Disagreement with the US's policies does not validate the use of violence towards the US or its citizens. There are ways to change policy without the use of violence -- that is the foundation of civilization.
Terrorists need to find a way to resolve problems like civilized individuals -- to stop acting like barbarians.
I think you need to give the Chinese more credit. As you've said, they have a billion more people than we do
Centrally controlled or planned economies don't allocate resources as efficiently as a free market. The billion extra people in China would be better off with a less authoritarian regime.
what China is up to in Africa
China's investment in Africa (and around the world) is centered on regimes that the US finds morally reprehensible. I am glad the US has isn't propping the Sudanese, Iranians, or Burmese.
The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output. Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of desert and produces 3.2 gigawatts.
Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.
You are exactly right. Before 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan I remember reading a post titled "Why do people hate Americans?" Hundreds chimed in, with as much passion as today's critics, but with different complaints. The biggest complaint, by far, was that Americans call themselves Americans (how arrogant) instead of USians. Next on the list was how we didn't finish the first Gulf War and let our allies be murdered by Saddam. People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.
the population is shifting towards more liberal views as the old fuckers running everything die off.
You forget that the baby boomers were the biggest group of liberals the US has ever seen. Have you ever heard of Woodstock? Hippies? Free-Love?
A manager of mine once said: "If you are under 30 and your are not a liberal, then you don't have a heart. If you are over 30 and you are not a conservative, then you don't have a brain."
Today's liberals will grow into tomorrow's conservatives and the cycle will begin again, Simba. Hakuna matata.
Just to clarify, do you want all religious nuts be killed or just American religious nuts? How religious does one have to be to qualify for death? Should all religious people be killed or just a certain group like Christian, Jews, or Muslims?
Am I the only one that sees how nefarious this experiment is? Someone in the US military saw the events in Iran a few months back and panicked. The Iranian military was able to censor official news but not social networks. DARPA is conducting this challenge to gather the real world information it needs to effectively censor social networks.
"Global warming is caused by CO2 and the CO2 comes from human sources. "
Most intelligent people who have researched the issue have come to this conclusion.
"Curtailing carbon emissions is the only way to prevent further global warming."
Intelligent people should immediately recognize the fallacy in this statement. Curtailing carbon emissions is but ONE possible response, it is not the only response and it is not necessarily the best response. The debate, at this point in time, should focus on the response. "Believing" in global warming does not need to translate into "believing" politicians can fix it with more power.
What is wrong with giving the government(s) power to curtail carbon emissions?
For one, it gives the government control of every faculty of human life. Almost everything we do, from eating, to breathing, breeding, and working has a carbon footprint. Giving the government control of carbon emissions gives the government control of everything. Students of history should recognize this pattern very well. An external force will harm us all unless the government is given enough power to protect us. Governments don't protect, they repress. What happens if the government decides large dogs have too much of a carbon footprint. Or horses? Or more than one child?
Secondly, cutting emissions in the US will do nothing about China and India. In fact, cutting oil consumption in the US will make oil cheaper for third world factories. It is supply and demand. Personally, I would rather see the fossil fuels burnt in the US, under EPA standards, creating American jobs than to have it sent to China or India where it will be used in a much less efficient manner.
Third, it is unclear that cutting carbon emissions drastically in the near future will save us from tragedy. Global warming proponents admit this, but still advocate cutting emissions for lack of a better alternative.
What is the alternative?
While it isn't my preferred approach, one alternative is to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oceans will rise, the world will get hotter, and people will adapt. All of the carbon we are pumping out of the ground and burning once existed in the atmosphere anyways. Plants and animals consumed it, fell to the ocean floor, and were buried under ground. The world survived with extra carbon in the past and could again. The Earth is not going to turn into Venus, no matter how much oil we burn.
Of course there will be costs for doing nothing. For one, a lot of very wealthy people are going to lose their expensive beach front properties. Many bailed out bankers will see their mansions succumb to the tides. Tough shit.
A lot of poor people, mostly in third world countries will have to move. Even in the US we may have to move certain cities like New Orleans instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to wall them off from the seas. This will be expensive, but probably less expensive than curtailing global emissions enough to have an effect.
Arable farming land will lost. Some will be gained, but overall there will probably be a decrease in the amount of land available for agriculture. Farmers may have to stop selling their prime lots to housing developments. People may have to stop bitching about genetically modified food and learn to adapt. But most people will not starve to death, we will adapt.
Is there a better solution than doing nothing?
Like I said, I am not a proponent of doing nothing. I think we should do something that actually stands a chance of working. The best way (notice how I didn't use the word "only" here) to curtail carbon emissions is to give people cheaper options. I don't mean solar or wind, or osmosis generators or tide machines or biofuel or nuclear fission.
Perhaps I have read one to many sci-fi novels, but I think we should take the hundreds of billions being spent on cutting emissions and put it into nuclear fusion research. If nuclear fusion can be perfected in the next decade or two then there will be no reason to burn fossil fuels, conserve energy, or give the government a fascist grip on the economy.
OK, if you really believe 2012 is the end, I have a wonderful deal for you:
I will give you 50% of the cash value for all your belongings AND you can keep them through 2012. IF the world doesn't end, I get to have your things in 2013.
Everybody needs to fucking grow up. If Democrats think they are better than Republicans, then they are just as dumb. You both suck. John Stewart and Glenn Beck are both rich douche-bags.
I for one am sick and tired of these playground antics. The US is on the verge of a major economic and political meltdown and all you political ass-bags can do is point fingers and call names.
Precisely. The Town of Gilbert, in Arizona, has nearly 200,000 people. Some think the name is quaint, but the real reason it is still a town is that towns have different government structures than cities. Basically, it allows a small group of mostly Mormons to control the entire "city" without facing the same election process as a city.
You are looking at it completely wrong man. Paris Hilton is a perfect example of capitalism working beautifully. Here is why:
1. Paris Hilton is a worthless bitch who inherited all of her wealth from others. 2. Paris Hilton spends untold amounts of money on utterly worthless crap: clothing, parties, drugs, herpes medication. 3. Paris Hilton will never, ever contribute anything of value to this world. Her movie, The Hottie and Nottie made like $5 in the theaters. 4. Eventually Paris Hilton will transfer all of her wealth to others. The system works without government intervention.
I think it is a wonderful system. Easter island was destroyed by rich people consuming all natural resources in a bid to out do their rich neighbors. In the United States that wealth gets harmlessly diverted into things like shoes and handbags that cost 20,000 bucks. Society is preserved.
The people who engineered the bailout were hired by Bush and kept on by Obama. Perhaps we, the voters, should get better at choosing our leaders and stop bitching when the system works the way we voted it to work.
Why should everybody be entitled to health care? How much health care is everyone entitled to? I for one, don't agree that health care is a "right".
Is an alcoholic entitled to a new liver when he wears out the old one? Is a fat person entitled to diabetes treatments even though they caused (and perhaps still contribute to) their condition? How long should the taxpayers pay to keep a smoker in an iron lung?
The biggest question I have is, why aren't people accountable for their own health?
I don't believe that the reason the US has such low life expectancy is bad health care. To me, it seems like as Americans we eat too much fast food, drive our cars too much, and don't exercise nearly enough. Healthcare isn't going to fix that.
Most European parliaments have plurality of parties. More parties doesn't change anything. Instead, they form alliances. They horse-trade. Things work just as badly there (if not worse) than here in the US.
The solution isn't a more diverse government, it is less government.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagreement with the US's policies does not validate the use of violence towards the US or its citizens. There are ways to change policy without the use of violence -- that is the foundation of civilization.
Terrorists need to find a way to resolve problems like civilized individuals -- to stop acting like barbarians.
I think you need to give the Chinese more credit. As you've said, they have a billion more people than we do
Centrally controlled or planned economies don't allocate resources as efficiently as a free market. The billion extra people in China would be better off with a less authoritarian regime.
what China is up to in Africa
China's investment in Africa (and around the world) is centered on regimes that the US finds morally reprehensible. I am glad the US has isn't propping the Sudanese, Iranians, or Burmese.
Am I the only one who thinks a multipolar world with a Chinese superpower would be way, way worse than an American hegemony?
You are lying. Google makes (made) a profit in China and there is every reason to believe they would have made more if they stayed in China.
Google already makes a profit in China and there is every reason to believe that those profits would increase if they stayed in the market.
At my bank $47.32 + overdraft fees ~= $10 M
The project will decimate 2000 acres of desert habitat for 200 megawatts output. Palo Verde nuclear power plant, also in Arizona, spans 4000 acres of desert and produces 3.2 gigawatts.
Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.
You are exactly right. Before 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan I remember reading a post titled "Why do people hate Americans?" Hundreds chimed in, with as much passion as today's critics, but with different complaints. The biggest complaint, by far, was that Americans call themselves Americans (how arrogant) instead of USians. Next on the list was how we didn't finish the first Gulf War and let our allies be murdered by Saddam. People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.
The U.S. was still unquestionably the world superpower through the 1990s at least
No set of comments on Slashdot is complete without at least one pointing out how the article reflects America's decline.
the population is shifting towards more liberal views as the old fuckers running everything die off.
You forget that the baby boomers were the biggest group of liberals the US has ever seen. Have you ever heard of Woodstock? Hippies? Free-Love?
A manager of mine once said: "If you are under 30 and your are not a liberal, then you don't have a heart. If you are over 30 and you are not a conservative, then you don't have a brain."
Today's liberals will grow into tomorrow's conservatives and the cycle will begin again, Simba. Hakuna matata.
Just to clarify, do you want all religious nuts be killed or just American religious nuts? How religious does one have to be to qualify for death? Should all religious people be killed or just a certain group like Christian, Jews, or Muslims?
Am I the only one that sees how nefarious this experiment is? Someone in the US military saw the events in Iran a few months back and panicked. The Iranian military was able to censor official news but not social networks. DARPA is conducting this challenge to gather the real world information it needs to effectively censor social networks.
"Global warming is caused by CO2 and the CO2 comes from human sources. "
Most intelligent people who have researched the issue have come to this conclusion.
"Curtailing carbon emissions is the only way to prevent further global warming."
Intelligent people should immediately recognize the fallacy in this statement. Curtailing carbon emissions is but ONE possible response, it is not the only response and it is not necessarily the best response. The debate, at this point in time, should focus on the response. "Believing" in global warming does not need to translate into "believing" politicians can fix it with more power.
What is wrong with giving the government(s) power to curtail carbon emissions?
For one, it gives the government control of every faculty of human life. Almost everything we do, from eating, to breathing, breeding, and working has a carbon footprint. Giving the government control of carbon emissions gives the government control of everything. Students of history should recognize this pattern very well. An external force will harm us all unless the government is given enough power to protect us. Governments don't protect, they repress. What happens if the government decides large dogs have too much of a carbon footprint. Or horses? Or more than one child?
Secondly, cutting emissions in the US will do nothing about China and India. In fact, cutting oil consumption in the US will make oil cheaper for third world factories. It is supply and demand. Personally, I would rather see the fossil fuels burnt in the US, under EPA standards, creating American jobs than to have it sent to China or India where it will be used in a much less efficient manner.
Third, it is unclear that cutting carbon emissions drastically in the near future will save us from tragedy. Global warming proponents admit this, but still advocate cutting emissions for lack of a better alternative.
What is the alternative?
While it isn't my preferred approach, one alternative is to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oceans will rise, the world will get hotter, and people will adapt. All of the carbon we are pumping out of the ground and burning once existed in the atmosphere anyways. Plants and animals consumed it, fell to the ocean floor, and were buried under ground. The world survived with extra carbon in the past and could again. The Earth is not going to turn into Venus, no matter how much oil we burn.
Of course there will be costs for doing nothing. For one, a lot of very wealthy people are going to lose their expensive beach front properties. Many bailed out bankers will see their mansions succumb to the tides. Tough shit.
A lot of poor people, mostly in third world countries will have to move. Even in the US we may have to move certain cities like New Orleans instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to wall them off from the seas. This will be expensive, but probably less expensive than curtailing global emissions enough to have an effect.
Arable farming land will lost. Some will be gained, but overall there will probably be a decrease in the amount of land available for agriculture. Farmers may have to stop selling their prime lots to housing developments. People may have to stop bitching about genetically modified food and learn to adapt. But most people will not starve to death, we will adapt.
Is there a better solution than doing nothing?
Like I said, I am not a proponent of doing nothing. I think we should do something that actually stands a chance of working. The best way (notice how I didn't use the word "only" here) to curtail carbon emissions is to give people cheaper options. I don't mean solar or wind, or osmosis generators or tide machines or biofuel or nuclear fission.
Perhaps I have read one to many sci-fi novels, but I think we should take the hundreds of billions being spent on cutting emissions and put it into nuclear fusion research. If nuclear fusion can be perfected in the next decade or two then there will be no reason to burn fossil fuels, conserve energy, or give the government a fascist grip on the economy.
The whole story, and all the research, will come out in due time
Is "due time" before or after trillions of dollars are spent trying to fight global warming?
I thought the summary said it *treated* everything as a web app, not that everything was itself a web app.
Exactly. Once they integrate the Native Client with Chrome, then Google Chrome OS can run pretty much any application.
OK, if you really believe 2012 is the end, I have a wonderful deal for you:
I will give you 50% of the cash value for all your belongings AND you can keep them through 2012. IF the world doesn't end, I get to have your things in 2013.
Any takers?
Everybody needs to fucking grow up. If Democrats think they are better than Republicans, then they are just as dumb. You both suck. John Stewart and Glenn Beck are both rich douche-bags.
I for one am sick and tired of these playground antics. The US is on the verge of a major economic and political meltdown and all you political ass-bags can do is point fingers and call names.
Precisely. The Town of Gilbert, in Arizona, has nearly 200,000 people. Some think the name is quaint, but the real reason it is still a town is that towns have different government structures than cities. Basically, it allows a small group of mostly Mormons to control the entire "city" without facing the same election process as a city.
You are looking at it completely wrong man. Paris Hilton is a perfect example of capitalism working beautifully. Here is why:
1. Paris Hilton is a worthless bitch who inherited all of her wealth from others.
2. Paris Hilton spends untold amounts of money on utterly worthless crap: clothing, parties, drugs, herpes medication.
3. Paris Hilton will never, ever contribute anything of value to this world. Her movie, The Hottie and Nottie made like $5 in the theaters.
4. Eventually Paris Hilton will transfer all of her wealth to others. The system works without government intervention.
I think it is a wonderful system. Easter island was destroyed by rich people consuming all natural resources in a bid to out do their rich neighbors. In the United States that wealth gets harmlessly diverted into things like shoes and handbags that cost 20,000 bucks. Society is preserved.
The people who engineered the bailout were hired by Bush and kept on by Obama. Perhaps we, the voters, should get better at choosing our leaders and stop bitching when the system works the way we voted it to work.
And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?
What is the alternative?
Why should everybody be entitled to health care? How much health care is everyone entitled to? I for one, don't agree that health care is a "right".
Is an alcoholic entitled to a new liver when he wears out the old one? Is a fat person entitled to diabetes treatments even though they caused (and perhaps still contribute to) their condition? How long should the taxpayers pay to keep a smoker in an iron lung?
The biggest question I have is, why aren't people accountable for their own health?
I don't believe that the reason the US has such low life expectancy is bad health care. To me, it seems like as Americans we eat too much fast food, drive our cars too much, and don't exercise nearly enough. Healthcare isn't going to fix that.
John McCain told the truth and was rewarded appropriately.
Most European parliaments have plurality of parties. More parties doesn't change anything. Instead, they form alliances. They horse-trade. Things work just as badly there (if not worse) than here in the US.
The solution isn't a more diverse government, it is less government.