Yes I would say that you are somewhat wrong (not that it means you're actually wrong, just that my opinion differs). AT least we see the world in very different ways.
Disclaimer: I use "environMentalistas" in a half-joking, half-loving & half-scorning manner - please do not be insulted if you actually are an environMentalista:) (yes I know three halves are 150% but then again most environMentalistas try to be larger than life).
Here's how I would look at it. The laptops introduce modern technology in an environmently friendly/friendlier way. They open up possibilites for increased cooperation and communication, an increased technological aptitude and extended education (both difficulty and width). It is very important that the laptops are F/OSS both because it acclimatizes the users to F/OSS and because it makes it much easier to actually dwelve into the inner workings of it for those so inclined.
Knowledge is power. Most of the poorer nations are well aware (and have been for at least the last ten years or so) of the importance of free trade and the abolishment or minimizing of import and export tariffs. These nations have actually influenced international policy on this although the EU and especially France is the big stumbeling block (the US has said it will remove it's agricultural subsidies and protections if the EU agrees to do it too - so no uninformed US bashing please). Many poorer african and american nations have made bilateral agreements with the US to great effect (somewhat derailed by the paranoia of Chavez and his ilk) since the EU/France seems to stubbornly cling to their farming practices. Hopefully France and other protectionist EU countries (and the US and the rest of the industrialised world for that matter) will start growing more useful things than food (biodiesel and other fuels) which should allow for drastic cuts in the direct and indirect subsidies (tariffs, price guarantees etc.) no matter what.
Greenhouse gases? I have hope that more and more of those who read science news etc. should be slowly coming around to the insight that we know far too little to claim with any kind of certainty that man plays a major part in climate changes. Anyway, those with the extreme western "environMentalista" view on the environment are often the developing nations worst enemies. I can say that for a very simple reason: energy = prosperity, there's no way around it. And the most cost-efficient portable energy so far is petrolium products (some can be grown of course; look at Brazil), the most cost-efficient non-portable is nuclear energy and hydro-electric dams. "EnvironMentalistas" have a tendency to say a big "No!" to anything at all if they get the chance and are in no way conducive to the kind of society-building that is needed and taking place in most poorer countries. This might all change of course and hopefully so, but imposing stricter rules on developing nations or misleading them into uncertainties are both simply unfair, unreasonable, and probaly not really thought through by those that propose it.
Malaria? I'll leave that to Melinda & Bill Gates, the meager resources I have to support medical science are used otherwise. If you want to fight malaria why don't you go to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Di seases/Malaria/Related+Info/MalariaControl.htm and inquire how you might be of service? My point is that in this day and age citizens complaining their governments aren't doing enough are disingenious: the citizens can actually do it themselves for the most part if they organize and cooperate on the specific problem they want adressed or think are insufficiently adressed - and not by making noise and complaining, but by actually doing stuff: contributing money, resources, time and/or knowledge.
It states: "You have my word on that my soul is pure and clean. I have never commited any sins or other bad acts, so please skip the 2 cents offers." but I would contend he has already in the ad made at least the following sins: - lying (about never ever having done anything even remotely bad) - selling his soul (a sin in the eyes of a overwhelmingly large portion of religious humans, incidentally the group that are most likely to accept the concept of a soul in the first place, and many of whom would not even accept the validity of trying to sell it or that the seller is actually the owner of his own soul)
So the soul is obviously not in mint condition:) Has the person ever had a heartache? Any kind of trauma or other bad experiences? Denied God, Satan or any other such entity? Number of reincarnations if any? The list goes on and on to make an attempted appraisal. It seems obvious that the person is a virgin physically, that's at least one selling point but it would need to be documented to affect the selling price:)
Most buyers would probably want a guarantee on the souls condition from a higher authority if quality is meant to be a selling point.
In addition there is little product information, nor any guarantee or expiration date (the expiration date would be the time for which the seller could guarantee conferred ownership of the soul). If such a date is unknown to the seller many buyers could arrange such a date for their own purposes as long as it does not include any reverse transferral back to the seller. And most important of all the seller has not defined exactly what his soul is, most buyers would for example feel that they could litigate if buying the soul does not imply a full 100% direct control over the sellers soul at all times including all which that implies (by tradition; the sellers thoughts, actions, feelings, senses and soforth).
And what of those who would be interested in buying the soul for official purposes such as proving they have a soul (at least one)? If you have a deed to a human soul (even if transfer has not occured yet) could one not claim to be eligible to human rights, nationality, etceterea? Perhaps absurd right here and now but some time in the future it might not be, it could be a legal loophole for synthetic intelligences to gain human rights if otherwise denied such. All of this is a seperate futures market but does make it neccessary that the sale has an approved legal status in whatever human justice system the sale takes place, the seller needs to provide documentation to such effect if this is the market he's going for.
Any possibilites of "try before you buy"? What are the delivery arrangements?
What are the contractual agreements for exchange of the money and the soul? Almost all buyers would agree to an infinite sum if the transfer is immediate and includes the traditional implications.
The seller should be noted that all things considered the likely buyers would want the traditional contractual arrangements and a signature in the sellers blood witnessed by the buyer or representatives and confirmed by DNA comparison of the blood with three sample biopsis from any part of the sellers body, internal or external.
"Google!" could possibly be the equivalence of a babys first spoken word for a netbased synthetic intelligence...
Funny considering the origin of the name but think about other implications and consequences. And is it intentional? One might almost begin to think so.
Hmm you know there's actually other alternatives around, like simply admitting we don't really know yet. That honest answer is the best one in my opinion both because it's honest (d'oh!) and because it doesn't detract from further research by making it all into a flamefest between atheists/agnostics and believers (a flamefest which is totally irrelevant and hinders science).
But I guess that's no good if one desperaterly wants to believe science says anything either for or against the possibility of a deity...
A lot of people who think they're science-friendly or religion-friendly haven't realized (or don't want to) that science can only say something about the scientific (testable/repeatable/verifiable systematic observations and so on), everything else is speculation (which is ok as long as one doesn't pretend it's anything else).
Cool link you gave there, green slime is also a fairly wellknown/famous creature in in Nethack. I wonder if there might be a connection between the two?
Name: green slime Difficulty: 8 Base level: 6 Base experience: 164 Speed: 6 Base AC: 6 Base MR: 0 Alignment: 0 Frequency: Very rare, only in Gehennom Genocidable: Yes ATTACK:
Touch: Turns you into green slime Weight: 400 Nutritional value: 150 Size: large Resistances: cold, electricity, poison, acid, petrification Resistances conveyed by eating: None
A green slime can flow under doors. Due to its unusual body chemistry, It has no need to breathe. It has no eyes, and is therefore impervious to gaze and blindness attacks. It has no mind, and is therefore not detectable via telepathy. A green slime has no limbs and no head. It is acidic and poisonous if eaten. It is an omnivore.
Green slimes (generally not seen outside certain parts of Gehennom) can slime you with their 'touch' attack. If you're slimed, you will slowly turn into another green slime over the course of several turns.
Preventatives: Always kill green slimes from a distance. Don't let them get close to attack you. (This implies that you should have some way to spot them from a distance) An amulet of unchanging will protect you from being slimed.
Remedies: If you get yourself slimed, you can pray to your god for help, if they're happy with you. Don't pray to your god, though, if you're beneath the Valley of the Dead (Vlad's tower doesn't count as being beneath the Valley of the Dead) or they'll become angry with you, so if you're beneath the Valley of the Dead, you'll need to teleport out of Gehennom in order for your deity to heal you. Additionally, putting on an amulet of unchanging will halt the sliming process. Reading a scroll of fire, casting 'Fireball' on yourself, zapping a wand of fire at yourself, stepping on a fire trap, lighting a potion of oil and throwing it upwards, and other methods of setting oneself on fire will burn the slime away (but will also hurt you and probably destroy many carried scrolls and potions at the same time). Casting 'Cure Sickness' on yourself or #invoking the Staff of Aesculapius will heal sliming more safely. Additionally, polymorphing yourself will heal you of sliming. Applying a unicorn horn will NOT stop sliming!
Hush, please don't further annoy and frustrate all the scientists who desperately do not want to admit that they don't have a good detailed answer with proof concerning the origin of life;)
This space lichen corpse tastes terrible! You finish eating the space lichen corpse. You polymorph into a small green man. You hear godly laughter from above. "Oh wow! Everything looks so cosmic!". You are stressed.
Name: lichen Difficulty: 1 Base level: 0 Base experience: 4 Speed: 1 Base AC: 9 Base MR: 0 Alignment: 0 Frequency: Uncommon Genocidable: Yes ATTACK:
Sticks to you Weight: 20 Nutritional value: 200 Size: small Resistances: None Resistances conveyed by eating: None
Due to its unusual body chemistry, A lichen has no need to breathe. It has no eyes, and is therefore impervious to gaze and blindness attacks. It has no mind, and is therefore not detectable via telepathy. It has no limbs and no head. A lichen cannot pick up objects.
The chamber was of unhewn rock, round, as near as might be, eighteen or twenty feet across, and gay with rich variety of fern and moss and lichen. The fern was in its winter still, or coiling for the spring-tide; but moss was in abundant life, some feathering, and some gobleted, and some with fringe of red to it. Lorna Doone, by R.D. Blackmore
It is actually 1 wrong (terrorists) and 1 good (practical rather than principled response to terrorists) making 0 wrong or good.
Remember that no terrorist organisation has ever signed the Geneva conventions and that none of them have avoided intentionally breaking them. Until the time that the worlds governments can figure out an agreement on what rights (if any) terrorists should have that's how it will stay.
Oh and terrorism does not equal militias (civilian resistance movements) acting on behalf of, and under at least indirect guidance from, an acknowledged state. This is easily understood from the definitions of the Geneva conventions themselves as well as other international treaties: it makes a lot of the people shouting about the issue look rather stupid, they're seldom talking about the central point that should be discussed (above paragraph).
You're neglecting quite a few things here: - the angle makes the (accelerating) speed of the approching car into a very big issue in relation to precision fire, much bigger I guess than anyone except those with extensive firearms training would realize - the target area of a wheel is much less than the engine (but this is kind of irrelevant as pointed out in the next paragraph) - the reaction time has to be low both because many roadblocks do not have a long field of view and because most who want to penetrate a roadblock speed up rather than slow down in a relatively short stretch in front of the roadblock (and that's when one notices)
For these and other reasons nobody would be concerned about anything else than hitting any part of the car possible to stop it, be it the occupants, engine, wheels, whatever. I guess this goes quite a long way in explaining why one can find that something like 500 rounds of all sorts of calibers are fired in such a situation.
It's only if you feel "safe" that you would consider getting a perfect aim and stopping the car with one.50-cal slug through the engine (and I wouldn't be surprised if that is a rare occurance in any situation).
Neutron bombs could definetly be used to maim rather than kill, even when not done on purpose they are likely to maim people that are not in the killzone close to the detonation. It would/could induce cancer, immune system deficiencies, tissue failures and similar, and if the dose is low enough it might not be lethal in their future either (that even goes for radiation sickness).
For example (this is all by memory so take it with a grain of salt - I might be mixing up the percentages etc. however the gist of it should be correct) only about 45% of the initial survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have died from reasons related to the bombs but many of those that have not died from the longterm effects would still be said to be maimed from the radiation exposure (I'm sorry I can't be bothered to dig up the link to this claim but I think it was Nature or NewScientist who had a story on this some time between june and now).
Flashbang Re:Can't blind on purpose
on
Set PHASRs On Stun
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Looking at it that way the Geneva conventions would prohibit the use of flashbangs. I'm very confident the mutually agreed definition of "maiming weapons" among the signatories does not include temporary sensory depravation etc. and even more certain that most people would agree that non-lethal warfare is better than lethal warfare.
Continuing your thought one has to ask what weapon can't conceivably be used for maiming rather than killing? I know of no such weapon only which has such a "boolean value"-like use, not even weapons of mass destruction.
I'm not impressed with the journalistic and editorial abilities of either Slashdot or OpenSourceEnergy. And I guess there shouldn't be any need to mention that most people on Slashdot talk out of their asses... (some even try to hide behind PhD's instead of actually making an argument - that's low!).
I suggest people do a bit of searching and reading on their own before making absolute statements about the "newsstories", be it this one or about hydrinos or whatever, otherwise all you're doing is succumbing to groupthink and knee-jerk reactionism. Have some pride (irrespective of whatever opinion you end up with).
Once again I do for the most part agree, it's just that those errors seem not to die and science is after all meant to be a selfcorrecting process. But pointing out known errors that haven't been fixed does actually contribute to science, and fixing an error does not imply that one has to accept or give creedence to other separate claims.
However if those errors actually were corrected when found (as far back as a century ago) ID couldn't actually take them to their advantage, but they weren't even though many tried. The big question is why (and here there be dragons: parts of the theory of evolution seems to be heading for dire waters like it or not). This is more serious than it might look like, after all if science itself doesn't actually live up to its own rules in this regard then who are they to discredit ID? Until the known errors (and there seems to be a lot of them as well as a lot of conjectures and hypothesises that are treated as something more than they really are proven to be in regards to evolution) and the reasons why they were allowed to propagate are fixed these issues will continue to come back again and again in some form or other, weakening science and anyones general trust in it being done correctly.
This issue is closely linked with a general lack of understanding about theory and philosophy of science within the scientific community itself as well as the increasing practice of doctored data and papers. All this is way too important than to be continually brushed away by the majority of the science community, actually the whole manner in which ID has been replied to in general is disgraceful and can easily give ordinary rational people the impression that science is becoming nothing more than just another belief system (because that is what it will turn into if the problems mentioned above aren't fixed).
Sorry for ranting since I'm pretty sure we both pretty much agree, it's just that I'm much more worried about "scientists" not understanding or living up to the principles of science (of which there seems to be far to many) than "outsiders" not understaning it:)
That was one of the most insightful posts I've read lately.
For those who, like me, actually support humans in space almost all comments regarding space on/. reads like a bunch of luddites complaining and it's getting old. So if any of those actually support an, over time, increasing human presence in space they should get out of their "old grumpy man" act. To put it in a simple way the astronauts sent to ISS are themselves the biggest experiment and the most important one (and if anyone thinks that could be done on earths surface they've reached rock bottom - pun not intended). The ISS serves as a real testbed for hands on technology concerned with keeping humans alive in space for prolonged periods and with increased efficiency and reliability. Yes, it has the potential to be much more over time, personally I hope that at some point in the future when we are actually ready to do so its orbit can be boosted to GEO, but that is of course a long way off and money is actually the least objection to doing it right away: we don't presently have the requisite technology at a sufficient level to make it worthwhile, not even close.
And so what if the ISS program was used for more than just its face value of space science? Why is that such a horror? Isn't it actually better to employ people in science that benefits us than let them languish and in likelihood be employed against us?
For being a supposed "Nerd" site/. doesn't actually contain many readers that seem to be aware of how incrementally and tediously science normally progresses. Many seem to think that science progresses like the technology tree in some C&C-like game and/. is filled with people who think it more important to criticize NASA (or Burt Rutan or anyone else actually trying to do something it seems) than to actually say something enlightened (!=rehashed bickering). I guess we can all blame the armchair for that:)
Anyway I'm not worried as I doubt anyone on/. has much clout either politically and scientifically and the ranting doesn't actually affect much except the/. "image".
I'm not a linux zealot (I use Win2000, Knoppix, and OpenBSD and most of the time only the Win2000) but I still say this is pure FUD etc.
I read the article and it's as thin as water. Nothing to see here (move along), not even anything real to discuss here (except perhaps that/. has begun selling pagehits?).
Thank you for making that post, it is good to see that there are actually other people out there in the world who know what they're talking about rather than rehashing what their surroundings think is "right".
With posts like yours I hope the/. groupthink can actually be somehow improved, after all it would be nice and probably enlightening for all to see discussions on the science concerned rather than the present soup mostly consisting of strawman fallacies.
One is based on faith while the other should not be based on faith. After all I'm sure you would agree that science and religion are somewhat different right?
Now the problem as I see it is that some parts of science require faith rather than science, this applies to some parts of the theory of evolution (not everything but some important parts).
Is it fair to demand faith as a prerequisite for science? I don't think so, actually I find it decisively unscientific, and this opinion goes against both the larger claims of ID as well as the larger claims of the theory of evolution.
This is what the whole discussion should really be about but it seems to escape 99% of those who say anything at all. However it will make for great laughs in the future when people will look back at both sides much like we look at the flat-earthers (that is if anyone actually bothers to remember the embarrasing "debate" in the first place).
Now what I'd like to see next is that people also realize that one doesn't have to be a creationist or even adhere to everything ID proposes to acknowledge that ID actually raises some questions on purely scientific merits.
I mean how many here or elsewhere have actually bothered to read examples of the scientific criticisms ID themselves actually put on the table rather than all the second, third, and fourth-hand attacks on ID? If more people did so (even if they deny the overall claims of ID like I do) then those embarrasing scientific faults (tempted to say frauds) can actually be accounted for and corrected in the science. Some of the stuff ID is critisizing has been known about for close to a century as scientific frauds, disproven several times by peer-reviewed articles and is generally accepted as untrue even by vocal anti-ID scientists - so why isn't the erroneous information culled from science? Reading what the scientists who are the foundation of ID actually says it should become obvious that ID is not a purely philosopical/religious argument.
Go read people, please, do yourself and everyone else a favour in the discussion, perhaps that will open up the possibility for getting much needed corrections and improvements into parts of science that are in dire need of getting their heads out of their asses.
Btw I am not a christian but I do believe in pretty much the same God but I don't care for people who try to prove religion through science because it derives faith of any value. That being said I do not believe rational religion and science can ever be at odds, if one did think so it would be like claiming that love can only be a chemical reaction and nothing more (we have other words to describe that) something only absurdist reductionists do.
*sigh* I bet this post is probably useless in batteling/. groupthink but to look at the sunny side of things at least we got FSM and Pastafarians out of it all:)
It is relevant in explaining why people can say that they think the chinese have been living in conditions amounting to slavery for a very long time in China. That was the topic of my post in reply to the grandparent. Also to give examples from more recent times as well as older history.
And don't get me wrong; I like the chinese peoples and chinese cultures (and languages; I've only heard Hokkien and Mandarin but they're very beautiful), I've had the fortune of living in an Asian country with a majority of chinese in the population - by saying majority I almost expect you to know which country if I exclude China (including Hong Kong and Macau) and Taiwan:) I'm also not saying that everything the present chinese government is doing is without merit, far from it, a lot of it is very impressive, and as I said in my post I hope and believe they are slowly moving in the right direction (trying to avoid the trouble the USSR had when turning back into Russia & the federation of former Sovjet states).
The construction of the Three Gorges Dam should suffice as a recent example of forced migration, and on a massive scale too. Another recent and wellknown example of forced migration would be Tibet, both in and out.
Yes the Long March as a military manouver isn't an example of slavery but a part of the reaction and struggle against perceived slavery. I should have made that point clear, my mistake, but the fact is that chinese themselves have felt that they were enslaved by emperors, warlords, and communists. How else do you explain a "successful" uprising like communism itself originally was, or more recently the unsuccessful Tiananmen Square protest that became a massacre the present chinese government is trying to edit out of their version of reality?
I don't really see your argument about the cultural revolution, are you saying it was an example of freedom and not severe oppression? How can you say it is anarchy when it is the top leaders who start and allow it? It sounds like you're making excuses for the establishment of bloodsoaked tyranny and indeed a form of slavery to the state. Even the Communist Party of China denounced it officially in 1981 and that should tell people something.
I don't think you do a favour to the argument about the non-slavery of chinese people by comparing it to a period in Europe within most people would agree that the Europeans worst affected were in fact no better than slaves. It kind of destroys your argument. Especially when you realize that although poor people during the industrial revolution had slave-like work conditions they still actually had a number of freedoms in other respects (like religion) that chinese often have not had and presently do not really have be it repression of Falun Gong or muslim minorities in western chinese provinces or the fact that christian congregations have to be "approved".
You are free to disagree with me of course but I hope I'm able to explain why a lot of people outside china hold the opinion that chinese in China live and have lived in what can be easily thought of as slavery for a long time. However in the present it could be even worse, one only has to look at and compare with North Korea.
"I have seen a lot of people saying China is known historically for slavery, but is it really base on some actual research or is it base on recent sentiment towards communism?"
Yes and no. Communism hasn't been around all that long and in respect to communism I guess one can define oneself away from talking about slavery but it becomes fairly ridiculous at some point. Think of the Long March, think of the Cultural Revolution, think of routine forced migration, think of mass imprisonment into factories, think of extremely poor workers rights or any rights for that matter, think of tightly controlled "freedom" if any at all. It all resembles slavery much more than anything else when done to the degree and with the harshness that communism like other types of fascism uses.
But that is modern history, look past that and see some of the similarities for ordinary people under the various Chinese emperors, the first of them who afaik even named the country after himself, and you see the chinese people mostly being treated as someones/the rulers property at whim, if that isn't slavery then what is?
All that being said modern China is hopefully moving in the right direction of more (approved) individual control of their own lives, it does seem so even if there is a long way to go yet. And of course China isn't the only country in the world where the people have experienced these kinds of hardship (almost every country has), it does seem to be the country where these sorts of conditions have lasted the longest though.
"It's probably the wrong word for what I meant to describe."
If memory serves the architectural term you are looking for is actually organic as in organic city growth which is characterized by being somewhat haphazard "build and fit it when and where you need it" and following the paths of the environment (rivers, hills, and so on). It is often the case that old villages/towns/cities grew in this fashion (something which incidently gives more of the feeling of a human touch to them in opposition to squared cities).
You gave excellent examples, I would just like to point out that almost any city at some point enters organic growth or has organic areas (usually on the outskirts) and that most are categorized as mixed for this reason (greater New York outside the island of Manhattan might be a bad example but the further out you go the more organic the layout becomes, even if the planning still relies on squaring they more and more follow rivers and other natural paths). Btw a non-organicially structured city does not need to be based on squares, some cities like Paris are based on or incorporate star patterns.
Disclaimer: IANAAOCP (I am not an architect or city planner);)
(Yes) It's a pleasure to read these threads, lots of good dialogue including your post.
*thinks/. died and went to heaven* lol;)
(But) I would just like to point out that when actually taking into account the deficiencies of pollution per GDP as you do in your post then it becomes a very good and useful measure - quite the opposite of lousy. Any measure has it's peculiar deficiencies but that does not neccessarily (and absolutely not in this case) invalidate everything it can show while still taking into account the deficiencies of course.
(No) However I disagree with your two last sentences. How do you support your statement that the US forces other countries to consume? It seems like totally voluntary individual choices within populations to me (even in China), perhaps not smart or wise or intelligent but absolutely voluntary unless one believes in sheeple (tempting, I know) and even then would it actually be fair to blame others than the sheeple themselves?
On the World Bank/IMF you make me remember some questions that were recently put to Paul Wolfowitz on this and I'll just give the gist of the relevant information and answers as he did:
- although the US is the major shareholder and holding votes is more or less proportional to the amount of money contributed to the World Bank by the member nation, still decisions are made by unanimity (just like in NATO, i.e. lots of discussion needed)
- nations are completely free to not seek help from the World Bank and IMF if they so wish. Anyone who do seek assistance naturally has to comply with the agreed conditions for recieving it
- on the few occasions that the US has had an opposing view on a matter they have always (according to Wolfowitz) been "defeated" and had to compromise their stand towards the consensus of the rest of the voting members (portrayed in a positive way by Wolfowitz)
He also said some sensible stuff about privatizing and when it was or was not an appropriate measure but I can't remember the statements precisely enough to include them.
About WTO and to a lesser extent trade agreements it is by its nature a politicized economical battleground but with the addition of trying to "umpire the fight" and that is exactly what it should be: economical diplomacy and brinkmanship. Almost all socalled third world countries have realized this years ago but keep getting interrupted by "friends" who would rather throw rocks at them and the rest discussing/manouvering inside.
Multinational corporations and conglomerates are not "USian" and the US is far from the only who support them, almost every country do so to their best ability (present "winners"; China, India - present "losers"; Argentina, Venezuela - absolute "jumbo dumbo"; North Korea) while all sides also (of course) try to squeeze as much out of them as they can - it becomes an economical battle with many different fronts and perspectives and overall this actually is to everyones benefit (but all the "pendulums" keep swinging back and forwards, it is obvious that the complexity of it all escapes a lot of people).
I bet that if one took a poll of the entire world one would discover that a huge amount of people and in all likelyhood a solid majority does not revile US consumption but rather wishes they had the same level themselves. The good news is that it is not an impossibility to achieve this and even to do so in a environmentally sustainable manner. Sure, not right now, but gradually over time because:
- macroeconomics and trade is not a zero sum game but rather a win-win situation literally growing material wealth and higher living standards
- knowledge and technology is not static but accelerating at least exponentially (neither consumption or pollution are anywhere close to such acceleration)
- energy efficiency and "alternative" energy sources are gaining in momentum, in the quality of the solutions, as well as in the available quantity of different solutions (in relation to th
Slashdot Mirror
The fashionistas wont get my t-shirt (jeans and sneakers too) before they try to pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Yes I would say that you are somewhat wrong (not that it means you're actually wrong, just that my opinion differs). AT least we see the world in very different ways.
:) (yes I know three halves are 150% but then again most environMentalistas try to be larger than life).
i seases/Malaria/Related+Info/MalariaControl.htm and inquire how you might be of service? My point is that in this day and age citizens complaining their governments aren't doing enough are disingenious: the citizens can actually do it themselves for the most part if they organize and cooperate on the specific problem they want adressed or think are insufficiently adressed - and not by making noise and complaining, but by actually doing stuff: contributing money, resources, time and/or knowledge.
:)
Disclaimer: I use "environMentalistas" in a half-joking, half-loving & half-scorning manner - please do not be insulted if you actually are an environMentalista
Here's how I would look at it. The laptops introduce modern technology in an environmently friendly/friendlier way. They open up possibilites for increased cooperation and communication, an increased technological aptitude and extended education (both difficulty and width). It is very important that the laptops are F/OSS both because it acclimatizes the users to F/OSS and because it makes it much easier to actually dwelve into the inner workings of it for those so inclined.
Knowledge is power. Most of the poorer nations are well aware (and have been for at least the last ten years or so) of the importance of free trade and the abolishment or minimizing of import and export tariffs. These nations have actually influenced international policy on this although the EU and especially France is the big stumbeling block (the US has said it will remove it's agricultural subsidies and protections if the EU agrees to do it too - so no uninformed US bashing please). Many poorer african and american nations have made bilateral agreements with the US to great effect (somewhat derailed by the paranoia of Chavez and his ilk) since the EU/France seems to stubbornly cling to their farming practices. Hopefully France and other protectionist EU countries (and the US and the rest of the industrialised world for that matter) will start growing more useful things than food (biodiesel and other fuels) which should allow for drastic cuts in the direct and indirect subsidies (tariffs, price guarantees etc.) no matter what.
Greenhouse gases? I have hope that more and more of those who read science news etc. should be slowly coming around to the insight that we know far too little to claim with any kind of certainty that man plays a major part in climate changes. Anyway, those with the extreme western "environMentalista" view on the environment are often the developing nations worst enemies. I can say that for a very simple reason: energy = prosperity, there's no way around it. And the most cost-efficient portable energy so far is petrolium products (some can be grown of course; look at Brazil), the most cost-efficient non-portable is nuclear energy and hydro-electric dams. "EnvironMentalistas" have a tendency to say a big "No!" to anything at all if they get the chance and are in no way conducive to the kind of society-building that is needed and taking place in most poorer countries. This might all change of course and hopefully so, but imposing stricter rules on developing nations or misleading them into uncertainties are both simply unfair, unreasonable, and probaly not really thought through by those that propose it.
Malaria? I'll leave that to Melinda & Bill Gates, the meager resources I have to support medical science are used otherwise. If you want to fight malaria why don't you go to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_D
So yes I would say you are wrong
Interesting... would this person happen to be you? http://base.google.com/base/items?oid=674339201900 4287296
:) Has the person ever had a heartache? Any kind of trauma or other bad experiences? Denied God, Satan or any other such entity? Number of reincarnations if any? The list goes on and on to make an attempted appraisal. It seems obvious that the person is a virgin physically, that's at least one selling point but it would need to be documented to affect the selling price :)
It states: "You have my word on that my soul is pure and clean. I have never commited any sins or other bad acts, so please skip the 2 cents offers."
but I would contend he has already in the ad made at least the following sins:
- lying (about never ever having done anything even remotely bad)
- selling his soul (a sin in the eyes of a overwhelmingly large portion of religious humans, incidentally the group that are most likely to accept the concept of a soul in the first place, and many of whom would not even accept the validity of trying to sell it or that the seller is actually the owner of his own soul)
So the soul is obviously not in mint condition
Most buyers would probably want a guarantee on the souls condition from a higher authority if quality is meant to be a selling point.
In addition there is little product information, nor any guarantee or expiration date (the expiration date would be the time for which the seller could guarantee conferred ownership of the soul). If such a date is unknown to the seller many buyers could arrange such a date for their own purposes as long as it does not include any reverse transferral back to the seller. And most important of all the seller has not defined exactly what his soul is, most buyers would for example feel that they could litigate if buying the soul does not imply a full 100% direct control over the sellers soul at all times including all which that implies (by tradition; the sellers thoughts, actions, feelings, senses and soforth).
And what of those who would be interested in buying the soul for official purposes such as proving they have a soul (at least one)? If you have a deed to a human soul (even if transfer has not occured yet) could one not claim to be eligible to human rights, nationality, etceterea? Perhaps absurd right here and now but some time in the future it might not be, it could be a legal loophole for synthetic intelligences to gain human rights if otherwise denied such. All of this is a seperate futures market but does make it neccessary that the sale has an approved legal status in whatever human justice system the sale takes place, the seller needs to provide documentation to such effect if this is the market he's going for.
Any possibilites of "try before you buy"? What are the delivery arrangements?
What are the contractual agreements for exchange of the money and the soul? Almost all buyers would agree to an infinite sum if the transfer is immediate and includes the traditional implications.
The seller should be noted that all things considered the likely buyers would want the traditional contractual arrangements and a signature in the sellers blood witnessed by the buyer or representatives and confirmed by DNA comparison of the blood with three sample biopsis from any part of the sellers body, internal or external.
"Google!" could possibly be the equivalence of a babys first spoken word for a netbased synthetic intelligence...
Funny considering the origin of the name but think about other implications and consequences. And is it intentional? One might almost begin to think so.
Hmm you know there's actually other alternatives around, like simply admitting we don't really know yet. That honest answer is the best one in my opinion both because it's honest (d'oh!) and because it doesn't detract from further research by making it all into a flamefest between atheists/agnostics and believers (a flamefest which is totally irrelevant and hinders science).
But I guess that's no good if one desperaterly wants to believe science says anything either for or against the possibility of a deity...
A lot of people who think they're science-friendly or religion-friendly haven't realized (or don't want to) that science can only say something about the scientific (testable/repeatable/verifiable systematic observations and so on), everything else is speculation (which is ok as long as one doesn't pretend it's anything else).
Cool link you gave there, green slime is also a fairly wellknown/famous creature in in Nethack. I wonder if there might be a connection between the two?
M onsterManual/AMOEBOID.html#green_slime):
l #slime):
From the Juiblex monster manual (http://www.juiblex.co.uk/nethack/VernonSpoilers/
Name: green slime
Difficulty: 8
Base level: 6
Base experience: 164
Speed: 6
Base AC: 6
Base MR: 0
Alignment: 0
Frequency: Very rare, only in Gehennom
Genocidable: Yes
ATTACK:
Touch: Turns you into green slime
Weight: 400
Nutritional value: 150
Size: large
Resistances: cold, electricity, poison, acid, petrification
Resistances conveyed by eating: None
A green slime can flow under doors. Due to its unusual body chemistry, It has no need to breathe. It has no eyes, and is therefore impervious to gaze and blindness attacks. It has no mind, and is therefore not detectable via telepathy. A green slime has no limbs and no head. It is acidic and poisonous if eaten. It is an omnivore.
From the steelypips instadeath spoiler (http://www.steelypips.org/nethack/instadeath.htm
sliming
Green slimes (generally not seen outside certain parts of Gehennom) can slime you with their 'touch' attack. If you're slimed, you will slowly turn into another green slime over the course of several turns.
Preventatives: Always kill green slimes from a distance. Don't let them get close to attack you. (This implies that you should have some way to spot them from a distance) An amulet of unchanging will protect you from being slimed.
Remedies: If you get yourself slimed, you can pray to your god for help, if they're happy with you. Don't pray to your god, though, if you're beneath the Valley of the Dead (Vlad's tower doesn't count as being beneath the Valley of the Dead) or they'll become angry with you, so if you're beneath the Valley of the Dead, you'll need to teleport out of Gehennom in order for your deity to heal you. Additionally, putting on an amulet of unchanging will halt the sliming process. Reading a scroll of fire, casting 'Fireball' on yourself, zapping a wand of fire at yourself, stepping on a fire trap, lighting a potion of oil and throwing it upwards, and other methods of setting oneself on fire will burn the slime away (but will also hurt you and probably destroy many carried scrolls and potions at the same time). Casting 'Cure Sickness' on yourself or #invoking the Staff of Aesculapius will heal sliming more safely. Additionally, polymorphing yourself will heal you of sliming. Applying a unicorn horn will NOT stop sliming!
Hush, please don't further annoy and frustrate all the scientists who desperately do not want to admit that they don't have a good detailed answer with proof concerning the origin of life ;)
This space lichen corpse tastes terrible! You finish eating the space lichen corpse. You polymorph into a small green man. You hear godly laughter from above. "Oh wow! Everything looks so cosmic!". You are stressed.
;)
YASD
From within Nethack (http://nethack.org/):
M onsterManual/lichen.html#lichen):
* &Database=*&Query=lichen
Pick an object.
F a fungus or mold (lichen)
From the Jubilex monster manual (http://www.juiblex.co.uk/nethack/VernonSpoilers/
Name: lichen
Difficulty: 1
Base level: 0
Base experience: 4
Speed: 1
Base AC: 9
Base MR: 0
Alignment: 0
Frequency: Uncommon
Genocidable: Yes
ATTACK:
Sticks to you
Weight: 20
Nutritional value: 200
Size: small
Resistances: None
Resistances conveyed by eating: None
Due to its unusual body chemistry, A lichen has no need to breathe. It has no eyes, and is therefore impervious to gaze and blindness attacks. It has no mind, and is therefore not detectable via telepathy. It has no limbs and no head. A lichen cannot pick up objects.
The chamber was of unhewn rock, round, as near as might be, eighteen or twenty feet across, and gay with rich variety of fern and moss and lichen. The fern was in its winter still, or coiling for the spring-tide; but moss was in abundant life, some feathering, and some gobleted, and some with fringe of red to it.
Lorna Doone, by R.D. Blackmore
At Dict.org:
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict1&Strategy=
It is actually 1 wrong (terrorists) and 1 good (practical rather than principled response to terrorists) making 0 wrong or good.
Remember that no terrorist organisation has ever signed the Geneva conventions and that none of them have avoided intentionally breaking them. Until the time that the worlds governments can figure out an agreement on what rights (if any) terrorists should have that's how it will stay.
Oh and terrorism does not equal militias (civilian resistance movements) acting on behalf of, and under at least indirect guidance from, an acknowledged state. This is easily understood from the definitions of the Geneva conventions themselves as well as other international treaties: it makes a lot of the people shouting about the issue look rather stupid, they're seldom talking about the central point that should be discussed (above paragraph).
You're neglecting quite a few things here:
.50-cal slug through the engine (and I wouldn't be surprised if that is a rare occurance in any situation).
- the angle makes the (accelerating) speed of the approching car into a very big issue in relation to precision fire, much bigger I guess than anyone except those with extensive firearms training would realize
- the target area of a wheel is much less than the engine (but this is kind of irrelevant as pointed out in the next paragraph)
- the reaction time has to be low both because many roadblocks do not have a long field of view and because most who want to penetrate a roadblock speed up rather than slow down in a relatively short stretch in front of the roadblock (and that's when one notices)
For these and other reasons nobody would be concerned about anything else than hitting any part of the car possible to stop it, be it the occupants, engine, wheels, whatever. I guess this goes quite a long way in explaining why one can find that something like 500 rounds of all sorts of calibers are fired in such a situation.
It's only if you feel "safe" that you would consider getting a perfect aim and stopping the car with one
Disclaimer: IANAAS (I Am Not An American Soldier)
Neutron bombs could definetly be used to maim rather than kill, even when not done on purpose they are likely to maim people that are not in the killzone close to the detonation. It would/could induce cancer, immune system deficiencies, tissue failures and similar, and if the dose is low enough it might not be lethal in their future either (that even goes for radiation sickness).
For example (this is all by memory so take it with a grain of salt - I might be mixing up the percentages etc. however the gist of it should be correct) only about 45% of the initial survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have died from reasons related to the bombs but many of those that have not died from the longterm effects would still be said to be maimed from the radiation exposure (I'm sorry I can't be bothered to dig up the link to this claim but I think it was Nature or NewScientist who had a story on this some time between june and now).
Looking at it that way the Geneva conventions would prohibit the use of flashbangs. I'm very confident the mutually agreed definition of "maiming weapons" among the signatories does not include temporary sensory depravation etc. and even more certain that most people would agree that non-lethal warfare is better than lethal warfare.
Continuing your thought one has to ask what weapon can't conceivably be used for maiming rather than killing? I know of no such weapon only which has such a "boolean value"-like use, not even weapons of mass destruction.
Their general US patent:T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,015,258.WKU.&OS=PN /6,015,258&RS=PN/6,015,258
5 70076-Moya-Terra-Aqua-Inc.html
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
I didn't bother making links to non-US patents but you can find them at the company website. According to the company the patent process is still continuing.
Contact information (note that it is a private company):
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/merc-compint-0000
Their website:
http://www.tmainc.net/
I'm not impressed with the journalistic and editorial abilities of either Slashdot or OpenSourceEnergy. And I guess there shouldn't be any need to mention that most people on Slashdot talk out of their asses... (some even try to hide behind PhD's instead of actually making an argument - that's low!).
I suggest people do a bit of searching and reading on their own before making absolute statements about the "newsstories", be it this one or about hydrinos or whatever, otherwise all you're doing is succumbing to groupthink and knee-jerk reactionism. Have some pride (irrespective of whatever opinion you end up with).
Once again I do for the most part agree, it's just that those errors seem not to die and science is after all meant to be a selfcorrecting process. But pointing out known errors that haven't been fixed does actually contribute to science, and fixing an error does not imply that one has to accept or give creedence to other separate claims.
:)
However if those errors actually were corrected when found (as far back as a century ago) ID couldn't actually take them to their advantage, but they weren't even though many tried. The big question is why (and here there be dragons: parts of the theory of evolution seems to be heading for dire waters like it or not). This is more serious than it might look like, after all if science itself doesn't actually live up to its own rules in this regard then who are they to discredit ID? Until the known errors (and there seems to be a lot of them as well as a lot of conjectures and hypothesises that are treated as something more than they really are proven to be in regards to evolution) and the reasons why they were allowed to propagate are fixed these issues will continue to come back again and again in some form or other, weakening science and anyones general trust in it being done correctly.
This issue is closely linked with a general lack of understanding about theory and philosophy of science within the scientific community itself as well as the increasing practice of doctored data and papers. All this is way too important than to be continually brushed away by the majority of the science community, actually the whole manner in which ID has been replied to in general is disgraceful and can easily give ordinary rational people the impression that science is becoming nothing more than just another belief system (because that is what it will turn into if the problems mentioned above aren't fixed).
Sorry for ranting since I'm pretty sure we both pretty much agree, it's just that I'm much more worried about "scientists" not understanding or living up to the principles of science (of which there seems to be far to many) than "outsiders" not understaning it
That was one of the most insightful posts I've read lately.
/. reads like a bunch of luddites complaining and it's getting old. So if any of those actually support an, over time, increasing human presence in space they should get out of their "old grumpy man" act. To put it in a simple way the astronauts sent to ISS are themselves the biggest experiment and the most important one (and if anyone thinks that could be done on earths surface they've reached rock bottom - pun not intended). The ISS serves as a real testbed for hands on technology concerned with keeping humans alive in space for prolonged periods and with increased efficiency and reliability. Yes, it has the potential to be much more over time, personally I hope that at some point in the future when we are actually ready to do so its orbit can be boosted to GEO, but that is of course a long way off and money is actually the least objection to doing it right away: we don't presently have the requisite technology at a sufficient level to make it worthwhile, not even close.
/. doesn't actually contain many readers that seem to be aware of how incrementally and tediously science normally progresses. Many seem to think that science progresses like the technology tree in some C&C-like game and /. is filled with people who think it more important to criticize NASA (or Burt Rutan or anyone else actually trying to do something it seems) than to actually say something enlightened (!=rehashed bickering). I guess we can all blame the armchair for that :)
/. has much clout either politically and scientifically and the ranting doesn't actually affect much except the /. "image".
_ 050818.html
/. lol
For those who, like me, actually support humans in space almost all comments regarding space on
And so what if the ISS program was used for more than just its face value of space science? Why is that such a horror? Isn't it actually better to employ people in science that benefits us than let them languish and in likelihood be employed against us?
For being a supposed "Nerd" site
Anyway I'm not worried as I doubt anyone on
Recommended reading:
http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hustle_part1
The danger of that link of course is that it will shame people into shutting up.... what am I saying? this is
I'm not a linux zealot (I use Win2000, Knoppix, and OpenBSD and most of the time only the Win2000) but I still say this is pure FUD etc.
/. has begun selling pagehits?).
I read the article and it's as thin as water. Nothing to see here (move along), not even anything real to discuss here (except perhaps that
Thank you for making that post, it is good to see that there are actually other people out there in the world who know what they're talking about rather than rehashing what their surroundings think is "right".
/. groupthink can actually be somehow improved, after all it would be nice and probably enlightening for all to see discussions on the science concerned rather than the present soup mostly consisting of strawman fallacies.
With posts like yours I hope the
One is based on faith while the other should not be based on faith. After all I'm sure you would agree that science and religion are somewhat different right?
Now the problem as I see it is that some parts of science require faith rather than science, this applies to some parts of the theory of evolution (not everything but some important parts).
Is it fair to demand faith as a prerequisite for science? I don't think so, actually I find it decisively unscientific, and this opinion goes against both the larger claims of ID as well as the larger claims of the theory of evolution.
This is what the whole discussion should really be about but it seems to escape 99% of those who say anything at all. However it will make for great laughs in the future when people will look back at both sides much like we look at the flat-earthers (that is if anyone actually bothers to remember the embarrasing "debate" in the first place).
I absolutely agree with every part of your post.
a lOfTheFakest.pdf
/. groupthink but to look at the sunny side of things at least we got FSM and Pastafarians out of it all :)
Now what I'd like to see next is that people also realize that one doesn't have to be a creationist or even adhere to everything ID proposes to acknowledge that ID actually raises some questions on purely scientific merits.
I mean how many here or elsewhere have actually bothered to read examples of the scientific criticisms ID themselves actually put on the table rather than all the second, third, and fourth-hand attacks on ID? If more people did so (even if they deny the overall claims of ID like I do) then those embarrasing scientific faults (tempted to say frauds) can actually be accounted for and corrected in the science. Some of the stuff ID is critisizing has been known about for close to a century as scientific frauds, disproven several times by peer-reviewed articles and is generally accepted as untrue even by vocal anti-ID scientists - so why isn't the erroneous information culled from science? Reading what the scientists who are the foundation of ID actually says it should become obvious that ID is not a purely philosopical/religious argument.
Go read people, please, do yourself and everyone else a favour in the discussion, perhaps that will open up the possibility for getting much needed corrections and improvements into parts of science that are in dire need of getting their heads out of their asses.
Btw I am not a christian but I do believe in pretty much the same God but I don't care for people who try to prove religion through science because it derives faith of any value. That being said I do not believe rational religion and science can ever be at odds, if one did think so it would be like claiming that love can only be a chemical reaction and nothing more (we have other words to describe that) something only absurdist reductionists do.
A possible starting point is (PDF warning) http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/surviv
*sigh* I bet this post is probably useless in batteling
It is relevant in explaining why people can say that they think the chinese have been living in conditions amounting to slavery for a very long time in China. That was the topic of my post in reply to the grandparent. Also to give examples from more recent times as well as older history.
:) I'm also not saying that everything the present chinese government is doing is without merit, far from it, a lot of it is very impressive, and as I said in my post I hope and believe they are slowly moving in the right direction (trying to avoid the trouble the USSR had when turning back into Russia & the federation of former Sovjet states).
And don't get me wrong; I like the chinese peoples and chinese cultures (and languages; I've only heard Hokkien and Mandarin but they're very beautiful), I've had the fortune of living in an Asian country with a majority of chinese in the population - by saying majority I almost expect you to know which country if I exclude China (including Hong Kong and Macau) and Taiwan
The construction of the Three Gorges Dam should suffice as a recent example of forced migration, and on a massive scale too. Another recent and wellknown example of forced migration would be Tibet, both in and out.
Yes the Long March as a military manouver isn't an example of slavery but a part of the reaction and struggle against perceived slavery. I should have made that point clear, my mistake, but the fact is that chinese themselves have felt that they were enslaved by emperors, warlords, and communists. How else do you explain a "successful" uprising like communism itself originally was, or more recently the unsuccessful Tiananmen Square protest that became a massacre the present chinese government is trying to edit out of their version of reality?
I don't really see your argument about the cultural revolution, are you saying it was an example of freedom and not severe oppression? How can you say it is anarchy when it is the top leaders who start and allow it? It sounds like you're making excuses for the establishment of bloodsoaked tyranny and indeed a form of slavery to the state. Even the Communist Party of China denounced it officially in 1981 and that should tell people something.
I don't think you do a favour to the argument about the non-slavery of chinese people by comparing it to a period in Europe within most people would agree that the Europeans worst affected were in fact no better than slaves. It kind of destroys your argument. Especially when you realize that although poor people during the industrial revolution had slave-like work conditions they still actually had a number of freedoms in other respects (like religion) that chinese often have not had and presently do not really have be it repression of Falun Gong or muslim minorities in western chinese provinces or the fact that christian congregations have to be "approved".
You are free to disagree with me of course but I hope I'm able to explain why a lot of people outside china hold the opinion that chinese in China live and have lived in what can be easily thought of as slavery for a long time. However in the present it could be even worse, one only has to look at and compare with North Korea.
"I have seen a lot of people saying China is known historically for slavery, but is it really base on some actual research or is it base on recent sentiment towards communism?"
Yes and no. Communism hasn't been around all that long and in respect to communism I guess one can define oneself away from talking about slavery but it becomes fairly ridiculous at some point. Think of the Long March, think of the Cultural Revolution, think of routine forced migration, think of mass imprisonment into factories, think of extremely poor workers rights or any rights for that matter, think of tightly controlled "freedom" if any at all. It all resembles slavery much more than anything else when done to the degree and with the harshness that communism like other types of fascism uses.
But that is modern history, look past that and see some of the similarities for ordinary people under the various Chinese emperors, the first of them who afaik even named the country after himself, and you see the chinese people mostly being treated as someones/the rulers property at whim, if that isn't slavery then what is?
All that being said modern China is hopefully moving in the right direction of more (approved) individual control of their own lives, it does seem so even if there is a long way to go yet. And of course China isn't the only country in the world where the people have experienced these kinds of hardship (almost every country has), it does seem to be the country where these sorts of conditions have lasted the longest though.
"It's probably the wrong word for what I meant to describe."
If memory serves the architectural term you are looking for is actually organic as in organic city growth which is characterized by being somewhat haphazard "build and fit it when and where you need it" and following the paths of the environment (rivers, hills, and so on). It is often the case that old villages/towns/cities grew in this fashion (something which incidently gives more of the feeling of a human touch to them in opposition to squared cities).
You gave excellent examples, I would just like to point out that almost any city at some point enters organic growth or has organic areas (usually on the outskirts) and that most are categorized as mixed for this reason (greater New York outside the island of Manhattan might be a bad example but the further out you go the more organic the layout becomes, even if the planning still relies on squaring they more and more follow rivers and other natural paths). Btw a non-organicially structured city does not need to be based on squares, some cities like Paris are based on or incorporate star patterns.
Disclaimer: IANAAOCP (I am not an architect or city planner) ;)
(Yes) It's a pleasure to read these threads, lots of good dialogue including your post.
*thinks /. died and went to heaven* lol ;)
(But) I would just like to point out that when actually taking into account the deficiencies of pollution per GDP as you do in your post then it becomes a very good and useful measure - quite the opposite of lousy. Any measure has it's peculiar deficiencies but that does not neccessarily (and absolutely not in this case) invalidate everything it can show while still taking into account the deficiencies of course.
(No) However I disagree with your two last sentences. How do you support your statement that the US forces other countries to consume? It seems like totally voluntary individual choices within populations to me (even in China), perhaps not smart or wise or intelligent but absolutely voluntary unless one believes in sheeple (tempting, I know) and even then would it actually be fair to blame others than the sheeple themselves?
On the World Bank/IMF you make me remember some questions that were recently put to Paul Wolfowitz on this and I'll just give the gist of the relevant information and answers as he did:
- although the US is the major shareholder and holding votes is more or less proportional to the amount of money contributed to the World Bank by the member nation, still decisions are made by unanimity (just like in NATO, i.e. lots of discussion needed)
- nations are completely free to not seek help from the World Bank and IMF if they so wish. Anyone who do seek assistance naturally has to comply with the agreed conditions for recieving it
- on the few occasions that the US has had an opposing view on a matter they have always (according to Wolfowitz) been "defeated" and had to compromise their stand towards the consensus of the rest of the voting members (portrayed in a positive way by Wolfowitz)
He also said some sensible stuff about privatizing and when it was or was not an appropriate measure but I can't remember the statements precisely enough to include them.
About WTO and to a lesser extent trade agreements it is by its nature a politicized economical battleground but with the addition of trying to "umpire the fight" and that is exactly what it should be: economical diplomacy and brinkmanship. Almost all socalled third world countries have realized this years ago but keep getting interrupted by "friends" who would rather throw rocks at them and the rest discussing/manouvering inside.
Multinational corporations and conglomerates are not "USian" and the US is far from the only who support them, almost every country do so to their best ability (present "winners"; China, India - present "losers"; Argentina, Venezuela - absolute "jumbo dumbo"; North Korea) while all sides also (of course) try to squeeze as much out of them as they can - it becomes an economical battle with many different fronts and perspectives and overall this actually is to everyones benefit (but all the "pendulums" keep swinging back and forwards, it is obvious that the complexity of it all escapes a lot of people).
I bet that if one took a poll of the entire world one would discover that a huge amount of people and in all likelyhood a solid majority does not revile US consumption but rather wishes they had the same level themselves. The good news is that it is not an impossibility to achieve this and even to do so in a environmentally sustainable manner. Sure, not right now, but gradually over time because:
- macroeconomics and trade is not a zero sum game but rather a win-win situation literally growing material wealth and higher living standards
- knowledge and technology is not static but accelerating at least exponentially (neither consumption or pollution are anywhere close to such acceleration)
- energy efficiency and "alternative" energy sources are gaining in momentum, in the quality of the solutions, as well as in the available quantity of different solutions (in relation to th
:) virker som vi utløste et lite skred av norske poster hehe