Okay, so kindergarden is about five years old, right? So that means three and four year olds in "pre-school" (whatever that exactly is). Why, exactly, is a three or four year old using a computer?
There are excellent educational applications and websites for children to use. My pre-schooler uses a site called Starfall that has done an awful lot in teacher her to read, count and do basic math. She absolutely loves it. It also increases in difficulty as she goes on.
My daughter uses Linux exclusively and her account is quite restricted. Installed are the usual Tux apps, TuxPaint, TuxTyping and TuxMath, as well as the GCompris and ChildsPlay. Everything is fairly locked down and I can always increase or decrease availability as time goes on. For example, it will be no big deal to install an email program for her to email Grandma.
All of this is running on my PC and I have not taught her how to log as herself so she can't use the system without me being there. However, it won't be long before I give her own PC with extremely limited access for her to use as she pleases. Again, with Linux, I'm not worried too much about viruses or other malware, and I can configure the system exactly how I want it to be.
Risk = Reward. If the Chinese can buy up all the mines in the world to corner the market on NEW materials, then they deserve the monopoly... wait, monopolies are illegal in this and many other countries. I wonder how that will play out.
But again, like people have said, even if all the mines are not producing, that will mean a HUGE market for recycled materials, increased research into alternatives and alternative supply chains.
So, yeah, China could bank if they could buy out the world's mines, buy out the future potential mines, outbid all other investors for those last few mines, prevent alternative sources from being found, and finally, prevent alternative materials from being discovered... yeah, then they could corner the market and reap huge rewards. However, that's a very VERY risky venture that, let's face it, won't pay out.
Sure, others have tried and some do quite well at it. DeBeers, for example, have a controlling chunk of the diamond market. However, the more they raise prices, the more alternative sources of diamonds are discovered. OPEC controls oil prices, but every time they cut production, more sources of oil are found.
There are laws of economics. The free market is based on those laws. Governments can bend the market one way or the other, but the laws may not be broken. When governments try to bend it too far one way or the other, a thriving black market will take over, which runs on... you guessed it... FREE MARKET principles.
I'm not recommending a free market. It's unavoidable. You may not break the laws of economics no more than you may break the laws of physics. You may try to manipulate them one way or the other and may even make a bit of progress, but in the end, the laws of supply and demand will win out. The trick is to not fight it. Know how the laws work and you can predict the future to make sure you are on the winning end every single time.
(yes, there are times when government intervention is required, like regulating natural monopolies such as utilities and insulin providers, but less is almost always better. Subsidies are almost never a good idea and if it really looks like China is about to corner the market on critical materials, then the US government can always declare the area around the mine a "national park" like ANWR to prevent anyone from owning it. Then the government would actually lease the rights to mine there.)
And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.
No. Actually, US private sector is much larger than the Chinese government. The US private sector is larger than the US government. For that matter, US banks have more money than the Chinese government.
Sorry, but government only takes a percentage of GDP. That means that GDP is larger than government as long as tax rates are under 50%. All liquid money ends up in banks. Yeah, you may have put it in the stock market, but the company you invested in put it in the bank. If they spent it, whoever they spent it on put it in the bank.... all money goes through the banks. The banks in the second largest economy in the world can easily outbid the government of the third largest economy in the world (EU is first according to Wikipedia).
By the way, the US economy is still 2-3 times larger than the Chinese.
What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces. The situation is still anything but a free market.
If you consider China subsidizing shit to still be part of the 'free market,' then what the fuck is the point of even having the term 'free market' to begin with? It's all just 'the market'.
--Jeremy
Understand that OUR market will be free and end up ahead. Sure, in my example, the Chinese government tried to manipulate the market, and did so successfully. However, it didn't help them. It ended up helping OUR market, because we have the FREE market in my example.
What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces.
Yeah! It's called Demand and is the most fundamental concept of economics. I thought we were past that.
Whenever I've had conversations with libertarians about how free trade would actually work in the real world where governments frequently aggressively protect corporate interests, they always stammer "buh buh the free market will prevail."
Here, let me try.
When China subsidises it's own mines to drive prices down and force the competition out of business, our local mines will shutter and we all enjoy the benefits of rare earth minerals paid for, in part, by the Chinese taxpayer. We all win with the exception of the miners who were working at the mines. The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever. And they would be correct.
Once the Chinese government thinks they have a lock on the market and raises prices, the domestic mines open back up and begin to reap the large profits from the elevated prices of these rare earth minerals. Eventually, the price will lower and stabilize once supply reaches and equalibrium with demand.
So, yeah! The free markets will prevail. The main losers here would be the Chinese government and taxpayer who subsidized the materials that we used to build stuff and sell back to them at a profit. (Actually, they'd be the ones building it... but for Apple, who is American based)
The comments made me think of this: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm . The changing roles of the sexes and modern technology are causing people to honestly ask the question, what are men FOR? As I look back on 50 years of life and 35 years of dating/interacting with females, I wonder too.
We go to work day in and day out and pay the bills while our wives stay at home, watch daytime TV and talk us into getting a housekeeper to come over twice a week.
I agree with the GP. I don't expect a car less than 3 years old to break down. Reliability should not even be measured at anything less than 50,000 miles. It's hard to claim that GM is on par with Toyota when it comes to quality when GM's fall apart at 75,000 miles and Toyotas are still going strong at 150,000 miles. *Initial* quality, maybe, that that's not what I would call reliability.
As for not having a time machine, well, that's the price that domestic automakers pay for forcing crap down our throats for the past 30 years. Reliability takes time to judge. You can't build trust by saying, "All our new cars won't break down before 50,000 miles". You build trust by building a car that lasts 10 years with no problems. And yes, it takes that long to build trust.
In my personal experience, I've had eight cars in my life time: 1) 1980 Ford Thunderbird: This thing was falling apart when I bought it at 40,000 miles. I would have to fill it up with oil before I left the house and all of the oil would lead out within 30 miles. Wheel bearings went out. Alternator went out. Water pump went out. In replacing the water pump, a bolt that was only made for this car sheared off in the block of the engine. The bolt was, and I'm not kidding, $70 to replace as it was a dealership only item. I drilled the old bolt out myself. Oh, and it was not unusual to have parts simply fall off this car while on the road. For example, as I was leaving my neighborhood, the grill fell off. I had to stop the car and go back and pick it up. This thing would only start when it wanted to and flat out died in bad neighborhoods more than once. I sold the car for $100 before it hit 60,000 miles. 2) 1986 Jeep "SporTruck": I had to replace the transmission three times before 75,000 miles. A clutch lever broke at one point requiring some welding. The driver side external mirror simply fell off one day for no apparent reason. The lever that worked the lights broke, causing me to have to hold it in place by putting my hand behind the dash to turn the head lights out. The parking break would release on its own, causing the truck to roll away after being parked at random times. 3) Toyota truck (don't know the year): Bought this truck for $500 at 100,000 miles. I drove it until 250,000 miles and had to replace the water pump at one point. Sold it for $700. The guy paid $700 at the advice of a mechanic who looked at the truck and said, "it's ugly and the seats are torn, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You should easily get another 100,000 miles out of it". 4) 2000 Isuzu Rodeo (leased new): Put 75,000 miles in 3.5 years in the area around Michigan (snow, salt, etc). No problems. This was a company car that I gave back when the job was done. 5) 1998 Ford Explorer, Eddie Baur edition: At 70,000 miles, while trading it in for my wife's minivan, it caught on fire. We had just signed the paper work and got $2000 for it. (this thing was so rare that it didn't show up on any of the books. It was a V-8, 4WD, and every mechanic we took it to said it didn't exist) 5) 1996 Toyota Avalon: Bought for $500 at 75,000 miles. Traded in at 150,000 miles for $1000. The cup holder broke. 6) 2008 Scion TC: Bought new for $18000. Drove for 2 years. Put 60,000 miles on it. Traded it in for $13000 because it hurt my back to drive a standard in traffic. No problems. 7) 2006 Toyota Tacoma: Current vehicle. Purchased used at 40,000 miles. Currently has 60,000 with no problems. Toyota financing cut my interest rate to buy the extended warranty. It costs me $0.03 a month to have a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. I have not had to use it yet.
This is why I don't judge quality before a car is 3 years old. I'm sure you will understand why I'm reluctant to buy American again. I'll trust American cars when they last on average 150000 miles with no problems other than wiper blades, brake pads and tires.
You seem to forget that in those times, to deny god was to invite death at the hands of the church.
There is a difference between not denying God and having the devotion to live your life in a monastery. Mendel was a monk. That goes a bit beyond pretending to have faith for a better lifestyle. Also Mendel lived in the 1800's. That's the same time that Friedrich Nietzsche lived. Remember, Nietzsche said "God is dead". Strange that I don't remember Friedrich Nietzsche being burned as a heretic.
Pascal's defense of Christianity was never released until after his death. That proves he didn't write it to please the Pope.
If what you say it true, why would Sir Francis Bacon write about atheism if it didn't exist?
Finally, there are many modern day scientists who believe as well. You are free to look it up if you don't believe me. Be sure to read up on Francis Collins who considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". Collins is alive today, risked any persecution when he was an atheist. You read that correctly. Collins was an atheist in graduate school and familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology. He eventually came to a conclusion, and finally became an Evangelical Christian. He came to the conclusion all on his own, not because he was raised religious or feared for his life, but because he considered the evidence as a scientist to draw a conclusion. Also note that Collins does NOT believe in ID. He sees no conflict between the current theories of evolution and religion.
So, try again. I think your claims have been thoroughly proven to be false.
I am qualified to call them either idiots or hypocrites, because that is what they are. To cling to unsupported, self-contradictory, bronze age fairy tales the claims of which are directly contradicted by scientific research while claiming to be a professional scientist is the height of hypocrisy.
So, which is it? First you say that they really didn't believe and only pretended to save their own skin. Then you claim they "cling to unsupported, self-contradictory, bronze age fairy tales". You contradict yourself.
Given that above, it appears that your only qualification for calling anyone an idiot would be "it takes one to know one".
its fashionable and, in the past, life saving to say you were a believer. I understand wanting to stay alive. but no other conclusions should be made.
Even if that were the case, there is a difference between saying you believe to save your life and becoming a monk and living your life in a monastery, like Mendel did.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
So, in other words, completely harmless.
So you let your 5-yr-old look at porn? Do you show porn to the neighbor kids?
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.
Are you 5?
Answer this: Who is responsible for a child's actions? What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
And there is nothing wrong with barring kids from going to see Saw 5 or Basic Instinct.
There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to simulate killing prostitutes". If you think its ok for a 5 year old kid to have 'fun' killing prostitutes and stealing their money, then you have serious issues.
It's the parent's responsibility to monitor what a child does. That's why laws that make the parent buy this stuff are wrong. Duh!
FWIW, you are an idiot. The bible and christianity are not compatible with evolution and science. In fact, you are a deliberate idiot as you choose to believe in an untenable proposition.
Really? Tell that to Sir Francis Bacon. He is known as the father of the scientific method. He said, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
Gregor Mendel was a monk. Mendel discovered genetics.
Pascal wrote in defense of Christianity.
History is full of scientists who believed in God. The scientific profession is full on religious members today. Are you qualified to call them all idiots? Better yet, are you qualified to call ANY of them idiots?
He's just saying that he is an example of a Christian who believes in both science and creationism
This, in a nutshell, is the problem: the view that believing scientific claims is in some way relating to religious faith. The entire point of science is to be able to verify claims, which is very much different from believing in the existence of deities that cannot be measured, verified, or tested in any way.
Actually, the problem is people like you who can't fathom that someone can believe in science AND faith. Of course, your statement would be true if every scientist gave up on their faith as soon as they became scientists, but that's not the case.
Now granted, I don't know you or your scientific credentials, but based on your statement, I think I know enough. I am certain that you have not accomplished anything compared to the many scientists who are/were also Christians. Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel, and Kelvin, all believed in God. Or were these guys not real scientists?
It is possible to believe that God created everything and still try to figure out how.
Your belief system as you've defined it is not diametrically opposed to evolution. However, that does not mean your belief system is not diametrically opposed to science. It is.
You have faith that you know a truth about our universe despite your lack of scientific evidence, and there may not be any amount of scientific evidence that can make you change your mind.
You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to use Bible verses to prove anything scientific. I'm using them to prove that your quote of " However, that does not mean your belief system is not diametrically opposed to science. It is." is completely wrong.
It's kinda funny when someone comes along trying to sound smart, calls someone else stupid, when they are dead wrong on the very basis of their argument.
Now for the Bible verses that prove that the Bible is not against knowledge:
Proverbs 2:10-11 for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you, Psalm 119:66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge, Proverbs 1:5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, Ecclesiastes 7:12 For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it. Prov 3:19-20a (NIV) By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided. Prov 24:3-4 (NIV) By wisdom a house is built, and through understanding it is established; through knowledge its rooms are filled with rare and beautiful treasures. Rom 10:2 (NIV) For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Prov 19:2 (NIV) It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. Hos 4:6 (NIV) My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
Since the Bible says that knowledge, wisdom and understanding are good things. So please accept this gift of knowledge. I hope you have the understanding to know what it all means and wisdom to know what to do with your new knowledge. Hopefully, you'll stop proving your ignorance on public forums.
Actually, a whole bunch of people here brought it up. God forbid that someone actually defends themselves. Seriously, how long do you expect to call someone an idiot before someone tries to set the record straight.
So what do you do? You try to belittle the guy. You are an asshole trying to be a bully.
So what are you saying: that republicans and creationists are still at the intellectual level of cavemen ?
Please stop insulting cavemen.
Strange. The conservative rag NYTimes would say that it's not just a Republican thing:
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
Did you catch that? Majorities of Liberal Democrats favor teaching both evolution and creationism.
Of course, now that you've been educated, are you going to start insulting Democrats in this way? If not.... mmmmmm... smells like propaganda!
Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science.
For years, we had a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Across the country, there are several states with Republican majorities in the legislature and in the governor's mansion. Yet, we don't have ID taught in schools. No state in the union, Republican or Democrat, teaches ID in the science classroom.
Now, this tells me two things: 1) Republicans are NOT anti-science. 2) People like you want to believe it so bad, that you will accept blatant lies against all evidence to the contrary, as the absolute truth. You then repeat them over and over again so that people just as deluded as yourself will believe it for the same bullshit reasons and repeat them again. It's as if you decide that you feel a certain way, in this case you hate Republicans, then, and only then, you go out looking for reasons to justify your hatred.
Sorry, but numbers don't lie. Since 1980, the NASA budget has increased every single year with a Republican President. Every Democrat since 1980 has cut NASA's budget at some point during their presidencies.
So you can say that Republicans are "anti-science", but the numbers tell a different story.
He fought against the Taliban. For that matter, he was the martyred leader of the Northern Alliance. Remember, those were the guys we helped kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
The mujahideen benefited from expanded foreign military support from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations. The U.S. tended to favor the Afghan resistance forces led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, and U.S. support for Massoud's forces increased considerably in the 1980s. Primary advocates for supporting Massoud included two Heritage Foundation foreign policy analysts, Michael Johns and James A. Phillips, both of whom championed Massoud as the Afghan resistance leader most worthy of US support under the Reagan Doctrine.[33][34][
Ahmad Shah Massoud created the United Front (Northern Alliance) against the Taliban that were preparing offensives against the areas under the control of Massoud and against those under the control of other regional leaders. (see video) The United Front included forces and leaders from different political backgrounds as well as from all ethnicities of Afghanistan including Tajiks, Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Hazaras or Turkmens. From the Taliban conquest in 1996 until November 2001 the United Front controlled territory in which roughly 30% of Afghanistan's population was living in provinces such as Badakhshan, Kapisa, Takhar and parts of Parwan, Kunar, Nuristan, Laghman, Samangan, Kunduz, Ghr and Bamyan.
Ahmad Shah Massoud != Bin Laden. for that matter, Ahmad Shah Massoud was considered to be so dangerous that Bin Laden made it a point to assassinate him just days before 9-11.
The evil guy we supported during the Soviet invasion was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, not Osama Bin Laden.
If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran
That's a stupid thing to claim. However US is slowly sliding towards a totalitarian regime. It's not there yet but in a decade or two who knows?
Stupid? Here's another reply to my post that kinda proves the point I was trying to make:
The US is far worse. In Iran, you know what you're getting. Americans hide behind the lie of democracy and fairness while murdering millions of foreigners in aide of a crude substance that waits beneath sand that does not belong to the United States.
How many people are labelled as "illegal" and deported? Wasn't the USA supposed to be a bastion of human liberty? Oh, only if you're rich, white, and not attracted to members of the same gender.
You may not like it, but at least "they" are honest with their intentions.
The US is far worse. In Iran, you know what you're getting. Americans hide behind the lie of democracy and fairness while murdering millions of foreigners in aide of a crude substance that waits beneath sand that does not belong to the United States.
How many people are labelled as "illegal" and deported? Wasn't the USA supposed to be a bastion of human liberty? Oh, only if you're rich, white, and not attracted to members of the same gender.
You may not like it, but at least "they" are honest with their intentions.
i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.
The mujaheddin != the Taliban. Remember that there was a civil war raging in Afghanistan for decades before we went in. One side was the Taliban and their supporters. We supported the other side, those that were once the Mujaheddin.
Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.
If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran. No, I'm not kidding. There are people on here who will claim that the United States is just as bad as Iran when it comes to human rights issues and even try to argue this point.
Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so kindergarden is about five years old, right? So that means three and four year olds in "pre-school" (whatever that exactly is). Why, exactly, is a three or four year old using a computer?
There are excellent educational applications and websites for children to use. My pre-schooler uses a site called Starfall that has done an awful lot in teacher her to read, count and do basic math. She absolutely loves it. It also increases in difficulty as she goes on.
My daughter uses Linux exclusively and her account is quite restricted. Installed are the usual Tux apps, TuxPaint, TuxTyping and TuxMath, as well as the GCompris and ChildsPlay. Everything is fairly locked down and I can always increase or decrease availability as time goes on. For example, it will be no big deal to install an email program for her to email Grandma.
All of this is running on my PC and I have not taught her how to log as herself so she can't use the system without me being there. However, it won't be long before I give her own PC with extremely limited access for her to use as she pleases. Again, with Linux, I'm not worried too much about viruses or other malware, and I can configure the system exactly how I want it to be.
The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever.
And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.
Just a few examples.
Libertarian, busted you are.
Risk = Reward. If the Chinese can buy up all the mines in the world to corner the market on NEW materials, then they deserve the monopoly... wait, monopolies are illegal in this and many other countries. I wonder how that will play out.
But again, like people have said, even if all the mines are not producing, that will mean a HUGE market for recycled materials, increased research into alternatives and alternative supply chains.
So, yeah, China could bank if they could buy out the world's mines, buy out the future potential mines, outbid all other investors for those last few mines, prevent alternative sources from being found, and finally, prevent alternative materials from being discovered... yeah, then they could corner the market and reap huge rewards. However, that's a very VERY risky venture that, let's face it, won't pay out.
Sure, others have tried and some do quite well at it. DeBeers, for example, have a controlling chunk of the diamond market. However, the more they raise prices, the more alternative sources of diamonds are discovered. OPEC controls oil prices, but every time they cut production, more sources of oil are found.
There are laws of economics. The free market is based on those laws. Governments can bend the market one way or the other, but the laws may not be broken. When governments try to bend it too far one way or the other, a thriving black market will take over, which runs on... you guessed it... FREE MARKET principles.
I'm not recommending a free market. It's unavoidable. You may not break the laws of economics no more than you may break the laws of physics. You may try to manipulate them one way or the other and may even make a bit of progress, but in the end, the laws of supply and demand will win out. The trick is to not fight it. Know how the laws work and you can predict the future to make sure you are on the winning end every single time.
(yes, there are times when government intervention is required, like regulating natural monopolies such as utilities and insulin providers, but less is almost always better. Subsidies are almost never a good idea and if it really looks like China is about to corner the market on critical materials, then the US government can always declare the area around the mine a "national park" like ANWR to prevent anyone from owning it. Then the government would actually lease the rights to mine there.)
And that will be the Chinese, as they're the only one able to concentrate enough money (through state-owned companies) to buy up the mines.
No. Actually, US private sector is much larger than the Chinese government. The US private sector is larger than the US government. For that matter, US banks have more money than the Chinese government.
Sorry, but government only takes a percentage of GDP. That means that GDP is larger than government as long as tax rates are under 50%. All liquid money ends up in banks. Yeah, you may have put it in the stock market, but the company you invested in put it in the bank. If they spent it, whoever they spent it on put it in the bank.... all money goes through the banks. The banks in the second largest economy in the world can easily outbid the government of the third largest economy in the world (EU is first according to Wikipedia).
By the way, the US economy is still 2-3 times larger than the Chinese.
What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces. The situation is still anything but a free market.
If you consider China subsidizing shit to still be part of the 'free market,' then what the fuck is the point of even having the term 'free market' to begin with? It's all just 'the market'.
--Jeremy
Understand that OUR market will be free and end up ahead. Sure, in my example, the Chinese government tried to manipulate the market, and did so successfully. However, it didn't help them. It ended up helping OUR market, because we have the FREE market in my example.
What you've described is how customers will respond to market forces.
Yeah! It's called Demand and is the most fundamental concept of economics. I thought we were past that.
There are extractable deposits all through Colorado and New Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climax,_Colorado
But first you need to get past the Sierra Club. Good luck with that.
Whenever I've had conversations with libertarians about how free trade would actually work in the real world where governments frequently aggressively protect corporate interests, they always stammer "buh buh the free market will prevail."
Here, let me try.
When China subsidises it's own mines to drive prices down and force the competition out of business, our local mines will shutter and we all enjoy the benefits of rare earth minerals paid for, in part, by the Chinese taxpayer. We all win with the exception of the miners who were working at the mines. The mine owners may be forced to sell then mine to someone with enought foresight to know that the prices won't stay low forever. And they would be correct.
Once the Chinese government thinks they have a lock on the market and raises prices, the domestic mines open back up and begin to reap the large profits from the elevated prices of these rare earth minerals. Eventually, the price will lower and stabilize once supply reaches and equalibrium with demand.
So, yeah! The free markets will prevail. The main losers here would be the Chinese government and taxpayer who subsidized the materials that we used to build stuff and sell back to them at a profit. (Actually, they'd be the ones building it... but for Apple, who is American based)
You don't need a time machine, just a plane ticket and some money. Buying brides is still common practice in certain places of the world.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4862434.stm
I'm a little worried that you know of such things.
The comments made me think of this: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm . The changing roles of the sexes and modern technology are causing people to honestly ask the question, what are men FOR? As I look back on 50 years of life and 35 years of dating/interacting with females, I wonder too.
We go to work day in and day out and pay the bills while our wives stay at home, watch daytime TV and talk us into getting a housekeeper to come over twice a week.
You know, because we are the smart ones.
I agree with the GP. I don't expect a car less than 3 years old to break down. Reliability should not even be measured at anything less than 50,000 miles. It's hard to claim that GM is on par with Toyota when it comes to quality when GM's fall apart at 75,000 miles and Toyotas are still going strong at 150,000 miles. *Initial* quality, maybe, that that's not what I would call reliability.
As for not having a time machine, well, that's the price that domestic automakers pay for forcing crap down our throats for the past 30 years. Reliability takes time to judge. You can't build trust by saying, "All our new cars won't break down before 50,000 miles". You build trust by building a car that lasts 10 years with no problems. And yes, it takes that long to build trust.
In my personal experience, I've had eight cars in my life time:
1) 1980 Ford Thunderbird: This thing was falling apart when I bought it at 40,000 miles. I would have to fill it up with oil before I left the house and all of the oil would lead out within 30 miles. Wheel bearings went out. Alternator went out. Water pump went out. In replacing the water pump, a bolt that was only made for this car sheared off in the block of the engine. The bolt was, and I'm not kidding, $70 to replace as it was a dealership only item. I drilled the old bolt out myself. Oh, and it was not unusual to have parts simply fall off this car while on the road. For example, as I was leaving my neighborhood, the grill fell off. I had to stop the car and go back and pick it up. This thing would only start when it wanted to and flat out died in bad neighborhoods more than once. I sold the car for $100 before it hit 60,000 miles.
2) 1986 Jeep "SporTruck": I had to replace the transmission three times before 75,000 miles. A clutch lever broke at one point requiring some welding. The driver side external mirror simply fell off one day for no apparent reason. The lever that worked the lights broke, causing me to have to hold it in place by putting my hand behind the dash to turn the head lights out. The parking break would release on its own, causing the truck to roll away after being parked at random times.
3) Toyota truck (don't know the year): Bought this truck for $500 at 100,000 miles. I drove it until 250,000 miles and had to replace the water pump at one point. Sold it for $700. The guy paid $700 at the advice of a mechanic who looked at the truck and said, "it's ugly and the seats are torn, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You should easily get another 100,000 miles out of it".
4) 2000 Isuzu Rodeo (leased new): Put 75,000 miles in 3.5 years in the area around Michigan (snow, salt, etc). No problems. This was a company car that I gave back when the job was done.
5) 1998 Ford Explorer, Eddie Baur edition: At 70,000 miles, while trading it in for my wife's minivan, it caught on fire. We had just signed the paper work and got $2000 for it. (this thing was so rare that it didn't show up on any of the books. It was a V-8, 4WD, and every mechanic we took it to said it didn't exist)
5) 1996 Toyota Avalon: Bought for $500 at 75,000 miles. Traded in at 150,000 miles for $1000. The cup holder broke.
6) 2008 Scion TC: Bought new for $18000. Drove for 2 years. Put 60,000 miles on it. Traded it in for $13000 because it hurt my back to drive a standard in traffic. No problems.
7) 2006 Toyota Tacoma: Current vehicle. Purchased used at 40,000 miles. Currently has 60,000 with no problems. Toyota financing cut my interest rate to buy the extended warranty. It costs me $0.03 a month to have a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. I have not had to use it yet.
This is why I don't judge quality before a car is 3 years old. I'm sure you will understand why I'm reluctant to buy American again. I'll trust American cars when they last on average 150000 miles with no problems other than wiper blades, brake pads and tires.
You seem to forget that in those times, to deny god was to invite death at the hands of the church.
There is a difference between not denying God and having the devotion to live your life in a monastery. Mendel was a monk. That goes a bit beyond pretending to have faith for a better lifestyle. Also Mendel lived in the 1800's. That's the same time that Friedrich Nietzsche lived. Remember, Nietzsche said "God is dead". Strange that I don't remember Friedrich Nietzsche being burned as a heretic.
Pascal's defense of Christianity was never released until after his death. That proves he didn't write it to please the Pope.
If what you say it true, why would Sir Francis Bacon write about atheism if it didn't exist?
Finally, there are many modern day scientists who believe as well. You are free to look it up if you don't believe me. Be sure to read up on Francis Collins who considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". Collins is alive today, risked any persecution when he was an atheist. You read that correctly. Collins was an atheist in graduate school and familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology. He eventually came to a conclusion, and finally became an Evangelical Christian. He came to the conclusion all on his own, not because he was raised religious or feared for his life, but because he considered the evidence as a scientist to draw a conclusion. Also note that Collins does NOT believe in ID. He sees no conflict between the current theories of evolution and religion.
So, try again. I think your claims have been thoroughly proven to be false.
I am qualified to call them either idiots or hypocrites, because that is what they are. To cling to unsupported, self-contradictory, bronze age fairy tales the claims of which are directly contradicted by scientific research while claiming to be a professional scientist is the height of hypocrisy.
So, which is it? First you say that they really didn't believe and only pretended to save their own skin. Then you claim they "cling to unsupported, self-contradictory, bronze age fairy tales". You contradict yourself.
Given that above, it appears that your only qualification for calling anyone an idiot would be "it takes one to know one".
its fashionable and, in the past, life saving to say you were a believer. I understand wanting to stay alive. but no other conclusions should be made.
Even if that were the case, there is a difference between saying you believe to save your life and becoming a monk and living your life in a monastery, like Mendel did.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
So, in other words, completely harmless.
So you let your 5-yr-old look at porn? Do you show porn to the neighbor kids?
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.
Are you 5?
Answer this: Who is responsible for a child's actions? What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
And there is nothing wrong with barring kids from going to see Saw 5 or Basic Instinct.
There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to simulate killing prostitutes". If you think its ok for a 5 year old kid to have 'fun' killing prostitutes and stealing their money, then you have serious issues.
It's the parent's responsibility to monitor what a child does. That's why laws that make the parent buy this stuff are wrong. Duh!
FWIW, you are an idiot. The bible and christianity are not compatible with evolution and science. In fact, you are a deliberate idiot as you choose to believe in an untenable proposition.
Really? Tell that to Sir Francis Bacon. He is known as the father of the scientific method. He said, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
Gregor Mendel was a monk. Mendel discovered genetics.
Pascal wrote in defense of Christianity.
History is full of scientists who believed in God. The scientific profession is full on religious members today. Are you qualified to call them all idiots? Better yet, are you qualified to call ANY of them idiots?
He's just saying that he is an example of a Christian who believes in both science and creationism
This, in a nutshell, is the problem: the view that believing scientific claims is in some way relating to religious faith. The entire point of science is to be able to verify claims, which is very much different from believing in the existence of deities that cannot be measured, verified, or tested in any way.
Actually, the problem is people like you who can't fathom that someone can believe in science AND faith. Of course, your statement would be true if every scientist gave up on their faith as soon as they became scientists, but that's not the case.
Now granted, I don't know you or your scientific credentials, but based on your statement, I think I know enough. I am certain that you have not accomplished anything compared to the many scientists who are/were also Christians. Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel, and Kelvin, all believed in God. Or were these guys not real scientists?
It is possible to believe that God created everything and still try to figure out how.
Your belief system as you've defined it is not diametrically opposed to evolution. However, that does not mean your belief system is not diametrically opposed to science. It is.
You have faith that you know a truth about our universe despite your lack of scientific evidence, and there may not be any amount of scientific evidence that can make you change your mind.
You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to use Bible verses to prove anything scientific. I'm using them to prove that your quote of " However, that does not mean your belief system is not diametrically opposed to science. It is." is completely wrong.
It's kinda funny when someone comes along trying to sound smart, calls someone else stupid, when they are dead wrong on the very basis of their argument.
Now for the Bible verses that prove that the Bible is not against knowledge:
Proverbs 2:10-11 for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you,
Psalm 119:66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge,
Proverbs 1:5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,
Ecclesiastes 7:12 For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.
Prov 3:19-20a (NIV) By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided.
Prov 24:3-4 (NIV) By wisdom a house is built, and through understanding it is established; through knowledge its rooms are filled with rare and beautiful treasures.
Rom 10:2 (NIV) For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
Prov 19:2 (NIV) It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.
Hos 4:6 (NIV) My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
Since the Bible says that knowledge, wisdom and understanding are good things. So please accept this gift of knowledge. I hope you have the understanding to know what it all means and wisdom to know what to do with your new knowledge. Hopefully, you'll stop proving your ignorance on public forums.
Who cares what the bible has to say?
Actually, a whole bunch of people here brought it up. God forbid that someone actually defends themselves. Seriously, how long do you expect to call someone an idiot before someone tries to set the record straight.
So what do you do? You try to belittle the guy. You are an asshole trying to be a bully.
So what are you saying: that republicans and creationists are still at the intellectual level of cavemen ?
Please stop insulting cavemen.
Strange. The conservative rag NYTimes would say that it's not just a Republican thing:
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
Did you catch that? Majorities of Liberal Democrats favor teaching both evolution and creationism.
Of course, now that you've been educated, are you going to start insulting Democrats in this way? If not.... mmmmmm... smells like propaganda!
Santorum Calls Democrats 'Anti-Science'
Not only is he from the party that brought you Intelligent Design, he is the candidate that epitomizes anti-science.
For years, we had a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Across the country, there are several states with Republican majorities in the legislature and in the governor's mansion. Yet, we don't have ID taught in schools. No state in the union, Republican or Democrat, teaches ID in the science classroom.
Now, this tells me two things:
1) Republicans are NOT anti-science.
2) People like you want to believe it so bad, that you will accept blatant lies against all evidence to the contrary, as the absolute truth. You then repeat them over and over again so that people just as deluded as yourself will believe it for the same bullshit reasons and repeat them again. It's as if you decide that you feel a certain way, in this case you hate Republicans, then, and only then, you go out looking for reasons to justify your hatred.
Sorry, but numbers don't lie. Since 1980, the NASA budget has increased every single year with a Republican President. Every Democrat since 1980 has cut NASA's budget at some point during their presidencies.
So you can say that Republicans are "anti-science", but the numbers tell a different story.
Are you kidding? You really think the law is not going to recognise the difference between a helicopter and a bullet?
I bet the law knows the difference between shotgun pellets and "a bullet".
You mean this guy?
He fought against the Taliban. For that matter, he was the martyred leader of the Northern Alliance. Remember, those were the guys we helped kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was Mujahideen and, yes, Reagan was a huge supporter of his efforts.
Really? Try again:
The mujahideen benefited from expanded foreign military support from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations. The U.S. tended to favor the Afghan resistance forces led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, and U.S. support for Massoud's forces increased considerably in the 1980s. Primary advocates for supporting Massoud included two Heritage Foundation foreign policy analysts, Michael Johns and James A. Phillips, both of whom championed Massoud as the Afghan resistance leader most worthy of US support under the Reagan Doctrine.[33][34][
So, who was Ahmed Shah Massoud?
Ahmad Shah Massoud created the United Front (Northern Alliance) against the Taliban that were preparing offensives against the areas under the control of Massoud and against those under the control of other regional leaders. (see video) The United Front included forces and leaders from different political backgrounds as well as from all ethnicities of Afghanistan including Tajiks, Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Hazaras or Turkmens. From the Taliban conquest in 1996 until November 2001 the United Front controlled territory in which roughly 30% of Afghanistan's population was living in provinces such as Badakhshan, Kapisa, Takhar and parts of Parwan, Kunar, Nuristan, Laghman, Samangan, Kunduz, Ghr and Bamyan.
Ahmad Shah Massoud != Bin Laden. for that matter, Ahmad Shah Massoud was considered to be so dangerous that Bin Laden made it a point to assassinate him just days before 9-11.
The evil guy we supported during the Soviet invasion was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, not Osama Bin Laden.
If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran
That's a stupid thing to claim. However US is slowly sliding towards a totalitarian regime. It's not there yet but in a decade or two who knows?
Stupid? Here's another reply to my post that kinda proves the point I was trying to make:
The US is far worse. In Iran, you know what you're getting. Americans hide behind the lie of democracy and fairness while murdering millions of foreigners in aide of a crude substance that waits beneath sand that does not belong to the United States.
How many people are labelled as "illegal" and deported? Wasn't the USA supposed to be a bastion of human liberty? Oh, only if you're rich, white, and not attracted to members of the same gender.
You may not like it, but at least "they" are honest with their intentions.
The US is far worse. In Iran, you know what you're getting. Americans hide behind the lie of democracy and fairness while murdering millions of foreigners in aide of a crude substance that waits beneath sand that does not belong to the United States.
How many people are labelled as "illegal" and deported? Wasn't the USA supposed to be a bastion of human liberty? Oh, only if you're rich, white, and not attracted to members of the same gender.
You may not like it, but at least "they" are honest with their intentions.
You just proved my point. Thank you.
i notice you have a reagan signature. maybe you would enjoy his numerous speeches about the virtuous god-fearing mujahideen freedom fighters, and their battle against the godless communist aggressors in the 1980s? because there are a large number of such speeches. they are at the reagan archives, you can google them.
The mujaheddin != the Taliban. Remember that there was a civil war raging in Afghanistan for decades before we went in. One side was the Taliban and their supporters. We supported the other side, those that were once the Mujaheddin.
Islam is shaping up to be the modern day Nazi movement. Intolerant and bent on world domination.
If you read Slashdot enough, you would swear that the US is JUST as bad as Iran. No, I'm not kidding. There are people on here who will claim that the United States is just as bad as Iran when it comes to human rights issues and even try to argue this point.
Others will say that Christianity is the exact same as Islam, even though Christianity specifically forbids this type of killing.