Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Let's not ignore that, as the article points out, there's a loophole method of getting money from these investments in the form of loans using them as collateral.
Don't these loans need to be paid back at some point? They're going to have to either sell their shares, or earn money from somewhere else, to pay that loan. When that happens, they have to pay tax.
I was wondering that too. How do these loans get paid back?
Either way, the answer is simple. Rather than having a tax system based on how much money a person makes, why not have a tax system based on how much money people spend? Jobs borrowed billions using his stock as collateral. What happened to that money? I'm going to take a guess and say he spent it at some point.
With a tax on spending, no matter how much or how a person earns his income, it will get taxed when spent. Illegal alien? Money is taxed when it is spent. Drug dealer? Money is taxed when it is spent. Illegal gambler? Again, money is taxed when spent.
Of course, there are problems. Buy crack from dealer, it's not likely he's going to charge you sales tax. Hookers will have the same issue. That lady that cleans your house... Again, yes, not all taxation based on services will be enforcible, but it will still be taxed when they spend it.
A tax on spent money, aka a "Sales Tax" (doing the finger quotes here) will ensure that everyone pays taxes, no matter how good your accountant is, as there are no loopholes. The only way out is to save or invest, and well, you won't save forever. All money is spent at some point.
This guy claims he "allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window" ?? So a web browser was invented before the web itself? Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?
Of course they knew the name was taken, but since iPad was such a logical name for the device...
I would think that iTab would have been a better name. Sure, it reminds me an old, nasty, diet soda, but that's better than what iPad makes me think of.
Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom
Fuck, did this come straight from dubya? Are you even capable of critical thinking?
They hate our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!
Jesus, you're a fucking idiot.
You are right. The these guys love freedom and feel that the general public should be free to choose. However, if a citizen makes a choice that these guys disagree with, they kill that citizen and his family, hopefully in that order, but probably not.
I was replying to the comment above mine. I even quoted it. He said, "It's not the temperature, it's the rate."
Notice that he did not say, "It's not the temperature, it's the rate, ocean acidification, and recent anthropogenic pressure on coastal areas resulting in changes in water quality, eutrophication, and nutrient load, particularly in seagrass meadows."
If he had said that
you have a point; Else
you are just a moron;
So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
No, but it made the families of the MILLIONS killed feel better to know that something was finally being done about it. Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
No. It's representative of the people whose families were tortured and killed by the previous government ON PURPOSE! You know, like when they would kidnap a mother, rape and kill her and then send the video tape to the family kinda thing. But yeah, it's the same thing as a civilian who dies because the bridge he was driving on was blown up at 3:00 am to avoid civilian casualties.
You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
Actually, hijackers, by their very nature are hiding behind the civilians on the plane. Notice that no one hijacks a FedEx transport, for example. The passengers on the plane are their human shields.
Anything else I can answer for you, jackhole? Do you stand idly buy as that drunk beats the shit out of his girlfriend at the bar? Do you still do nothing when moves onto her children? If you hear a woman being raped outside your window, do you just watch and say, "That's unfortunate. She should do something about that"?
In a sense, correct. Human-induced climate change threatens to happen far faster than natural climate change, over a period of decades or centuries rather than tens of millenia. That type of sudden shift doesn't occur naturally short of a globally significent event like a supervolcano eruption.
So have there been any supervolcano eruptions in the past 200,000 years that should have killed this plant off?
I'm not trying to debate the merits of global warming here. I'm just agreeing with the ancestors of this post who say that trying to pull the global warming debate into every single things is BS.
Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
There is a HUGE difference. First of all, when I served in the military, I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading". No matter how hard I tried, I was not allowed to pay for anything. Even if I could convince the vendor to take my money, someone would always step up and pay for whatever I was trying to pay for. I didn't buy a whole lot, not wanting to take advantage of my hosts' hospitality and gratitude.
Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental. The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even if it sometimes meant letting the target go. You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
So, again, if you think it's the same thing, you are manipulating the facts in your own head to fit what already believe to be true.
Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
They don't need to "win." The US military isn't going to simply destroy its own entire nation to "win." There only needs to be enough resistance to force the government to significantly change policies, and that would be relatively easy given the level of armament in private hands.
Also understand that the US military is made up of volunteer civilians. Sure, some in the US military will be willing to fire on US citizens, but I seriously doubt that number will be more than half. While I don't expect a lot of grunts shooting their officers, I would expect an awful lot to not return from guard duty.
. There needs to be a way to publish studies, raw data, and the like, without jeopardizing one's career.
Of course there is. JUST PUBLISH IT. If it's valid, you're famous, the oil companies can quite legitimately shower you with money to continue your research. This continued assertion that there is a conspiracy to prevent dissenting views on global warming is just idiotic. Is Al Gore going to leave a horse's head in your bed?
Is there a word that combines "retarded" with "denialist"? There should be.
Here is a post a few spots up that completely negates your statement:
Richard Lindzen. Wasn't he the guy who was recently debunked and had his papers withdrawn from publication because he was being paid for his position?
The second a scientist takes on penny from an oil company, even after his work is published, he's instantly discredited, regardless of the quality or accuracy of his work. Yet, it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to take money in the form of a grant from a government that stands to gain power over citizens.
Or here is a better idea, if using tree rings leads to inaccurate results, then maybe we shouldn't use tree rings to figure out past temperatures. I'm absolutely certain that tree rings are no where near the accuracy required to judge changes withing the 1.6 degrees C they are predicting will end the world.
If you have to manipulate the data to make it fit what you think happened, then the data is no good.
Climate change aside, isn't reducing pollution incentive enough to look into alternative energy sources? We do only have one earth after all, and I believe common sense dictates that pollution is bad for it. Personally, I don't care if changes in climate are man made or not, but I can't think of a reason why reducing pollution would be a bad thing. Despite our differing political views, can we agree on this much?
Absolutely! I'm all for alternative forms of energy. I just don't like to give government power over my energy consumption. Between health and energy, the government will have complete control over all of our lives.
I'll probably get modded down for this comment and someone will tell me I'm wrong, even though everything I've posted is OPINION. But that's kinda how this site works. If someone disagrees with you and has mod points, they will mod you down, usually "overrated", in an attempt to silence views that differ from their own.
Proof? (Score:0, Flamebait)
Global Warming Alarmists try to silence the opposition to prevent you from hearing any views that may disprove their own.
If you disagree, post a reply.
From the moderator guidelines: Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down.
(Although, my post was absolutely full of typos. It's hard for me to read and I wrote the damn thing!)
Yes - intelligently questioned by people who are qualified to criticize it. And who "question" it by doing their own research, investigation, hypothesizing and testing... which is not the same as digging up spurious out-of-context quotes and raising biased, uninformed objections for political reasons.
See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.
Can you name a me a single AGW "denialist" that you deem to be qualified enough to have their theories and research taken seriously?
It always astonishes me that on a geeky site like Slashdot with an audience that in theory puts such a high value on science, you get so many global warming denialists.
When it's hot, we are told, "See, it's Global Warming!" Because when it's cold, we are told that weather is not climate. When scientists does non-government funded research that supports "denialist", we are told to consider who's paying for the study (big oil, etc..) When scientists government funds research that supports the "alarmists" and gives governments more power, we are told that scientists don't have an agenda.
No "denialists" has done anything as boneheaded as "hide the decline", so I can't compare it to anything. But try to be honest and imagine your outrage if a "denialist" had his email hacked and it showed that he was "hiding the rise" and trying to block opposing views from being published. You'd say that alone proves that all "denialists" are frauds. But since it was an alarmist, you say that it's taken out of context. Would you honestly say the same if the shoe were on the other foot.
The hypocrisy doesn't help either. The ones screaming the loudest are the ones in the biggest houses with the largest fleets of SUV and private planes. If they really bought the hype they were spewing, they'd be on a bike planting trees.
You also have to notice that the people who are screaming the loudest about global warming opposed big oil before global warming was a blip on the radar. I don't know if they believe because of the science or simply because the WANT to believe it so bad. We all want to believe that our plight in life sucks because some old, fat white guy with a cigar and longhorns on the front of his Cadillac is holding us down.
Sorry, but I smell an awful lot of bullshit and incompetence coming from the "alarmist" camp. Even if they are completely on the up and up and 100% on global warming, you have to admit the whole thing has been a disastrous comedy of errors. I wonder about the competency of some of these leading scientists that don't you don't put shit like that in email form.
Finally, it's the insults and the attempt to shut down the discussion that comes from the "alarmists". Al Gore says, "the debate is over". Others say, "We have a consensus", as if truth follows scientist majority. Then we have people like you who insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees by saying that they know nothing about science or are just plain stupid.
So, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm not a climatologist, so my opinion does not really matter either way. Frankly, I am a climatological agnostic. I simply don't know. But being a conservative and not saying that I believe in AGW suddenly makes me "denialist" to people like you.
I'll probably get modded down for this comment and someone will tell me I'm wrong, even though everything I've posted is OPINION. But that's kinda how this site works. If someone disagrees with you and has mod points, they will mod you down, usually "overrated", in an attempt to silence views that differ from their own. But you didn't seem to understand how a site filled with such intelligent people could harbor those you think are so stupid, I thought I'd explain what makes us think that way. Intelligent people by their very nature are skeptics. And since absolutely nothing on this debate relies on my opinion, I can afford to remain skeptical with no ill effects.
I believe it's because international collaboration is meant to save money, but in order to save money, NASA is cancelling the international collaboration.
I'm no English major, so if you have a term that better describes the situation, I try to add it my vocabulary.
I had my carrier, Sprint, turn "premium rate" text messaging off completely. My phone is clean, but I don't have to worry about it anyway.
Also, it's worth noting that these guys don't need a virus to charge you for this stuff. About 2-3 times a year, I would get some charge on my bill from a joke line, horoscope line or whatever that I never signed up for through text messaging or any other way. The last time it happened, I explained to the customer service rep that I would never use this type of service and she suggested that I block it. I have not had another charge since.
So who will be with her to kill the hobo in the park to protect her from seeing alcohol being consumed? And who will be with her to kill the video store clerk to protect her from the inappropriate lyrics on his hip-hop cd? And who will be with her to kill the oil-change guy to protect her from his sailor-like swearing after he burns his hand?
You are so right. I should just hand my son over to NAMBLA now. I mean, he's gonna have sex some day so there is no point in trying to protect him from the inevitable. Besides, a five year old getting rammed in the ass by a balding, grown fat man is the exact same thing as hearing the word "fuck". I'm sure my daughter is going to stub her toe at some point, so there is no sense in making her wear a helmet when she rides her bike or try to stop her climbing bookshelves. Hell, for that matter, they will both die someday. Why should I keep them from playing on the freeway?
None of these things you mentioned is as vile as committing a sexual crime against a child. Showing porn to a child, or even making it available, is a sexual crime. Grown men that commit sexual crimes against children need to die. And don't even play that, "she didn't have to look at it" bullshit either because you can't stop children from looking. Displaying it where children are is a sexual crime, period.
As for being in jail, it's worth it. I thought I made that clear. Family comes before freedom, which comes before life and even country. I'm a veteran. I'm willing to die for country. Imagine what I'd be willing to do for my family. In all honesty, however, I don't think I'd even go to jail. The trick is to make sure that at least one red-neck dad is on the jury and/or a new, first time mother and I'll be all set. (Red-neck is not a negative term in this case, but simply saying "honorable" is not specific enough.)
As for me "sounding fierce" on Slashdot, that was not my intent. I'm actually a fairly gentle guy. My point was that no matter how docile or submissive a parent is, that changes when children are involved. May I refer you to the video of water buffalo taking on a lions and alligators to protect a young that was about to be eaten. Imagine how much more dangerous a grown man can be when someone violates his children for their own selfish whims.
The main point here is that the library is not an adult book store. You can't go to your tax accessors' office and use their computers to update your Facebook status. You can't go to the White House and move into the Lincoln Bedroom. You may not go board an aircraft carrier and say, "take me to Hawaii" Why not? Your tax dollars paid for all of them. They are effectively your property, right? Wrong. See, that was not the purpose of these items. The tax accessors' computer are meant for state business. The White House is meant to the place where the president lives. You may not screw over all the other tax payers and use the items for purposes they were not intended for. A library is a place for people to check out books and do research. It is NOT a peepshow or adult book store. That's not why the tax payers voted to fund it. If the tax payers want a public porn shop, they can vote to fund one. But never has the public in any city in America approved funding for a library so pervs could view porn in front of children.
I'm not sure why that proposition is so absurd. I've grown up, I've paid my dues, I pay my taxes (which pays for the library), etc.. Why should the child who has contributed nothing to society yet get the most freedom? I think I've earned the right to look at porn in the comfortable part of the library.
This is not a "think of the children" issue. This is a "I will think of MY children" issue.
I've grown up too. I also pay taxes, as does my wife and my kids will as well. Your rights are no more important than my own. If you want to look at porn, fine. You are free to do that in your own home, or a peep show or a XXX bookstore or wherever else is appropriate for that kind of behavior. I promise you that you will not have to worry about my kids being there. But if you want to show porn to my kid, or view it knowingly where she will see it, I will kill you as slowly as possible. That's no threat. Do not underestimate how far a parent will go to protect his or her children, even if I'm just protecting their innocence. Any respectable parent will gladly kill or die for their kids. I'd prefer you just leave, though, as it is easier on all of us. So, you can pick your ass up and leave, or be bludgeoned until the police drag me off you dead body. I'm sure I might go to jail. It's worth it to protect my children.
So, if it's your tax dollars you are worried about, it's cheaper to look at your old man porn at home or at least with more discretion than to look at it where the story lady reads to preschoolers. If you don't have that level of discretion or class, you will have it shortly after your dead body soils itself on the library floor.
And yes, it's easier for my wife to explain to my daughter than daddy was protecting her honor than it is to try to explain what a rusty trombone is and why that dead guy was looking at it performed in the library.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You have the right to make your point known, but once that is done, STFU and sit down. You think I'm wrong? Ask the protesters who just got run out of several parks around the country. They came, they say, they made their point. Now no one gives a shit any more. The police, or park rangers or whoever is free to billy-club their asses into submission. No one violated their rights. They said their piece. Now it's time for the rest of us to get on with our lives until they have something new to say. At that point, we'll listen and ignore them again.
Burning down the library causes physical harm. Images don't. But seeing some guy with his schlong hanging out isn't any more harmful than seeing a photograph of the same guy with his schlong hanging out, as long as he isn't trying to touch you with it or squirt his jism all over the keyboard for someone else to clean up.
Right! And public exposure is illegal. Opening your trench coat and flashing kids at the bus stop is called sexual assault and will put you on the sexual predator's list. Even if you were simply flashing the stop sign on the corner, you are still responsible for what the kids see. Telling the judge, "They didn't have to look!" won't do you get any good.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not ignore that, as the article points out, there's a loophole method of getting money from these investments in the form of loans using them as collateral.
Don't these loans need to be paid back at some point? They're going to have to either sell their shares, or earn money from somewhere else, to pay that loan. When that happens, they have to pay tax.
I was wondering that too. How do these loans get paid back?
Either way, the answer is simple. Rather than having a tax system based on how much money a person makes, why not have a tax system based on how much money people spend? Jobs borrowed billions using his stock as collateral. What happened to that money? I'm going to take a guess and say he spent it at some point.
With a tax on spending, no matter how much or how a person earns his income, it will get taxed when spent. Illegal alien? Money is taxed when it is spent. Drug dealer? Money is taxed when it is spent. Illegal gambler? Again, money is taxed when spent.
Of course, there are problems. Buy crack from dealer, it's not likely he's going to charge you sales tax. Hookers will have the same issue. That lady that cleans your house... Again, yes, not all taxation based on services will be enforcible, but it will still be taxed when they spend it.
A tax on spent money, aka a "Sales Tax" (doing the finger quotes here) will ensure that everyone pays taxes, no matter how good your accountant is, as there are no loopholes. The only way out is to save or invest, and well, you won't save forever. All money is spent at some point.
This guy claims he "allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window" ?? So a web browser was invented before the web itself? Can we ask him if the chicken or egg came first?
He is a biologist. He would be the one to ask.
Of course they knew the name was taken, but since iPad was such a logical name for the device...
I would think that iTab would have been a better name. Sure, it reminds me an old, nasty, diet soda, but that's better than what iPad makes me think of.
Fact of the matter is insurgents hate the idea of freedom and will kill anyone to try and crush freedom
Fuck, did this come straight from dubya? Are you even capable of critical thinking?
They hate our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!
Jesus, you're a fucking idiot.
You are right. The these guys love freedom and feel that the general public should be free to choose. However, if a citizen makes a choice that these guys disagree with, they kill that citizen and his family, hopefully in that order, but probably not.
And don't call Jesus an idiot.
In case you're actually this dumb and not just being obtuse:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2658669&cid=38956039
I was replying to the comment above mine. I even quoted it. He said, "It's not the temperature, it's the rate."
Notice that he did not say, "It's not the temperature, it's the rate, ocean acidification, and recent anthropogenic pressure on coastal areas resulting in changes in water quality, eutrophication, and nutrient load, particularly in seagrass meadows."
If he had said that
you have a point;
Else
you are just a moron;
So the 100,000+ civilians killed in Iraq was accidental. I'm sure that makes them feel much better.
No, but it made the families of the MILLIONS killed feel better to know that something was finally being done about it. Also, that 100,000 number is bullshit.
Is that also representative of the family members of some of those accidental deaths?
No. It's representative of the people whose families were tortured and killed by the previous government ON PURPOSE! You know, like when they would kidnap a mother, rape and kill her and then send the video tape to the family kinda thing. But yeah, it's the same thing as a civilian who dies because the bridge he was driving on was blown up at 3:00 am to avoid civilian casualties.
You have that in common with the 9/11 terrorists.
Actually, hijackers, by their very nature are hiding behind the civilians on the plane. Notice that no one hijacks a FedEx transport, for example. The passengers on the plane are their human shields.
Anything else I can answer for you, jackhole? Do you stand idly buy as that drunk beats the shit out of his girlfriend at the bar? Do you still do nothing when moves onto her children? If you hear a woman being raped outside your window, do you just watch and say, "That's unfortunate. She should do something about that"?
In a sense, correct. Human-induced climate change threatens to happen far faster than natural climate change, over a period of decades or centuries rather than tens of millenia. That type of sudden shift doesn't occur naturally short of a globally significent event like a supervolcano eruption.
So have there been any supervolcano eruptions in the past 200,000 years that should have killed this plant off?
I'm not trying to debate the merits of global warming here. I'm just agreeing with the ancestors of this post who say that trying to pull the global warming debate into every single things is BS.
It's not the temperature, it's the rate.
So are you saying that if the temperature rises too fast, these plants will die, right?
About 200,000 spring times will disagree with you.
Iran hasn't invaded any nations causing a doubling of overall mortality and the deaths of a million people.
There is a HUGE difference. First of all, when I served in the military, I was greeted with open arms by the people in the country I was "invading". No matter how hard I tried, I was not allowed to pay for anything. Even if I could convince the vendor to take my money, someone would always step up and pay for whatever I was trying to pay for. I didn't buy a whole lot, not wanting to take advantage of my hosts' hospitality and gratitude.
Next, any civilian casualties resulting from our "invasion" was purely accidental. The US and her allies went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even if it sometimes meant letting the target go. You'll also notice that the US military does not hide behind human shields made of women and children.
So, again, if you think it's the same thing, you are manipulating the facts in your own head to fit what already believe to be true.
Is she hot?
I've done worse, and they didn't know Linux.
Yup, it's a modern, prosperous country that spouts bullshit and propaganda about its enemies. It does have a dubious government which oppresses the rights of the people as well. Oh, and so does Iran.
While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
They don't need to "win." The US military isn't going to simply destroy its own entire nation to "win." There only needs to be enough resistance to force the government to significantly change policies, and that would be relatively easy given the level of armament in private hands.
Also understand that the US military is made up of volunteer civilians. Sure, some in the US military will be willing to fire on US citizens, but I seriously doubt that number will be more than half. While I don't expect a lot of grunts shooting their officers, I would expect an awful lot to not return from guard duty.
. There needs to be a way to publish studies, raw data, and the like, without jeopardizing one's career.
Of course there is. JUST PUBLISH IT. If it's valid, you're famous, the oil companies can quite legitimately shower you with money to continue your research. This continued assertion that there is a conspiracy to prevent dissenting views on global warming is just idiotic. Is Al Gore going to leave a horse's head in your bed?
Is there a word that combines "retarded" with "denialist"? There should be.
Here is a post a few spots up that completely negates your statement:
Richard Lindzen. Wasn't he the guy who was recently debunked and had his papers withdrawn from publication because he was being paid for his position?
The second a scientist takes on penny from an oil company, even after his work is published, he's instantly discredited, regardless of the quality or accuracy of his work. Yet, it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to take money in the form of a grant from a government that stands to gain power over citizens.
Or here is a better idea, if using tree rings leads to inaccurate results, then maybe we shouldn't use tree rings to figure out past temperatures. I'm absolutely certain that tree rings are no where near the accuracy required to judge changes withing the 1.6 degrees C they are predicting will end the world.
If you have to manipulate the data to make it fit what you think happened, then the data is no good.
Don't use tools that don't work. Problem solved.
Climate change aside, isn't reducing pollution incentive enough to look into alternative energy sources? We do only have one earth after all, and I believe common sense dictates that pollution is bad for it. Personally, I don't care if changes in climate are man made or not, but I can't think of a reason why reducing pollution would be a bad thing. Despite our differing political views, can we agree on this much?
Absolutely! I'm all for alternative forms of energy. I just don't like to give government power over my energy consumption. Between health and energy, the government will have complete control over all of our lives.
I'll probably get modded down for this comment and someone will tell me I'm wrong, even though everything I've posted is OPINION. But that's kinda how this site works. If someone disagrees with you and has mod points, they will mod you down, usually "overrated", in an attempt to silence views that differ from their own.
Proof?
(Score:0, Flamebait)
Global Warming Alarmists try to silence the opposition to prevent you from hearing any views that may disprove their own.
If you disagree, post a reply.
From the moderator guidelines:
Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down.
(Although, my post was absolutely full of typos. It's hard for me to read and I wrote the damn thing!)
> Shouldn't all science be questioned?
Yes - intelligently questioned by people who are qualified to criticize it. And who "question" it by doing their own research, investigation, hypothesizing and testing... which is not the same as digging up spurious out-of-context quotes and raising biased, uninformed objections for political reasons.
See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.
Can you name a me a single AGW "denialist" that you deem to be qualified enough to have their theories and research taken seriously?
Exactly!
It always astonishes me that on a geeky site like Slashdot with an audience that in theory puts such a high value on science, you get so many global warming denialists.
When it's hot, we are told, "See, it's Global Warming!"
Because when it's cold, we are told that weather is not climate.
When scientists does non-government funded research that supports "denialist", we are told to consider who's paying for the study (big oil, etc..)
When scientists government funds research that supports the "alarmists" and gives governments more power, we are told that scientists don't have an agenda.
No "denialists" has done anything as boneheaded as "hide the decline", so I can't compare it to anything. But try to be honest and imagine your outrage if a "denialist" had his email hacked and it showed that he was "hiding the rise" and trying to block opposing views from being published. You'd say that alone proves that all "denialists" are frauds. But since it was an alarmist, you say that it's taken out of context. Would you honestly say the same if the shoe were on the other foot.
The hypocrisy doesn't help either. The ones screaming the loudest are the ones in the biggest houses with the largest fleets of SUV and private planes. If they really bought the hype they were spewing, they'd be on a bike planting trees.
You also have to notice that the people who are screaming the loudest about global warming opposed big oil before global warming was a blip on the radar. I don't know if they believe because of the science or simply because the WANT to believe it so bad. We all want to believe that our plight in life sucks because some old, fat white guy with a cigar and longhorns on the front of his Cadillac is holding us down.
Sorry, but I smell an awful lot of bullshit and incompetence coming from the "alarmist" camp. Even if they are completely on the up and up and 100% on global warming, you have to admit the whole thing has been a disastrous comedy of errors. I wonder about the competency of some of these leading scientists that don't you don't put shit like that in email form.
Finally, it's the insults and the attempt to shut down the discussion that comes from the "alarmists". Al Gore says, "the debate is over". Others say, "We have a consensus", as if truth follows scientist majority. Then we have people like you who insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees by saying that they know nothing about science or are just plain stupid.
So, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm not a climatologist, so my opinion does not really matter either way. Frankly, I am a climatological agnostic. I simply don't know. But being a conservative and not saying that I believe in AGW suddenly makes me "denialist" to people like you.
I'll probably get modded down for this comment and someone will tell me I'm wrong, even though everything I've posted is OPINION. But that's kinda how this site works. If someone disagrees with you and has mod points, they will mod you down, usually "overrated", in an attempt to silence views that differ from their own. But you didn't seem to understand how a site filled with such intelligent people could harbor those you think are so stupid, I thought I'd explain what makes us think that way. Intelligent people by their very nature are skeptics. And since absolutely nothing on this debate relies on my opinion, I can afford to remain skeptical with no ill effects.
How is international collaboration 'ironic'?
I believe it's because international collaboration is meant to save money, but in order to save money, NASA is cancelling the international collaboration.
I'm no English major, so if you have a term that better describes the situation, I try to add it my vocabulary.
I had my carrier, Sprint, turn "premium rate" text messaging off completely. My phone is clean, but I don't have to worry about it anyway.
Also, it's worth noting that these guys don't need a virus to charge you for this stuff. About 2-3 times a year, I would get some charge on my bill from a joke line, horoscope line or whatever that I never signed up for through text messaging or any other way. The last time it happened, I explained to the customer service rep that I would never use this type of service and she suggested that I block it. I have not had another charge since.
No, informative.
So who will be with her to kill the hobo in the park to protect her from seeing alcohol being consumed?
And who will be with her to kill the video store clerk to protect her from the inappropriate lyrics on his hip-hop cd?
And who will be with her to kill the oil-change guy to protect her from his sailor-like swearing after he burns his hand?
You are so right. I should just hand my son over to NAMBLA now. I mean, he's gonna have sex some day so there is no point in trying to protect him from the inevitable. Besides, a five year old getting rammed in the ass by a balding, grown fat man is the exact same thing as hearing the word "fuck". I'm sure my daughter is going to stub her toe at some point, so there is no sense in making her wear a helmet when she rides her bike or try to stop her climbing bookshelves. Hell, for that matter, they will both die someday. Why should I keep them from playing on the freeway?
None of these things you mentioned is as vile as committing a sexual crime against a child. Showing porn to a child, or even making it available, is a sexual crime. Grown men that commit sexual crimes against children need to die. And don't even play that, "she didn't have to look at it" bullshit either because you can't stop children from looking. Displaying it where children are is a sexual crime, period.
As for being in jail, it's worth it. I thought I made that clear. Family comes before freedom, which comes before life and even country. I'm a veteran. I'm willing to die for country. Imagine what I'd be willing to do for my family. In all honesty, however, I don't think I'd even go to jail. The trick is to make sure that at least one red-neck dad is on the jury and/or a new, first time mother and I'll be all set. (Red-neck is not a negative term in this case, but simply saying "honorable" is not specific enough.)
As for me "sounding fierce" on Slashdot, that was not my intent. I'm actually a fairly gentle guy. My point was that no matter how docile or submissive a parent is, that changes when children are involved. May I refer you to the video of water buffalo taking on a lions and alligators to protect a young that was about to be eaten. Imagine how much more dangerous a grown man can be when someone violates his children for their own selfish whims.
The main point here is that the library is not an adult book store. You can't go to your tax accessors' office and use their computers to update your Facebook status. You can't go to the White House and move into the Lincoln Bedroom. You may not go board an aircraft carrier and say, "take me to Hawaii" Why not? Your tax dollars paid for all of them. They are effectively your property, right? Wrong. See, that was not the purpose of these items. The tax accessors' computer are meant for state business. The White House is meant to the place where the president lives. You may not screw over all the other tax payers and use the items for purposes they were not intended for. A library is a place for people to check out books and do research. It is NOT a peepshow or adult book store. That's not why the tax payers voted to fund it. If the tax payers want a public porn shop, they can vote to fund one. But never has the public in any city in America approved funding for a library so pervs could view porn in front of children.
I'm not sure why that proposition is so absurd. I've grown up, I've paid my dues, I pay my taxes (which pays for the library), etc.. Why should the child who has contributed nothing to society yet get the most freedom? I think I've earned the right to look at porn in the comfortable part of the library.
This is not a "think of the children" issue. This is a "I will think of MY children" issue.
I've grown up too. I also pay taxes, as does my wife and my kids will as well. Your rights are no more important than my own. If you want to look at porn, fine. You are free to do that in your own home, or a peep show or a XXX bookstore or wherever else is appropriate for that kind of behavior. I promise you that you will not have to worry about my kids being there. But if you want to show porn to my kid, or view it knowingly where she will see it, I will kill you as slowly as possible. That's no threat. Do not underestimate how far a parent will go to protect his or her children, even if I'm just protecting their innocence. Any respectable parent will gladly kill or die for their kids. I'd prefer you just leave, though, as it is easier on all of us. So, you can pick your ass up and leave, or be bludgeoned until the police drag me off you dead body. I'm sure I might go to jail. It's worth it to protect my children.
So, if it's your tax dollars you are worried about, it's cheaper to look at your old man porn at home or at least with more discretion than to look at it where the story lady reads to preschoolers. If you don't have that level of discretion or class, you will have it shortly after your dead body soils itself on the library floor.
And yes, it's easier for my wife to explain to my daughter than daddy was protecting her honor than it is to try to explain what a rusty trombone is and why that dead guy was looking at it performed in the library.
You are wrong. Free speech entails the right to say it over and over and over again.
You have the right to make your point known, but once that is done, STFU and sit down. You think I'm wrong? Ask the protesters who just got run out of several parks around the country. They came, they say, they made their point. Now no one gives a shit any more. The police, or park rangers or whoever is free to billy-club their asses into submission. No one violated their rights. They said their piece. Now it's time for the rest of us to get on with our lives until they have something new to say. At that point, we'll listen and ignore them again.
Burning down the library causes physical harm. Images don't. But seeing some guy with his schlong hanging out isn't any more harmful than seeing a photograph of the same guy with his schlong hanging out, as long as he isn't trying to touch you with it or squirt his jism all over the keyboard for someone else to clean up.
Right! And public exposure is illegal. Opening your trench coat and flashing kids at the bus stop is called sexual assault and will put you on the sexual predator's list. Even if you were simply flashing the stop sign on the corner, you are still responsible for what the kids see. Telling the judge, "They didn't have to look!" won't do you get any good.