We zijn net opgekocht door een Nederlands bedrijf, dus moet ik borstel op mijn Nederlands
Een goeie idee, zeker... maar ik moet het zeggen dat de beste kans voor Nederlands leren is een mooie Nederlandse meisje als vriendin te hebben (het lukte voor mij!);)
And, with an average of 40 billion stars in a galaxy (it is conjectured that there are some very small galaxies, making the average much smaller than our own Milky Way), that makes 2.7008*10^20 stars... Ummm... woah.
I just tried it by holding a ruler at arms length up at the moon. The moon isn't quite full tonight, but it's pretty close, so I can guesstimate where the rest of it is from the curvature of what's there. I found the moon to be about 1.2cm with the ruler held at arms length - about twice what you're suggesting. Perhaps I have very short arms?
I don't dispute your maths, but I would like to know where the discrepancy in my experimental evidence is coming from...
Actually - just to note (not that it's for or against your argument), the numbers on that page you linked to look horribly out of date. It lists Sydney, Australia as being only 3.6 million... it was over 4 when I moved there 6 years ago, and I'm pretty sure it was up to 4.25 or so when I left (1.5 years ago).
As a resident of a "medium sized" German city (Hannover), I'd have to say I don't think it'd work here. Yes, the speed limit around the city is the usual 50km/h, and if you go anywhere near the centre, you can expect to drive much slower a lot of the time... BUT, if you're going between one part of Hannover and another (which many people do as their daily commute), you'll generally hop on to one of the B roads around the city and then hop back in to the city where you want to. The speed limits on these roads tend to be around 80km/h. This of course wouldn't be a possibility in this little thing, and you'd quickly get sick of taking the slow way going everywhere.
My commute, for example, is about 0.5km to a main road (50km/h limit, generally go 30km/h), 6km up the road (50km/h limit, generally go 60km/h along with the rest of the traffic), 3km on a faster road (80km/h limit, generally go 100km/h with the rest of the traffic) and then 1km off an exit to my office (50km/h, generally go 60km/h with the rest of the traffic). So, I'm only going a bit over 10km, but for pretty much all of it, this car wouldn't do the speeds I normally drive those roads. If I were to stick to the speed limit, then there's only a small stretch I couldn't do, but I can guarantee every other driver would want to kill me... plus, to avoid that little bit of the faster road, I'd have to go an extra 3km or so through a town centre kind of thing, with lots of other traffic that is generally jammed at that time of the morning (i.e. all the people going in to that little town area, which is not where I want to go)
That is not exactly true. The Dutch are very proud of their country but at the same time it is in their culture that a:) you should complain about everything and b:) never really go "Wow, this is superb", because everything can be made better.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm half Dutch by birth, and I lived there for a while (as mentioned), which I really loved, but I did find that the people who respected the way of life the most were those who have been familiar with other ways of life. I do think that sadly, there's somewhat of a case of people just not knowing how good they've got it because they've never had to live any other way. There are Dutch people that do realise and do love it of course, but I'm pretty sure they're the minority and that there really are a large number of them who just don't get it. I'd be happy if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am...
He was quite shocked and asked me "Why did you choose to live there then?" and I replied "Exactly because they have them".
Absolutely... even if you don't visit prostitutes, don't take any drugs, are not gay, would never get an abortion or desire euthanasia, the simple fact that all of those things CAN be done (and more... that's an incomplete list!) is one of the things that makes the country so great.
As it turned out, part of the communist propaganda was true!
Hah, the majority of old communist propaganda was true - it was just a careful framing of the truth. If you get good at this (which they did), you can say pretty much anything you like without it being a lie. (yes, "the sky is red" is a true statement... I never said WHERE the sky is red, and besides, "red" just means there's more of one particular wavelength than another, and I'm sure you can find wavelengths there's less of in the sky than that which produces red...)
Please provide citations - within official documents released by Barack Obama or a representative there-of - NOT media spin or speculation about his statements. I'm aware you probably CAN cite the tax related items, but I see nothing wrong with those... I'd be interested in seeing citations for the others.
And quality of life. Honestly, most of us over here in Europe are shocked when we hear about families with both parents working "just to pay the mortgage". How a country can get to that point for a small but significant percentage of its population and still have some other citizens consider the country to be "doing well" is really quite beyond our collective understanding...
They know that, while the American people voted for Obama for a number of reasons, a desire for socialism, more handouts to the poor, and more penalizing the rich, were not among them
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but do you really have any evidence that this isn't exactly why they voted for him? That the majority of people really do want a more socialised system?
Personally I LIKE not stepping over homeless people in the street, not getting mugged if I take the train at 3am, and not having to deal with extra-ordinarily stupid people on a daily basis. All of these are a direct result of that fact that I, and everyone else in the country I live in, pay quite a lot of our salary in taxes to the government to make sure that the society we live in is strong, prosperous and pleasant.
You do understand that we still are defending Japan and Germany right?
Interesting wording... you're still here, but who exactly are you 'defending' us FROM?
If you pull out your military now, we promise we won't start any more wars, and we're quite sure we'll be fine without you here 'defending' us.
Don't get me wrong, most countries are pretty thankful for some of the things the US has done in the past (e.g. the Berlin airlift that you mentioned), but it's a bit much to expect eternal and undying gratitude for just those few events, especially since the "rebuilding" you did was mostly because you bombed the cities to oblivion first (think of it this way: if yo hadn't bombed it, you wouldn't have had to pay to fix it...)
WHat country are you from where it's done better, I'd rather live there.
I currently live in Germany, but before here I've lived in New Zealand, Tonga, Australia and the Netherlands. I can recommend any of them except Tonga and Australia, neither of which are anything like what I've described in my previous post.
New Zealand is certainly the most beautiful (if you like natural scenery), and has the advantage (for native English speakers) of being English speaking, but unfortunately may be slowly steering away from the ideals it used to have (I hate saying that, as I'm a "proud kiwi" in a lot of ways).
If you want "quality of life", I'd recommend the Netherlands (I also hear the Scandanavian countries are even better from that perspective, but I've never lived in them, only visited, so can't say from my own experience).
As for Germany, where I live at the moment - great as far as seeing the results of social benefits goes, and the quality of life is pretty good overall, but in a side-by-side comparison with the Netherlands, I'll take NL any day just for the feeling of "personal liberty" that living there bestows at the same time as having excellent social programs and clear evidence of exactly where your tax money is going (primarily positive rather than negative things of course as well - they aren't big fans of throwing millions of Euro in to pointless middle eastern wars for example). The only downside of the Netherlands is that so few locals actually understand how great they've got it - the Dutch are the most pessimistic people about their own country that I've ever met.
I can also categorically say that if you were to move to any of the countries I've listed, the chance of you being car-jacked is significantly lower than the chance of you being struck by lightning on a clear day.
Lets say that my family makes 250k/year. I think that's acheiveable in my lifetime, although I'm currently not even at 1/3rd of that. I can expect to be taxed MORE than what people at 250k are already taxed at.
This is true...
Frankly, working harder to be taxed more doesn't seem very attractive...
When stated like that, no it doesn't... but if you earn $250k before tax, you still make more than someone earning $249k before tax - just because the tax is higher, it doesn't mean a payrise makes you earn less - just less per dollar over that limit (and still not so much that it's "not worth it")
...but working less to get something for nothing DOES seem attractive.
Does it HONESTLY seem attractive to you to make something below minimum wage for not working than it does to make minimum wage or higher for working? I COULD quit my job and live on social handouts, but I'd rather work, pay my taxes and have more money in my pocket as well as a better society around me.
Learn what the fairness doctrine is and come back when you can have an educated conversation... If it was reinstated and inforced, the owners of this site would have to make sure that...
Just from the Wikipedia page, it says '...required the holders of broadcast licenses to...' - this website does not have or require a broadcast license. Beyond that, the point is rather moot anyway since the wikipedia page also clearly points out 'President-elect Barack Obama's campaign says that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,"'
(sorry for only citing Wikipedia there - it's late and I want to go home from work - just typing this while some code compiles (yes, really, it's not just a bad xkcd excuse!) then I'm heading home...
And do you know he's already said he wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons? That's just about every pistol sold today. If he got his way, the only guns allowed would be black powder muskets and single shot rifles. Good luck defending yourself from a carjacker with one of those
If your country was governed well with a good set of social programs then the chance of being carjacked would be so extra-ordinarily low that you wouldn't even consider the possibility or want to have a gun to defend yourself from such a thing. Currently, yes I'm aware it's a problem, and you really do want to have something to defend yourself, so I'd concede the point but only to the limit that other policies (such as drastically lowering crime by increasing quality of life for everyone) are implemented successfully first.
People who decide to work to get off welfare do it because they want a better standard of living than what they can have on welfare...
Correct...
By increasing the amount of welfare people get, you increase that standard of living thereby increasing the amount of people who are content to stay there
Only after a certain limit... as long as it's very uncomfortable to be on welfare and easy to get a job that is required (by law) to treat you relatively well, there'll be very few who would opt to sit on welfare for their whole lives. I doubt anyone (including Obama) would want welfare to be some kind of government sponsored paradise lifestyle. It's not supposed to be easy, but it also does NEED to be enough that people aren't going out and committing horrendous violent crimes (such as violent carjackings) to supplement their income.
Welfare should be supplemental, it should not be something people can depend on. It should be given as a factor of what they are acheiving themselves, and it should reduce as time goes on to give an incentive to get off.
In most of the "socialist democracies" of the world, this is exactly how it works.
Any repub who votes for morality-based legislation? RINO.
Shhh... don't tell that to the "Republican" fundamentalist Christians out there who are screaming "think of the children" far louder than anyone else. The problem with BOTH parties is that, as parties, neither of them follow what the party is supposed to stand for. That's one of the reasons I think Obama was a good choice in that he doesn't necessarily toe the party line, but instead has been talking about issues as issues and offering up his plans for how those issues may be resolved. Certainly, the potential resolutions offered are "closer" to the Democratic party line than the Republican party line, but to me at least, it seems the party line could go jump for all he really cares, as long as the issues get considered and resolved with thought and insight by all those involved.
China is communist, not socialist - please look up the difference.
Australia is conservative, not socialist - believe it or not, both are capable of limiting rights to an uncomfortable level - usually just for different (spoken) reasons. Many countries that lean strongly towards conservatism (such as Australia) limit the citizens rights uncomfortably, and many countries with a more socialist leanings (such as the Netherlands) do not. That's not to say that there aren't socialist countries that do and conservative countries that don't, just that it's not as black and white as you make out.
He won't "change the world" in the way you're implying, but honestly, he did change the world in one sense. By being voted to be the next President of the United States, the general opinion of the US in the rest of the world rose dramatically in a matter of minutes. Everyone knows there's no real change until things actually start happening, but the fact that the first wheel has been put in motion (competent President) has really improved people's opinions of you. (whether that's right/wrong, good/bad, sensible/crazy, I won't state in this post)
call the other guy names: 'evil' or 'traitor' or 'communist' or 'socialist' or whatever
Whenever I see 'socialist' used as an insult, I am reminded of the following exchange from the South Park movie:
Cartman: Kyle, all those times I said you were a dumb, stupid Jew, well, I was wrong, you're not a Jew. Kyle: Cartman, I *am* Jewish! Cartman: There, there, don't be hard on yourself, Kyle.
I *am* socialist, and will almost always reflect that in my vote. How anyone can think that's a bad thing is beyond my comprehension.
You essentially had the choice (in my eyes) between: "Someone who says he'll do bad things, and might", and "Someone who says he'll do good things, but might not". Not the best of choices, but it's clear which one is the better of the two. I'm glad the right choice was made for once.
tax the upper and upper middle class to death to make sure they don't become as powerful as the ones in charge (obama)
Let's say someone makes 5 million a year. Now, let's say there's some really strict things in place to stop them dodging taxes (which most rich people are actually really good at). They get taxed at 50% of their income. They now make 2.5 million a year. Do you really think they're "less powerful" than they would have been at 3, 4 or even just under 5 million?
put forth the fairness doctrine so people can not speak their mind without being punshed for it. (liberals, you will suffer too, again, this is to keep the powerful, powerful)
"Fairness" does not advocate the removal of free speech.
destroy our right to carry weapons (so we will never have the change to have a violent revolution)
You couldn't have a violent revolution right now... Besides, I don't think Obama's planning on even trying to outlaw guns in the general public, just place some sensible restrictions on them.
KEEP DOWN the poor by making them dependant on welfare (oh, if you make more than $X, we're not giving you free money any longer)
Generally, welfare systems are designed so that if you make less working than you would on welfare, you get a "top up" in the form of welfare. This encourages people to work and make more money rather than making more by not working. Take a look at civilised western countries that have welfare systems in place (even ones that give quite a lot of money, such as Germany's system where for a while you make a reasonable percentage of what you made in your last job) amd you won't necessarily find countries rife with unemployed people taking handouts - instead you'll find countries where people aren't constantly living in mortal fear of job loss. A little peace of mind goes a long way towards a more stable and strong society.
pass ANY liberal agenda that they want, like the recent desires to allow abortion soon AFTER birth, as if partial birth wasn't enough.
PURE flamebait here... not worth a response (and if you think it is, you really are deluded)
2. When and why were Europe and North America deforested? Why does it matter?
Europe experienced a lot of deforestation at the hands of mankind between 1100 to 1500 AD. There wasn't much after that until recent years, when it has again become a serious problem. America experienced little deforestation until the arrival of European settlers, and there has been extensive deforestation since then, mostly over the last two centuries.
As for why it matters: Forests are a good CO2 sink. Losing them at the same time as releasing unprecedented quantities of CO2 in to the atmosphere will lead to a situation we have not had before and therefore can only make educated guesses as to what will happen.
3. What bad effects of the temperature rise have been observed since the industrial revolution? How sure are you that the bad effects are attributable to global warming?
If I may, I won't just concentrate on what the temperature rise has done, but instead the overall effects of temperature, increased CO2 and so on. It's not fair to look at only one part of the story...
4. How much are you predicting that the carbon dioxide levels will rise?
I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.
5. How much are you predicting that the temperatures will rise?
I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.
6. What bad effects are you predicting due to increased temperature?
Similar to the effects we're experiencing today (see above), only worse relative to the amount of climate change inducing factors involved (including, but not limited to, CO2, temperature rises (from any source) and so on).
7. Isn't it true that without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice and life would be very difficult on the planet?
Yes, that is true, which is why no-one is suggesting we strip the atmosphere off the planet - things would be rather unpleasant. This is a very silly question though, because you know full well that it's not a binary situation "we have a greenhouse effect"/"we don't have a greenhouse effect". What matters is how MUCH of a greenhouse effect we have. Too little or too much are both bad situations.
My statement "we can hope so", was that he's "not Christian and is actually a godless socialist who has used his Christian church as a cover for his run for President" from the GGP post - I wasn't meaning "we can hope so" with regard to him not being Muslim. (although, to be quite honest, I consider both religions equally as bad as each other).
I was aiming for a combination of "funny" and "insightful" mods based on that, but will probably get "Troll" if anything from the religious nutjobs of the world. (both Christians correctly interpreting and Muslims misinterpreting - both probably hate me!)
Yes, I do refer to Japan as Nihon-koku if I'm talking to anyone that is from there or travels there regularly. I wouldn't say it to someone who doesn't though, since it's not so obvious or well known. (I go there rather a lot and know a lot of Japanese people, so that probably influences me a bit). I was more or less referring to European city names though, which anyone in the Western world really should be expected to be familiar with.
As per my last post, I do say København rather than Copenhagen, even though I don't speak Danish, and I've yet to have anyone misinterpret me. Same with Köln and München - I do speak German, but I find even non-German speakers know exactly where I'm talking about. I prefer to use the name of the place in the language to AVOID confusion... I speak to a lot of people from a lot of different countries, and each language has their own names for places - most people know the name in their own language, and the language of the country where the place is, so by using that name, I can be sure everyone understands. (Real world example: Just recently, someone from France was talking to me about a guy from "Varsovie" - I had no idea where it was, and he didn't know the English name "Warsaw". We both however knew the Polish name "Warszawa", so that cleared up the confusion.)
Unfortunately the app you linked to is Windows only. If I had the patience, I'd find an app (or make one myself) to do it on my preferred platforms, but since Slashdot is the ONLY site I have this problem with, it would be quite minimal gain. Also, I'd prefer the problem was fixed than creating a workaround anyway - if you work around problems, there's less incentive for a real fix anywhere down the line.
Slashdot Mirror
We zijn net opgekocht door een Nederlands bedrijf, dus moet ik borstel op mijn Nederlands
Een goeie idee, zeker... maar ik moet het zeggen dat de beste kans voor Nederlands leren is een mooie Nederlandse meisje als vriendin te hebben (het lukte voor mij!) ;)
And, with an average of 40 billion stars in a galaxy (it is conjectured that there are some very small galaxies, making the average much smaller than our own Milky Way), that makes 2.7008*10^20 stars... Ummm... woah.
I just tried it by holding a ruler at arms length up at the moon. The moon isn't quite full tonight, but it's pretty close, so I can guesstimate where the rest of it is from the curvature of what's there.
I found the moon to be about 1.2cm with the ruler held at arms length - about twice what you're suggesting. Perhaps I have very short arms?
I don't dispute your maths, but I would like to know where the discrepancy in my experimental evidence is coming from...
Actually - just to note (not that it's for or against your argument), the numbers on that page you linked to look horribly out of date. It lists Sydney, Australia as being only 3.6 million... it was over 4 when I moved there 6 years ago, and I'm pretty sure it was up to 4.25 or so when I left (1.5 years ago).
As a resident of a "medium sized" German city (Hannover), I'd have to say I don't think it'd work here. Yes, the speed limit around the city is the usual 50km/h, and if you go anywhere near the centre, you can expect to drive much slower a lot of the time... BUT, if you're going between one part of Hannover and another (which many people do as their daily commute), you'll generally hop on to one of the B roads around the city and then hop back in to the city where you want to. The speed limits on these roads tend to be around 80km/h. This of course wouldn't be a possibility in this little thing, and you'd quickly get sick of taking the slow way going everywhere.
My commute, for example, is about 0.5km to a main road (50km/h limit, generally go 30km/h), 6km up the road (50km/h limit, generally go 60km/h along with the rest of the traffic), 3km on a faster road (80km/h limit, generally go 100km/h with the rest of the traffic) and then 1km off an exit to my office (50km/h, generally go 60km/h with the rest of the traffic). So, I'm only going a bit over 10km, but for pretty much all of it, this car wouldn't do the speeds I normally drive those roads. If I were to stick to the speed limit, then there's only a small stretch I couldn't do, but I can guarantee every other driver would want to kill me... plus, to avoid that little bit of the faster road, I'd have to go an extra 3km or so through a town centre kind of thing, with lots of other traffic that is generally jammed at that time of the morning (i.e. all the people going in to that little town area, which is not where I want to go)
WAY off now... 3614 comments, and it's probably not done yet.
That is not exactly true. The Dutch are very proud of their country but at the same time it is in their culture that a:) you should complain about everything and b:) never really go "Wow, this is superb", because everything can be made better.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm half Dutch by birth, and I lived there for a while (as mentioned), which I really loved, but I did find that the people who respected the way of life the most were those who have been familiar with other ways of life. I do think that sadly, there's somewhat of a case of people just not knowing how good they've got it because they've never had to live any other way. There are Dutch people that do realise and do love it of course, but I'm pretty sure they're the minority and that there really are a large number of them who just don't get it. I'd be happy if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am...
He was quite shocked and asked me "Why did you choose to live there then?" and I replied "Exactly because they have them".
Absolutely... even if you don't visit prostitutes, don't take any drugs, are not gay, would never get an abortion or desire euthanasia, the simple fact that all of those things CAN be done (and more... that's an incomplete list!) is one of the things that makes the country so great.
As it turned out, part of the communist propaganda was true!
Hah, the majority of old communist propaganda was true - it was just a careful framing of the truth. If you get good at this (which they did), you can say pretty much anything you like without it being a lie. (yes, "the sky is red" is a true statement... I never said WHERE the sky is red, and besides, "red" just means there's more of one particular wavelength than another, and I'm sure you can find wavelengths there's less of in the sky than that which produces red...)
Please provide citations - within official documents released by Barack Obama or a representative there-of - NOT media spin or speculation about his statements.
I'm aware you probably CAN cite the tax related items, but I see nothing wrong with those... I'd be interested in seeing citations for the others.
And quality of life. Honestly, most of us over here in Europe are shocked when we hear about families with both parents working "just to pay the mortgage". How a country can get to that point for a small but significant percentage of its population and still have some other citizens consider the country to be "doing well" is really quite beyond our collective understanding...
They know that, while the American people voted for Obama for a number of reasons, a desire for socialism, more handouts to the poor, and more penalizing the rich, were not among them
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but do you really have any evidence that this isn't exactly why they voted for him? That the majority of people really do want a more socialised system?
Personally I LIKE not stepping over homeless people in the street, not getting mugged if I take the train at 3am, and not having to deal with extra-ordinarily stupid people on a daily basis. All of these are a direct result of that fact that I, and everyone else in the country I live in, pay quite a lot of our salary in taxes to the government to make sure that the society we live in is strong, prosperous and pleasant.
You do understand that we still are defending Japan and Germany right?
Interesting wording... you're still here, but who exactly are you 'defending' us FROM?
If you pull out your military now, we promise we won't start any more wars, and we're quite sure we'll be fine without you here 'defending' us.
Don't get me wrong, most countries are pretty thankful for some of the things the US has done in the past (e.g. the Berlin airlift that you mentioned), but it's a bit much to expect eternal and undying gratitude for just those few events, especially since the "rebuilding" you did was mostly because you bombed the cities to oblivion first (think of it this way: if yo hadn't bombed it, you wouldn't have had to pay to fix it...)
2000 comments total.
Your prediction is a little on the low side - 2550 and counting at the time I posted this!)
WHat country are you from where it's done better, I'd rather live there.
I currently live in Germany, but before here I've lived in New Zealand, Tonga, Australia and the Netherlands. I can recommend any of them except Tonga and Australia, neither of which are anything like what I've described in my previous post.
New Zealand is certainly the most beautiful (if you like natural scenery), and has the advantage (for native English speakers) of being English speaking, but unfortunately may be slowly steering away from the ideals it used to have (I hate saying that, as I'm a "proud kiwi" in a lot of ways).
If you want "quality of life", I'd recommend the Netherlands (I also hear the Scandanavian countries are even better from that perspective, but I've never lived in them, only visited, so can't say from my own experience).
As for Germany, where I live at the moment - great as far as seeing the results of social benefits goes, and the quality of life is pretty good overall, but in a side-by-side comparison with the Netherlands, I'll take NL any day just for the feeling of "personal liberty" that living there bestows at the same time as having excellent social programs and clear evidence of exactly where your tax money is going (primarily positive rather than negative things of course as well - they aren't big fans of throwing millions of Euro in to pointless middle eastern wars for example). The only downside of the Netherlands is that so few locals actually understand how great they've got it - the Dutch are the most pessimistic people about their own country that I've ever met.
I can also categorically say that if you were to move to any of the countries I've listed, the chance of you being car-jacked is significantly lower than the chance of you being struck by lightning on a clear day.
Lets say that my family makes 250k/year. I think that's acheiveable in my lifetime, although I'm currently not even at 1/3rd of that. I can expect to be taxed MORE than what people at 250k are already taxed at.
This is true...
Frankly, working harder to be taxed more doesn't seem very attractive...
When stated like that, no it doesn't... but if you earn $250k before tax, you still make more than someone earning $249k before tax - just because the tax is higher, it doesn't mean a payrise makes you earn less - just less per dollar over that limit (and still not so much that it's "not worth it")
...but working less to get something for nothing DOES seem attractive.
Does it HONESTLY seem attractive to you to make something below minimum wage for not working than it does to make minimum wage or higher for working? I COULD quit my job and live on social handouts, but I'd rather work, pay my taxes and have more money in my pocket as well as a better society around me.
Learn what the fairness doctrine is and come back when you can have an educated conversation ... ...
If it was reinstated and inforced, the owners of this site would have to make sure that
Just from the Wikipedia page, it says '...required the holders of broadcast licenses to...' - this website does not have or require a broadcast license. Beyond that, the point is rather moot anyway since the wikipedia page also clearly points out 'President-elect Barack Obama's campaign says that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,"'
(sorry for only citing Wikipedia there - it's late and I want to go home from work - just typing this while some code compiles (yes, really, it's not just a bad xkcd excuse!) then I'm heading home...
And do you know he's already said he wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons? That's just about every pistol sold today. If he got his way, the only guns allowed would be black powder muskets and single shot rifles. Good luck defending yourself from a carjacker with one of those
If your country was governed well with a good set of social programs then the chance of being carjacked would be so extra-ordinarily low that you wouldn't even consider the possibility or want to have a gun to defend yourself from such a thing. Currently, yes I'm aware it's a problem, and you really do want to have something to defend yourself, so I'd concede the point but only to the limit that other policies (such as drastically lowering crime by increasing quality of life for everyone) are implemented successfully first.
People who decide to work to get off welfare do it because they want a better standard of living than what they can have on welfare...
Correct...
By increasing the amount of welfare people get, you increase that standard of living thereby increasing the amount of people who are content to stay there
Only after a certain limit... as long as it's very uncomfortable to be on welfare and easy to get a job that is required (by law) to treat you relatively well, there'll be very few who would opt to sit on welfare for their whole lives. I doubt anyone (including Obama) would want welfare to be some kind of government sponsored paradise lifestyle. It's not supposed to be easy, but it also does NEED to be enough that people aren't going out and committing horrendous violent crimes (such as violent carjackings) to supplement their income.
Welfare should be supplemental, it should not be something people can depend on. It should be given as a factor of what they are acheiving themselves, and it should reduce as time goes on to give an incentive to get off.
In most of the "socialist democracies" of the world, this is exactly how it works.
Any repub who votes for morality-based legislation? RINO.
Shhh... don't tell that to the "Republican" fundamentalist Christians out there who are screaming "think of the children" far louder than anyone else. The problem with BOTH parties is that, as parties, neither of them follow what the party is supposed to stand for. That's one of the reasons I think Obama was a good choice in that he doesn't necessarily toe the party line, but instead has been talking about issues as issues and offering up his plans for how those issues may be resolved. Certainly, the potential resolutions offered are "closer" to the Democratic party line than the Republican party line, but to me at least, it seems the party line could go jump for all he really cares, as long as the issues get considered and resolved with thought and insight by all those involved.
China is communist, not socialist - please look up the difference.
Australia is conservative, not socialist - believe it or not, both are capable of limiting rights to an uncomfortable level - usually just for different (spoken) reasons. Many countries that lean strongly towards conservatism (such as Australia) limit the citizens rights uncomfortably, and many countries with a more socialist leanings (such as the Netherlands) do not. That's not to say that there aren't socialist countries that do and conservative countries that don't, just that it's not as black and white as you make out.
He won't "change the world" in the way you're implying, but honestly, he did change the world in one sense. By being voted to be the next President of the United States, the general opinion of the US in the rest of the world rose dramatically in a matter of minutes. Everyone knows there's no real change until things actually start happening, but the fact that the first wheel has been put in motion (competent President) has really improved people's opinions of you. (whether that's right/wrong, good/bad, sensible/crazy, I won't state in this post)
call the other guy names: 'evil' or 'traitor' or 'communist' or 'socialist' or whatever
Whenever I see 'socialist' used as an insult, I am reminded of the following exchange from the South Park movie:
Cartman: Kyle, all those times I said you were a dumb, stupid Jew, well, I was wrong, you're not a Jew.
Kyle: Cartman, I *am* Jewish!
Cartman: There, there, don't be hard on yourself, Kyle.
I *am* socialist, and will almost always reflect that in my vote. How anyone can think that's a bad thing is beyond my comprehension.
You essentially had the choice (in my eyes) between: "Someone who says he'll do bad things, and might", and "Someone who says he'll do good things, but might not". Not the best of choices, but it's clear which one is the better of the two. I'm glad the right choice was made for once.
Dear oh dear, such trolling...
tax the upper and upper middle class to death to make sure they don't become as powerful as the ones in charge (obama)
Let's say someone makes 5 million a year. Now, let's say there's some really strict things in place to stop them dodging taxes (which most rich people are actually really good at). They get taxed at 50% of their income. They now make 2.5 million a year. Do you really think they're "less powerful" than they would have been at 3, 4 or even just under 5 million?
put forth the fairness doctrine so people can not speak their mind without being punshed for it. (liberals, you will suffer too, again, this is to keep the powerful, powerful)
"Fairness" does not advocate the removal of free speech.
destroy our right to carry weapons (so we will never have the change to have a violent revolution)
You couldn't have a violent revolution right now... Besides, I don't think Obama's planning on even trying to outlaw guns in the general public, just place some sensible restrictions on them.
KEEP DOWN the poor by making them dependant on welfare (oh, if you make more than $X, we're not giving you free money any longer)
Generally, welfare systems are designed so that if you make less working than you would on welfare, you get a "top up" in the form of welfare. This encourages people to work and make more money rather than making more by not working. Take a look at civilised western countries that have welfare systems in place (even ones that give quite a lot of money, such as Germany's system where for a while you make a reasonable percentage of what you made in your last job) amd you won't necessarily find countries rife with unemployed people taking handouts - instead you'll find countries where people aren't constantly living in mortal fear of job loss. A little peace of mind goes a long way towards a more stable and strong society.
pass ANY liberal agenda that they want, like the recent desires to allow abortion soon AFTER birth, as if partial birth wasn't enough.
PURE flamebait here... not worth a response (and if you think it is, you really are deluded)
1. How much has the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gone up since the industrial revolution? How much has the temperature gone up?
CO2: Around 40%
Temperature: Around 1 degree Celcius
2. When and why were Europe and North America deforested? Why does it matter?
Europe experienced a lot of deforestation at the hands of mankind between 1100 to 1500 AD. There wasn't much after that until recent years, when it has again become a serious problem.
America experienced little deforestation until the arrival of European settlers, and there has been extensive deforestation since then, mostly over the last two centuries.
As for why it matters: Forests are a good CO2 sink. Losing them at the same time as releasing unprecedented quantities of CO2 in to the atmosphere will lead to a situation we have not had before and therefore can only make educated guesses as to what will happen.
3. What bad effects of the temperature rise have been observed since the industrial revolution? How sure are you that the bad effects are attributable to global warming?
If I may, I won't just concentrate on what the temperature rise has done, but instead the overall effects of temperature, increased CO2 and so on. It's not fair to look at only one part of the story...
Possible (debatable) effects: More flooding, tornadoes and extreme weather than we had before.
More definite effects: More swans in Siberia, colural foliage fading, severe damage to coral reefs, ocean acidification and more...
4. How much are you predicting that the carbon dioxide levels will rise?
I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.
5. How much are you predicting that the temperatures will rise?
I'm not predicting anything... It's probably safe to say "between not much and quite a lot". Please go look at some research yourself for estimates.
6. What bad effects are you predicting due to increased temperature?
Similar to the effects we're experiencing today (see above), only worse relative to the amount of climate change inducing factors involved (including, but not limited to, CO2, temperature rises (from any source) and so on).
7. Isn't it true that without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice and life would be very difficult on the planet?
Yes, that is true, which is why no-one is suggesting we strip the atmosphere off the planet - things would be rather unpleasant.
This is a very silly question though, because you know full well that it's not a binary situation "we have a greenhouse effect"/"we don't have a greenhouse effect". What matters is how MUCH of a greenhouse effect we have. Too little or too much are both bad situations.
My statement "we can hope so", was that he's "not Christian and is actually a godless socialist who has used his Christian church as a cover for his run for President" from the GGP post - I wasn't meaning "we can hope so" with regard to him not being Muslim. (although, to be quite honest, I consider both religions equally as bad as each other).
I was aiming for a combination of "funny" and "insightful" mods based on that, but will probably get "Troll" if anything from the religious nutjobs of the world. (both Christians correctly interpreting and Muslims misinterpreting - both probably hate me!)
Yes, I do refer to Japan as Nihon-koku if I'm talking to anyone that is from there or travels there regularly. I wouldn't say it to someone who doesn't though, since it's not so obvious or well known. (I go there rather a lot and know a lot of Japanese people, so that probably influences me a bit). I was more or less referring to European city names though, which anyone in the Western world really should be expected to be familiar with.
As per my last post, I do say København rather than Copenhagen, even though I don't speak Danish, and I've yet to have anyone misinterpret me. Same with Köln and München - I do speak German, but I find even non-German speakers know exactly where I'm talking about. I prefer to use the name of the place in the language to AVOID confusion... I speak to a lot of people from a lot of different countries, and each language has their own names for places - most people know the name in their own language, and the language of the country where the place is, so by using that name, I can be sure everyone understands. (Real world example: Just recently, someone from France was talking to me about a guy from "Varsovie" - I had no idea where it was, and he didn't know the English name "Warsaw". We both however knew the Polish name "Warszawa", so that cleared up the confusion.)
Unfortunately the app you linked to is Windows only. If I had the patience, I'd find an app (or make one myself) to do it on my preferred platforms, but since Slashdot is the ONLY site I have this problem with, it would be quite minimal gain. Also, I'd prefer the problem was fixed than creating a workaround anyway - if you work around problems, there's less incentive for a real fix anywhere down the line.