape and all I did was eat nothing but bacon, eggs, chicken, cheese, beef, salad and other low carb foods such as berries and salad. A typical lunch when someone else was paying was a fatty ribeye with butter and a salad drenched in Ranch dressing. Or, I might opt for a hamburger, minus the bun with blue cheese and a salad with blue cheese dressing.
I had to get off of the Atkins diet when the economy turned south. Pasta, rice and bread is cheap. Ribeye steaks are expensive.
When chickens are raised on a diet or worms that grow in fresh cow dung, the consistency, flavor, and overall health of their eggs is substantially higher than what is generally available in the supermarket.
For some reason, the more you talk up animal products, the more I want to become a vegan.
Funny you would say that. Have you seen the crap that vegetables are grown in? As someone who grows his own vegetables, let me tell you how to make the most healthy soil available.
1) Start with fresh manure from a herbivore. That's crap from a vegetarian to you city folk. Bunny crap works the best when mixed with urine soaked saw dust. Horse manure mixed with urine soaked bedding, cow, goat,llama or other large, herbivore mammal will also work.
2) Allow it to rot for a few months. (This is a good additive as is, but we can make it better)
3) Feed the rotted manure it to worms. Red Wigglers are the most common.
4) Separate the live worms from the worm crap.
5) The crap that is left is the best soil you will ever run across and it will produce the greatest vegetables on the planet.
That's right. Crap from crap fed worms is the best soil imaginable. Of course, that re-crapped crap is what is absorbed into the plants, mixed with water, CO2 and sunlight to make the vegetables you eat. And they are delicious!
Of course, some animal products can be beneficial as well. Bone meal (ground up animal bones), blood meal and fish emulsion are also beneficial, but nothing compares to good old worm shit.
Don't think that just because you are vegetarian that you are not eating crap. Manure is the most important product in agriculture behind sunlight and water.
Slashdot! Where groupthink outweighs logic.
"The guy didn't say anything about current warming, carbon dioxide, human activities or anything else."
Well, perhaps not in this article. Thanks to google, it's not hard to find where Henrik Svensmark's climate change chips lie. Here's something to get you started, complete with a potent musical background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
So you are saying he's not a scientist? I have to ask because we are all talking like he is a scientist, but, as we all know, there is a consensus among all scientists that global warming is real and caused by SUV's, and Republicans. Only ignorant hicks, Bible thumpers, and creationist believe otherwise.
So, which one is this guy?
Right, but the site says, "Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period". It doesn't say "Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period because it causes the release of other greenhouse gases."
Your may be 100% correct, but what you say is not what the EPA says. And assuming that you are correct, anything that raises the temperature for seven years or so would have the same long term effect as methane to the climate. You are also alluding to a infinite feedback loop that we would still be in today from past hot spells our planet has gone through.
Either way, I'm still a bit alarmed that the climate policy arm of the US government has such a huge error in logic on their site, and no one seems to notice. Quite to the contrary, everyone seems overly willing to give up their rights to a government that doesn't catch something so obvious that an idiot like me pointed it out after reading it once.
20 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Warmer planet = more melting permafrost = more methane release = warmer planet.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
From your source:
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.
"Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period" and "Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years".
Am I the only one who sees a huge logic flaw in that 100-year figure given the 9-15 year figure? How do the intelligent people here on Slashdot keep their bullshit meter from flying off the handle?
Modding this "Overrated" does not make it any less true.
20 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Warmer planet = more melting permafrost = more methane release = warmer planet.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
From your source:
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.
"Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period" and "Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years".
Am I the only one who sees a huge logic flaw in that 100-year figure given the 9-15 year figure? How do the intelligent people here on Slashdot keep their bullshit meter from flying off the handle?
Yes, but lower price means more people can afford it, which in turn increases demand. So even if they don't get a trillion dollars for it, they can still make a lot of money.
Or they can act like De Beers and limit the release in order to control the price.
I'm betting that you know exactly why Card Check has become necessary: Because there has been widespread intimidation by management. No such intimidation from unions.
There is nothing that can be completed through Card Check that can not be accomplished through a private ballot election. Just as employers should not know how each individual worker voted, the unions should not know either. You say there is no union intimidation? Here is a video of workers claiming that union members went to workers' homes and harassed them.
My grandfather used to show me the creases on top of his head from when he was in the railroad union and corporate thugs would commonly attack union workers and organizers. These guys fought and many died so that you could have a weekend, sick days, maybe a vacation once in a while. So that you could have safe working conditions. And even if you aren't a regular employee, if you're a contractor or, what's the word...consultant then you're still enjoying the benefits of unions.
I'll grant that unions have their place and serve(d) a valuable purpose, but should be limits to the unions' power. Just as you are worried about management harassing workers, I'm worried about unions harassing workers. Card check tells the unions who voted for the unions and who did not. This allows them to harass and intimidate those that did not vote for the union. If you care about workers' rights to choose a union, then you have to respect the workers' choice. The integrity of that election is lost when one side knows how each worker voted.
You feel that workers need to be protected from management. This has been accomplished through various laws passed in the years since your grandfather was workin' on the railroad. Unions played an important role in getting those laws passed. Now law protects workers from management. What protects workers from unions? I know that you feel that workers don't need protection from unions, but I disagree. If unions have no desire to single out workers who don't want unions, then there is nothing lost from a private ballot. Yet, unions still want to know how each worker votes. Why do you think that is, if not to "persuade" those workers to elect to become unionized?
Also, I live in a "right to work" state. I have never been beaten by management.
He's in favor of Card-Check. That's why I said he's "pro-prosperity". Tim Bishop is moderate to liberal. We've had years of attacks on unions and look at where were at today. The organized labor movement is inextricably tied to the middle class. When one does better the other does better and vice versa. It is as close to a natural law as you will find in economics.
Let's not confuse a union election and card-check. I have no problems with employees wanting to unionize. It becomes a problem when workers must state publicly whether or not they want to join a union. I don't want the union or my employer knowing how I choose. First, my employer could target me for voting for a union, and I'm sure you'll agree with that part. It's the union knowing how I vote that I don't like. There are laws protecting me from my employer. There are not so many laws protecting me from my fellow employees who might want a union or the union itself. The pressure and intimidation from my coworkers and union thugs is much more dangerous, IMHO. Go check out some of the videos on youtube showing the level of intimidation union members can dish out. HERE are union members disrupting a Special Olympics ceremony. Imagine what they could do at your little girl's soccer game if you should vote in a way they don't like!
Under the existing law today, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Card-check would literally strip the private ballot from this process. Why would unions, who claim to be for the worker, want the worker's ballot to be public, EVEN WHEN THE WORKER WANTS IT TO REMAIN PRIVATE!!!????!!!
No, it's not the same thing. A corporation is an aggregate of capital. A labor union is an aggregate of workers. In other words, one is made up of human beings, and the other is made up of money which has been carefully disassociated from its owner in order to convey protections from liability.
No, a corporation is an aggregate of stock holders, which are also human beings. However, a corporation must assume a self-awareness to protect the interests of those stock holders (owners). Just a union claims to speak for the workers, a corporation claims to speak for the stockholders.
I know there are some wrong-headed people who will say "money=speech" but nobody is willing to stand up and say, "money is a person".
I have no problem stripping corporate money from politics. But you have to apply the same rules for unions as you do for corporations. You can't force a worker to give up part of his paycheck every month and then give some of that money to a politician that the worker may not support. Unions are literally forcing workers to contribute to a political campaign. If unions were truly looking out for the worker's best interest and wanted the worker to be represented in the political process, they would give the money back to the worker and say, "donate this to the politician of your choice or give it back if you don't like any of the politicians". That doesn't happen. Unions give 94% to the Democrat party in 2010. I have a hard time believing that 94% of all workers are Democrats.
Are you really comparing the killing of one man, on foreign soil, conspiring with and surrounded by enemies of this country, who had openly declared war on the country and was actively trying to find ways to kill as many Americans as possible with the hanging of hundreds or thousands of men in the streets found guilty of being homosexuals?
See, this is the kind of moral equivalence bullshit you guys pull all the time and it really makes you look seriously mathematically challenged at best. You truly see the two examples I've given above as equal. You really don't see how the killing of an admitted traitor who is plotting terrorist acts is somehow not as evil as the hanging of thousands of men who may or may not have been gay (Seriously how do you PROVE someone is gay?).
You mean THIS Tim Bishop?
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Lawyers/Law Firms $174,015
Transportation Unions $164,750
Education $140,600
Securities & Investment $132,800
Public Sector Unions $115,000
Health Professionals $102,825
Building Trade Unions $75,250
Real Estate $67,450
Industrial Unions $59,050
Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice $52,900
Also from the same site, he took $18,000 from New York Life and $16,450 from Estee Lauder Companies. So, yeah, he does take corporate money.
But as for the unions, that's over half a million dollars from unions alone. Unions are his biggest contributor by far. Surely, a man as pure as Bishop couldn't be affected by money. He's not corrupt enough to be bribed by these people right?
How does Tim Bishop feel about Card-Check? Does he feel that unions leaders should know how you vote for things like, "should we have a union"? Is he the least bit concerned that someone might drop by the kid's schools to try to persuade the parents to vote for a union? Does he not see the value of the secret ballot, the bedrock of any democracy? He would protect a workers' right to become unionized right? He would also have to protect with the same vigor the right to NOT become unionized, otherwise it's not really a choice. A man this pure would have to support the worker over the unions and allow them to accept or reject a union without the possibility of "persuasion" from union members, wouldn't he?
How does Tim Bishop feel about non union members being forced to pay union dues if they have a job? Should workers be forced to pay union dues, which will go to support political candidates that the workers may not agree with? Does Tim feel that it's OK to take forced contributions from workers who don't support him, but must contribute to his campaign in order to have a job? Isn't forcing workers to join a union the exact same thing as forbidding a union? They both remove the choice, right?
I don't know if you realize this, but a Democrat taking union money is the same thing as a Republican taking corporate money. You say Republicans are bought and paid for by corporations. I say that Democrats are bought and paid for by unions. It's the same thing.
I'm sure Mr Bishop does some good things from time to time, like what TFA is talking about, but don't play like he's squeaky clean. Given that unions make up the bulk of his political contributions and the two issues above, which he sides with unions on both of them, I believe corruption is proven. This guy is bought and paid for by unions.
You've just explained why Romneycare is constitutional, but Obamacare is not. If you think it's a great plan, move to Massachusetts.
I think the beauty of the state provided health care system as opposed to federally provided health care system is not only that you can move to a state the provides the coverage you want, but you also have the opportunity to move AWAY from a state that provides coverages you DON'T want.
So, to redo your quote:
If you think it's a crappy plan, move out of Massachusetts.
Where do you move if you don't like Obamacare?
Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.
Says the guy openly criticizing the USA with absolutely no fear for his safety or the safety of his family as a result.
And the EU is doing so well right now, right? We tried that, with the AoC. It didn't work.
No one is suggesting the Articles of Confederation. What is being suggested is that the Constitution be followed as it was intended.
Step 1: Admit that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" does not give the Federal Government unlimited power.
Step 2: Read the 10th Amendment.
Step 3: GoTo Step 1
The BEST thing about this is that we won't be supporting (as much) people who hate us and want to blow us up. (What is about this that Republicans don't understand? That SUVs = terrorists.) Also the jobs that are created will be on-shore (or just off-shore).
Oh, no! We understand completely. That is why we keep pushing for domestic oil production. We're even OK with oil from places close by like Canada and Mexico. Personally, I'd even be OK with a tax on domestically produced energy to fund renewable energy research. Liberals even oppose this idea.
It's the liberals and "tree-huggers" that oppose this. Republicans have been pushing for domestic production for decades, only to be blocked by liberals in powerful places. ANWR is a fine example. I remember hearing how it would take ten years for the ANWR to be at full production. That was 11 years ago. And yet, even today, we may not drill in ANWR.
Liberals have always been against domestic oil production. I remember going to my wife's graduation, before Global Warming was even a blip on the radar, and being handed a flier talking about Cheney's links with "Big Oil". It's not global warming that liberals are worried about. I think they are just mad that someone is making money off of oil and they absolutely hate "fat cats". Southern talking, string tie wearing, "found oil in my back yard while shooting possum", big oil fat cats are the ones they hate the most.
Do you think the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban in Afghanistan somehow started those wars in order to loot and conquer their own nations?
Um... Iraq attacked Kuwait to... wait for it... LOOT AND CONQUER.
And, can you tell me why we have spent 10+ years in Afghanistan? Can you tell me why we are still in Iraq? If it were for the oil, as I'm even still hearing today, wouldn't we have finished taking it by now?
And yes, the Taliban wanted us to get out of their way so they could do things like hang gays in the streets, force women to walk around under cover, and teach courses on "How to beat your wife".
I am not sure I get your argument here. Sounds a lot like "I bullied that guy in high school because all my friends were doing that, too".
You have to consider that the US is probably the only nation in history who goes to war for purposes other than loot and conquer. It should also be noted that the US usually goes to war against a local bully. Iraq, for example, it hardly what I'd call the nerdy kid on his way to violin lessons. Iraq had invaded every one of its neighbors, except for Syria and had a nasty habit of brutally repressing its own population. Afghanistan harbored a group that attacked us and was equally harsh on the people within its own borders.
But, you use your analogy, the US and its allies force submission of a weaker kid at school, and GIVES him lunch money.
Is the light color really okay? That's my main concern. I've often been underwhelmed with the spectrum offered.
That's my main question. The "daylight" CFL's are getting harder and harder to find. One went out on my ceiling fan and I had to replace it with one my wife bought in an economy pack. The color difference is obvious. My daughter pointed at it yesterday and said, "Look Dad! That light bulb is gold!" The yellow color drives me nuts and makes everything look dingy and dirty. Now I'm stuck with it for at least a few years as my wife bought a ton of these damn yellow bulbs.
I'd be really pissed if I spent $60 for a yellow light bulb that I'd be stuck with for 20 years!
Why not improve the gnome classic desktop from gnome 3 instead? This zombie-gnome2 effort seems like a waste of time to me.
Can you put a weather widget on the top bar on Gnome3 Classic? How about a CPU temp sensor? How about a graph that shows CPU, RAM, swap, and network usage? Maybe a sensor that shows the CPU speed for each core with the ability to change them to ondemand or performace? Can you put the taskbar on bottom bar? Can you put just a gnome foot (start button) on the bottom left like Windows and the full menu on top (Gnome-foot, Places, System)?
The last time I tried Gnome3, none of these things were possible. These were not an option on Gnome3 Classic either. I want my old Gnome2 back, not the "look" of Gnome2 stuck on top of Gnome3. I don't want "New Coke" in an "Old Coke" can.
This approach is doomed to failure. The better approach is Mint's Cinnamon project. There they maintain a gnome2 like desktop environment, but it rests on gnome3. There are ppa's (https://launchpad.net/~merlwiz79/+archive/cinnamon-ppa) that let you install it into official Ubuntu distros, so no need to install a full-on mint distro. It would be even better if canonical moved these packages into universe or something.
You are missing the point! I don't want Gnome3 and I don't want a Gnome2-looking interface stuck on Gnome3. It wasn't the look of Gnome2 that I liked. It was the flexibility and feature completeness. I could drag app links to the bar on top. I could use the bar on bottom as my taskbar. I could put a "widget" on my top bar that showed me my process or usage, RAM usage, network activity, swap activity, CPU temperature, fan speed, CPU speed, case temp, etc, etc, etc, all without adding any special repos. I can't do any of that on Gnome3. Not because Gnome3 doesn't LOOK like Gnome2, but because it's Gnome3.
I don't want Gnome3, period! I run XFCE and KDE now, thank you very much.
Not dismissing what's obviously a pretty daunting technical challenge, but still. The problem is...
Why would you buy a $250 3D Nvidia card if you didn't care about performance?
Well, you could dual boot. In this case you would want all the performance you can get while gaming in Windows. Since you are probably not gaming much in Linux, all you really need is enough power for desktop effects, which require a 3D driver.
Or you could just by a $50 Nvidia GPU and use this driver with it. I don't thing it's limited to the latest and greatest Nvidia cards.
1) build their own cpu (not likely)
You mean like the Tegra line of processors? I think you should limit your thinking to x86 dimensions.