Do you think that just by destroying Al-Qaeda terrorism will just magically vanish?
Then again, that's the beauty of it.
What would you suggest? We can't search passengers before they enter an airliner. We can't build a border fence or do anything else to secure the borders. We can't create an ID to make non-terrorists easily identifiable nor may we even ask you to ID yourself. We can't place cameras in public. We can't listen in to calls made to Pakistan. We can't read emails to known terrorist. We cant interrogate prisoners. We can't take prisoners. We can't hold prisoners.
Holy Shit! What would you suggest we do? You know, other than lay on our backs with our legs open.
Oh, and don't say, "live in peace and harmony with the world". That doesn't necessarily work.
I wonder how many recruits we've generated by killing innocents with our bombs and drones.
About half as many US Soldiers they created by killing our innocent civilians with our airplanes filled with more innocent civilians. You should also understand that Al Qaeda and other radical Muslims kill more Arab civilians than we could possibly have the stomach for.
I doubt it, given the 200+ year history of the US military and relatively short history of suicide bombers, even taking into account 9/11.
Of course, this asshole thinks that America is more evil than the terrorists. The mere fact that terrorists intentionally target civilians while the American military goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties means absolutely nothing.
It should be noted that http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ lists civilian deaths caused by terrorist actions as well as legitimate military actions. It would be incorrect to assume that the numbers listed there are as a result of American action.
Just to put things in perspective, it should also be noted that UNICEF estimated that 250,000 children died from preventable causes as a result of Saddam Hussein's action or inaction as leader. Iraqbodycount.org estimates that the total number of civilian deaths to be anywhere from 100,000 to 109,000.
Until th deniers can put up peer reviewed research to discredit the current scientific consensus, then they are just part of the FUD.
Wait a minute. Wasn't that whole climate-gate email scandal because scientists were trying to keep scientists who might disagree with them from getting their word out? Won't you simply accuse any scientist that shows that GW is not a problem or is not happening of spreading FUD and/or working for big oil or (insert evil company here)? So they prevent those that may disprove their work from getting published, attack and credibility and ridicule any who might get the word out otherwise and then use the fact that no published or credible work disagrees with them as proof that their work is correct.
Of course, anyone who disagrees is immediately discredited simply by the very fact that they disagree. Here is a quote that proves it:
However, you miss the fact that most deniers are also attacking science in general.
See, those that disagree are labeled "deniers", as in they are denying the facts. And of course, simply by the fact that they question GW, they are "attacking science in general". In other words, they have no credibility as scientists because a real scientist wouldn't dare go against the "consensus".
Also, "consensus" means nothing in science. Everything that science has proved wrong was once supported by a consensus. Science is not a democracy.
Oil companies will lose their subsidies and tax breaks. Boo hoo. Perhaps then we will finally get a real sustainable energy policy and ditch oil crack habit.that will eventually drive us into the ditch. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
You do know that companies don't pay taxes, right? Companies, including oil companies, pass any increase in cost directly to their customers.
Your post is a fine example of what I like to call environmental hypocrisy. You will fight tooth and nail to not do so much as take your shoes off to get on airplane. You will fight to the death for the right to not carry an ID card. However, because you believe that there will be an energy shortage one day, you want government to create an artificial shortage today. It doesn't matter that we have enough energy to last us for hundreds of years, you wish to create an artificial shortage by limiting the amount of energy we may produce domestically and you actually believe that it will somehow make us import less. People like you are so happy to punish those who use more than you that you lose your ability to think logically. You really don't care that you have to pay more for food and transportation as long as you know that the rich guy in the SUV has to pay more also. You are happy to make someone else suffer for their lifestyle, simply because you don't like it. And when you see that mother of two have to tell her kids that they can't afford to go to Grandma's house because gas is too expensive, you comfort yourself by saying, “we all have to make sacrifices in order to create the world that I want to live in. Besides, they can see Grandma on Facetime.”
The best part? You accuse others of using fear to force the people to change the way they do things and then turn around use fear to force others to change the way they live their lives. It means nothing to you that real people have really died due to terrorism, and that terrorists really do want to kill more people, you see climate change as a bigger threat even though exactly zero people have died due to global warming, and that climate change has happened since the beginning of time. You want government to force me to live my life the way YOU think I should live it, even though, and I use your words, “There aren't any scientists out there saying we can stop climate change. We passed that point a long time ago. We can only reduce the impact and prepare.”
You won't remove your shoes to stop terrorists from killing the innocent, but you will gladly pay more for your life just to keep me from taking my little girl away from the city lights to see the rings of Saturn through her new telescope.
Deniers have a lot more to gain in the short term than believers, and based on that alone, I find the believers more believable.
"Believers": For business, we are talking about trillions of dollars in government investment and laws that will favor your bottom line if you play ball. GE, for example made billions in profits and paid zero in taxes. Carbon credit trading companies stand to be the next Enron, except they will be trading government mandated nothings in exchange for real cash.
Government stand to gain unlimited power. They will gain the power to tell citizens what to eat, here to go, what to drive, where to work, what they will do, where to live and what temperature to keep that house at. They will literally be able to control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the lives of citizens. This may also go beyond borders as well. A "world eco government" could be set up to set international rules. Of course, companies that play ball will receive government help, so the system is pre set up for corruption.
Scientists can gain because there is so much money and power to be gained, scientists and universities seeking grants will have better luck proposing a study that will "prove that stricter government control is required to prevent global catastrophe" will more likely get a grant than one that will "prove that global warming is not a problem and regulation is not needed".
"Deniers": Scientist deniers are going nowhere. They do not get grants and get shunned by their peers. Politicians are being compared to flat earthers and ridiculed by the main stream media. NBC and MSNBC were owned by GE, btw, who made billions in profits, yet paid no taxes. Businesses gain nothing by being a global warming denier. They lose any "green cred" which would run off an environmentally conscious customers. Oil companies are about to have their taxes raised (or tax brakes taken away, same thing) while gas prices are at a all time high.
So, it appears that "believers" have unlimited power and money to gain. The absolute best anyone can hope for by being a "denier" is the status quo, so absolutely nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
These companies don't want to compete against their own products (released to open source). They'd rather make these products disappear forever, and force customers to buy the newest gadgets.
Basically it's the same strategy Microsoft follows when it refuses to open source Windows 3 or 95 or XP.
Exactly. Companies don't want the public to improve their old products, preventing them from buying new ones. For example, let's say Cicso opened up the software of all of their old routers. The open source community would take those routers and improve on them, giving them features only available in new routers. Now companies will upgrade their old routers instead of buying new ones.
Also, there is a liability issue. In the example above, what if someone found a security hole by examining the software that opened up companies that use Cicso routers? What if that whole was unnoticed and ported to the new routers by Cicso? Suddenly, the entire Cicso product line, current and discontinued would need an immediate patch, costing Cicso a fortune, not to mention any legal liability to companies that were already attacked.
Are we supposed to be cheering at the knowledge that we're not the only ones that f**ked up our money management?
No. We need to be cheering because now we will stop hearing people sing the monorail song while saying "we have to get high-speed rail. The Chinese are doing it!"
I can't tell you how many times in the past few months I've heard high speed rail advocates point out that the Chinese are building one. Now maybe they'll STFU and stop asking for my tax dollars!
Are we supposed to be cheering at the knowledge that we're not the only ones that f**ked up our money management?
No. We need to be cheering because now we will stop hearing people sing the monorail song while saying "we have to get high-speed rail. The Chinese are doing it!"
I can't tell you how many times in the past few months I've heard high speed rail advocates point out that the Chinese are building one. Now maybe they'll STFU and stop asking for my tax dollars!
I find it rather sad really...I used to be a Mac-guy (before Linux stole my heart), so I've a special place in my heart for 'em.
Listen to the "Big Brother" character talking. For the first time, I heard him say, "... a garden of information..." I wonder if that garden is walled.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you advocating a targeted $10 per barrel tax only on oil drilled from ANWR? That seems silly, plus you must be aware that taxes on oil production are a political non-starter. It would be easier to get environmentalists to agree to drilling than to get the GOP to agree to taxes. And I don't even want to think about the economic distortions that would accompany taxing one area of production but not others...
On the other hand, it kinda sounds like you're calling for the Federal government to get into the oil drilling & selling business.
It is estimated that it will cost between $30 and $50 a barrel to extract oil from ANWR. Oil is currently trading at over $100/barrel. The owner of the mineral rights owns the oil. That owner is the US Government. That means that it will be the US Gov't selling the oil at roughly $70/bl profit. Take $10 from every barrel sold and invest that into "green energy". Take a portion out of environmental maintenance, another portion out as an environmental disaster insurance, and the rest goes into the US Gov't general fund.
Well, we could change $130 million to $130 Billion if we could work out some sort of compromise. For example, we could drill ANWR, which is federal land (meaning federal oil), and mandate that the feds set aside $10 for each barrel of oil sold for investment into "green energy".
Oh, wait. We can't do that. A Caribou may have to have sex five miles from where he had it last year. Nevermind.
LOL what goes around comes around. Americans didn't get where they are without totally disrespecting intellectual property from europe during the industrial revolution. why should the chinese?
Which we then used to build tanks, airplanes, submarines and battleships to defeat the Nazis.
I watched Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on TV this morning, for the first time I've seen it since I was a little kid.
(Powering a car on alcohol is no feat, with modern engines, it requires little more than pouring the alcohol into the gas tank and tweaking timing a bit - if your ecu wont do that for you automatically)
Well, to be fair, unless it is REALLY strong Bourbon, it won't ignite. It's not like you can just put Jack Daniels in your tank and run it. 80 proof is not strong enough to be flammable.
I'd still like to see if this would be better if this were something other than an internal combustion engine. Turbine engines can run off just about anything that will burn from natural gas, to gasoline, to Bacardi 151 to kerosene with very little modification if any at all. I still don't understand why we don't use turbine engines in cars. Even if not practical in a standard setup, it should make sense in a hybrid setup. I would love to be able to go to a gas station and say, "Hmmm. What kind of fuel do I want today? Hey, the line for diesel is shorter, I guess I'm getting diesel this week."
I suspect most people aren't that bothered by picture quality.
DVDs are handier than tapes, you don't need to rewind.
We are going to get Blue Ray player for Netflix and whatever other apps will be included. Since we are willing to stream from Netflix, the extra resolution we would get from a Blue Ray disk doesn't really matter to us. DVD is good enough.
Would the Chinese or other governments take the opportunity to create back doors into western IT networks? Wouldn't they be crazy not to?
Would the US or other Western governments take the opportunity to create back doors into Chinese IT networks? Wouldn't they be crazy not to?
American companies are not owned by the US government. China is a communist country. By definition that means that Chinese companies are owned by the Chinese government.
So, if the Chinese were buying their network security products from the US government, I would fully expect them to put back doors in. Since US companies are not owned by the US government, the I fully expect them NOT to. On the other hand, if you buy anything from the Chinese, you are effectively buying from the Chinese government, meaning I would definitely want to thoroughly investigate the code and compile myself before installing any software written by the Chinese government. Then again, if I'm going to do that, I may as well write my own.
In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
The map sited this(PDF) paper as a source. That paper was written in 2005. Emanuelle Bournay was the cartographer who drew the map.
From the paper:
As far back as 1995 (latest date for a comprehensive assessment), these environmental refugees totalled at least 25 million people, compared with 27 million traditional refugees (people fleeing political oppression, religious persecution and ethnic troubles). The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995 and 2010. Moreover, it could increase steadily for a good while thereafter as growing numbers of impoverished people press ever harder on over-loaded environments. When global warming takes hold, there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding.
That's a possibility. However, my sig comes from the moderator guidelines. If mods think that my sig is idiotic, then they think the moderator guidelines are idiotic. If you don't agree with the moderator guidelines, you shouldn't moderate.
I believe the difference is that proving for the national defense is in the Constitution. Welfare and Planned Parenthood are not. At least with NASA, you can say it has military applications. Same with the Interstate system. But the federal government has no Constitutional right to fund Planned Parenthood, ACORN, GE, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any of the thousands of other programs that get funded because the government is so big that no one will notice.
The government has very few functions. Those need to be funded. The rest needs to be funded by the states... or not.
I called people who believe the bible was written in English know-nothings. Do you claim they are not?
Fair enough.
People who believe untrue things for political reasons should not be compared to people who are disabled, It is incredibly insulting to the disabled.
People believe for many reasons. For some people, faith is based on purely logical reasons. Some people believe as they were raised and think that even considering for a second that their beliefs are wrong will sentence them to an eternity in hell. As I mentioned earlier, many who made the most scientifically significant discoveries and theories have been people of faith. Some of the best logical philosophers throughout history have debated this, and both sides make perfectly logical, well reasoned arguments. Whichever side you believe is up to you. No one believes in a religion for political purposes, however, many pretend to believe to advantage of those that truly do.
Slashdot has reached a new low point, we have to pander to the feelings of the know-nothings.
Are you complaining that someone got offended at your joke that was meant to offend? Basically, what you did was equivalent to telling a racial joke with members of %race% in the crowd and then bitching because some of them booed you. I do agree with you that the moderation was incorrect. I think "Troll" would be a more accurate mod.
With that said, I thought the joke was mildly funny and took little offense to it. Although, I found the response to your post about Jesuses reading The Bible in Spanish was much better.
I do take offense to your calling Christians "know-nothings", however. There have been many posts here about renowned scientists who were actually Christians as well. Look up who first theorized the Big Bang for just one example. Louis Pascal was another. You can Google for more if you wish to open your mind a bit. Information is the fist step in curing your bigotry.
Finally, if you truly believe that Christians are "know-nothings", I find it incredibly offensive that you would make a joke about them. If you truly believe that Christians are "know-nothings", then ridiculing them would be on par with making fun of the Special Olympics. Very low class of you.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I could have shot Osama myself for all the wasted hours I've spent in TSA lines because of his antics.
I was going to, but I was held up at the airport checkpoint getting my balls fondled while my declared rifle cleared security with no problems.
If the conspiracy were true, Obama would have announced his death in late October, 2012.
Do you think that just by destroying Al-Qaeda terrorism will just magically vanish?
Then again, that's the beauty of it.
What would you suggest? We can't search passengers before they enter an airliner. We can't build a border fence or do anything else to secure the borders. We can't create an ID to make non-terrorists easily identifiable nor may we even ask you to ID yourself. We can't place cameras in public. We can't listen in to calls made to Pakistan. We can't read emails to known terrorist. We cant interrogate prisoners. We can't take prisoners. We can't hold prisoners.
Holy Shit! What would you suggest we do? You know, other than lay on our backs with our legs open.
Oh, and don't say, "live in peace and harmony with the world". That doesn't necessarily work.
I wonder how many recruits we've generated by killing innocents with our bombs and drones.
About half as many US Soldiers they created by killing our innocent civilians with our airplanes filled with more innocent civilians. You should also understand that Al Qaeda and other radical Muslims kill more Arab civilians than we could possibly have the stomach for.
I doubt it, given the 200+ year history of the US military and relatively short history of suicide bombers, even taking into account 9/11.
Of course, this asshole thinks that America is more evil than the terrorists. The mere fact that terrorists intentionally target civilians while the American military goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties means absolutely nothing.
It should be noted that http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ lists civilian deaths caused by terrorist actions as well as legitimate military actions. It would be incorrect to assume that the numbers listed there are as a result of American action.
Just to put things in perspective, it should also be noted that UNICEF estimated that 250,000 children died from preventable causes as a result of Saddam Hussein's action or inaction as leader. Iraqbodycount.org estimates that the total number of civilian deaths to be anywhere from 100,000 to 109,000.
Until th deniers can put up peer reviewed research to discredit the current scientific consensus, then they are just part of the FUD.
Wait a minute. Wasn't that whole climate-gate email scandal because scientists were trying to keep scientists who might disagree with them from getting their word out? Won't you simply accuse any scientist that shows that GW is not a problem or is not happening of spreading FUD and/or working for big oil or (insert evil company here)? So they prevent those that may disprove their work from getting published, attack and credibility and ridicule any who might get the word out otherwise and then use the fact that no published or credible work disagrees with them as proof that their work is correct.
Of course, anyone who disagrees is immediately discredited simply by the very fact that they disagree. Here is a quote that proves it:
However, you miss the fact that most deniers are also attacking science in general.
See, those that disagree are labeled "deniers", as in they are denying the facts. And of course, simply by the fact that they question GW, they are "attacking science in general". In other words, they have no credibility as scientists because a real scientist wouldn't dare go against the "consensus".
Also, "consensus" means nothing in science. Everything that science has proved wrong was once supported by a consensus. Science is not a democracy.
Oil companies will lose their subsidies and tax breaks. Boo hoo. Perhaps then we will finally get a real sustainable energy policy and ditch oil crack habit.that will eventually drive us into the ditch. The longer we wait, the worse it will be.
You do know that companies don't pay taxes, right? Companies, including oil companies, pass any increase in cost directly to their customers.
Your post is a fine example of what I like to call environmental hypocrisy. You will fight tooth and nail to not do so much as take your shoes off to get on airplane. You will fight to the death for the right to not carry an ID card. However, because you believe that there will be an energy shortage one day, you want government to create an artificial shortage today. It doesn't matter that we have enough energy to last us for hundreds of years, you wish to create an artificial shortage by limiting the amount of energy we may produce domestically and you actually believe that it will somehow make us import less. People like you are so happy to punish those who use more than you that you lose your ability to think logically. You really don't care that you have to pay more for food and transportation as long as you know that the rich guy in the SUV has to pay more also. You are happy to make someone else suffer for their lifestyle, simply because you don't like it. And when you see that mother of two have to tell her kids that they can't afford to go to Grandma's house because gas is too expensive, you comfort yourself by saying, “we all have to make sacrifices in order to create the world that I want to live in. Besides, they can see Grandma on Facetime.”
The best part? You accuse others of using fear to force the people to change the way they do things and then turn around use fear to force others to change the way they live their lives. It means nothing to you that real people have really died due to terrorism, and that terrorists really do want to kill more people, you see climate change as a bigger threat even though exactly zero people have died due to global warming, and that climate change has happened since the beginning of time. You want government to force me to live my life the way YOU think I should live it, even though, and I use your words, “There aren't any scientists out there saying we can stop climate change. We passed that point a long time ago. We can only reduce the impact and prepare.”
You won't remove your shoes to stop terrorists from killing the innocent, but you will gladly pay more for your life just to keep me from taking my little girl away from the city lights to see the rings of Saturn through her new telescope.
Deniers have a lot more to gain in the short term than believers, and based on that alone, I find the believers more believable.
"Believers":
For business, we are talking about trillions of dollars in government investment and laws that will favor your bottom line if you play ball. GE, for example made billions in profits and paid zero in taxes. Carbon credit trading companies stand to be the next Enron, except they will be trading government mandated nothings in exchange for real cash.
Government stand to gain unlimited power. They will gain the power to tell citizens what to eat, here to go, what to drive, where to work, what they will do, where to live and what temperature to keep that house at. They will literally be able to control EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the lives of citizens. This may also go beyond borders as well. A "world eco government" could be set up to set international rules. Of course, companies that play ball will receive government help, so the system is pre set up for corruption.
Scientists can gain because there is so much money and power to be gained, scientists and universities seeking grants will have better luck proposing a study that will "prove that stricter government control is required to prevent global catastrophe" will more likely get a grant than one that will "prove that global warming is not a problem and regulation is not needed".
"Deniers":
Scientist deniers are going nowhere. They do not get grants and get shunned by their peers.
Politicians are being compared to flat earthers and ridiculed by the main stream media. NBC and MSNBC were owned by GE, btw, who made billions in profits, yet paid no taxes.
Businesses gain nothing by being a global warming denier. They lose any "green cred" which would run off an environmentally conscious customers. Oil companies are about to have their taxes raised (or tax brakes taken away, same thing) while gas prices are at a all time high.
So, it appears that "believers" have unlimited power and money to gain. The absolute best anyone can hope for by being a "denier" is the status quo, so absolutely nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
These companies don't want to compete against their own products (released to open source). They'd rather make these products disappear forever, and force customers to buy the newest gadgets.
Basically it's the same strategy Microsoft follows when it refuses to open source Windows 3 or 95 or XP.
Exactly. Companies don't want the public to improve their old products, preventing them from buying new ones. For example, let's say Cicso opened up the software of all of their old routers. The open source community would take those routers and improve on them, giving them features only available in new routers. Now companies will upgrade their old routers instead of buying new ones.
Also, there is a liability issue. In the example above, what if someone found a security hole by examining the software that opened up companies that use Cicso routers? What if that whole was unnoticed and ported to the new routers by Cicso? Suddenly, the entire Cicso product line, current and discontinued would need an immediate patch, costing Cicso a fortune, not to mention any legal liability to companies that were already attacked.
Yeah. Not going to happen.
Are we supposed to be cheering at the knowledge that we're not the only ones that f**ked up our money management?
No. We need to be cheering because now we will stop hearing people sing the monorail song while saying "we have to get high-speed rail. The Chinese are doing it!"
I can't tell you how many times in the past few months I've heard high speed rail advocates point out that the Chinese are building one. Now maybe they'll STFU and stop asking for my tax dollars!
Parent post moderated by a monorail supporter.
Are we supposed to be cheering at the knowledge that we're not the only ones that f**ked up our money management?
No. We need to be cheering because now we will stop hearing people sing the monorail song while saying "we have to get high-speed rail. The Chinese are doing it!"
I can't tell you how many times in the past few months I've heard high speed rail advocates point out that the Chinese are building one. Now maybe they'll STFU and stop asking for my tax dollars!
What a long way Apple has come.
I find it rather sad really...I used to be a Mac-guy (before Linux stole my heart), so I've a special place in my heart for 'em.
Listen to the "Big Brother" character talking. For the first time, I heard him say, "... a garden of information..." I wonder if that garden is walled.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you advocating a targeted $10 per barrel tax only on oil drilled from ANWR? That seems silly, plus you must be aware that taxes on oil production are a political non-starter. It would be easier to get environmentalists to agree to drilling than to get the GOP to agree to taxes. And I don't even want to think about the economic distortions that would accompany taxing one area of production but not others...
On the other hand, it kinda sounds like you're calling for the Federal government to get into the oil drilling & selling business.
It is estimated that it will cost between $30 and $50 a barrel to extract oil from ANWR. Oil is currently trading at over $100/barrel. The owner of the mineral rights owns the oil. That owner is the US Government. That means that it will be the US Gov't selling the oil at roughly $70/bl profit. Take $10 from every barrel sold and invest that into "green energy". Take a portion out of environmental maintenance, another portion out as an environmental disaster insurance, and the rest goes into the US Gov't general fund.
No additional taxes required.
Well, we could change $130 million to $130 Billion if we could work out some sort of compromise. For example, we could drill ANWR, which is federal land (meaning federal oil), and mandate that the feds set aside $10 for each barrel of oil sold for investment into "green energy".
Oh, wait. We can't do that. A Caribou may have to have sex five miles from where he had it last year. Nevermind.
LOL what goes around comes around. Americans didn't get where they are without totally disrespecting intellectual property from europe during the industrial revolution. why should the chinese?
Which we then used to build tanks, airplanes, submarines and battleships to defeat the Nazis.
Alright! We'll call it a draw.
I watched Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on TV this morning, for the first time I've seen it since I was a little kid.
(Powering a car on alcohol is no feat, with modern engines, it requires little more than pouring the alcohol into the gas tank and tweaking timing a bit - if your ecu wont do that for you automatically)
Well, to be fair, unless it is REALLY strong Bourbon, it won't ignite. It's not like you can just put Jack Daniels in your tank and run it. 80 proof is not strong enough to be flammable.
I'd still like to see if this would be better if this were something other than an internal combustion engine. Turbine engines can run off just about anything that will burn from natural gas, to gasoline, to Bacardi 151 to kerosene with very little modification if any at all. I still don't understand why we don't use turbine engines in cars. Even if not practical in a standard setup, it should make sense in a hybrid setup. I would love to be able to go to a gas station and say, "Hmmm. What kind of fuel do I want today? Hey, the line for diesel is shorter, I guess I'm getting diesel this week."
I suspect most people aren't that bothered by picture quality.
DVDs are handier than tapes, you don't need to rewind.
We are going to get Blue Ray player for Netflix and whatever other apps will be included. Since we are willing to stream from Netflix, the extra resolution we would get from a Blue Ray disk doesn't really matter to us. DVD is good enough.
Would the Chinese or other governments take the opportunity to create back doors into western IT networks? Wouldn't they be crazy not to?
Would the US or other Western governments take the opportunity to create back doors into Chinese IT networks? Wouldn't they be crazy not to?
American companies are not owned by the US government. China is a communist country. By definition that means that Chinese companies are owned by the Chinese government.
So, if the Chinese were buying their network security products from the US government, I would fully expect them to put back doors in. Since US companies are not owned by the US government, the I fully expect them NOT to. On the other hand, if you buy anything from the Chinese, you are effectively buying from the Chinese government, meaning I would definitely want to thoroughly investigate the code and compile myself before installing any software written by the Chinese government. Then again, if I'm going to do that, I may as well write my own.
In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
The map sited this(PDF) paper as a source. That paper was written in 2005. Emanuelle Bournay was the cartographer who drew the map.
From the paper:
As far back as 1995 (latest date for a comprehensive assessment), these
environmental refugees totalled at least 25 million people, compared with 27 million
traditional refugees (people fleeing political oppression, religious persecution and
ethnic troubles). The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995
and 2010. Moreover, it could increase steadily for a good while thereafter as growing
numbers of impoverished people press ever harder on over-loaded environments.
When global warming takes hold, there could be as many as 200 million people
overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts
of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding.
or maybe they just thought his sig was idiotic.
That's a possibility. However, my sig comes from the moderator guidelines. If mods think that my sig is idiotic, then they think the moderator guidelines are idiotic. If you don't agree with the moderator guidelines, you shouldn't moderate.
Did Slashdot become Fox News?
Deniers on my Slashdot?
Are facts that you don't like suddenly "Fox News"?
Let me see if I got the formula right:
Facts I don't like = Fox News
Fox News = Fake
Facts I don't like = Fake
Nice!
I believe the difference is that proving for the national defense is in the Constitution. Welfare and Planned Parenthood are not. At least with NASA, you can say it has military applications. Same with the Interstate system. But the federal government has no Constitutional right to fund Planned Parenthood, ACORN, GE, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any of the thousands of other programs that get funded because the government is so big that no one will notice.
The government has very few functions. Those need to be funded. The rest needs to be funded by the states... or not.
I know you like to think that all people who believe in God are ignorant and/or stupid.
HERE
Sorry, but the facts do not back you up. From what I can tell, there are brilliant people on both sides of the issue.
I didn't call Christians know nothings.
I called people who believe the bible was written in English know-nothings. Do you claim they are not?
Fair enough.
People who believe untrue things for political reasons should not be compared to people who are disabled, It is incredibly insulting to the disabled.
People believe for many reasons. For some people, faith is based on purely logical reasons. Some people believe as they were raised and think that even considering for a second that their beliefs are wrong will sentence them to an eternity in hell. As I mentioned earlier, many who made the most scientifically significant discoveries and theories have been people of faith. Some of the best logical philosophers throughout history have debated this, and both sides make perfectly logical, well reasoned arguments. Whichever side you believe is up to you. No one believes in a religion for political purposes, however, many pretend to believe to advantage of those that truly do.
Oh, and I see you got modded back up. Good!
Somebody modded this "flamebait".
Slashdot has reached a new low point, we have to pander to the feelings of the know-nothings.
Are you complaining that someone got offended at your joke that was meant to offend? Basically, what you did was equivalent to telling a racial joke with members of %race% in the crowd and then bitching because some of them booed you. I do agree with you that the moderation was incorrect. I think "Troll" would be a more accurate mod.
With that said, I thought the joke was mildly funny and took little offense to it. Although, I found the response to your post about Jesuses reading The Bible in Spanish was much better.
I do take offense to your calling Christians "know-nothings", however. There have been many posts here about renowned scientists who were actually Christians as well. Look up who first theorized the Big Bang for just one example. Louis Pascal was another. You can Google for more if you wish to open your mind a bit. Information is the fist step in curing your bigotry.
Finally, if you truly believe that Christians are "know-nothings", I find it incredibly offensive that you would make a joke about them. If you truly believe that Christians are "know-nothings", then ridiculing them would be on par with making fun of the Special Olympics. Very low class of you.