Different indeed, but it's not either or. We need both. There's something to be said for growing forests to sustain our wood needs while leaving the mature forest ecosystems alone. Both have their place, and are complementary.
To draw a parallel, while we cannot plant oil, we can use other complementary renewables. Just like we fought for the awareness that brought about these monoculture forests, we are in a fight for the awareness to bring about more renewables. It's really the same fight.
Of importance, is the fact that people never really stopped using timber. And although we use less for the same size house (early houses were predominantly all wood), more is being used than ever before. And I'll wager the same applies to energy needs. Sure our gadgets will use less energy and become more efficient, but overall we will use MORE energy. It's a pipe-dream to think that well stop by our own good-will to save the planet.
fuck em all. My allegiance are to my friends family and that pretty much turns out to be everyone I meet. The second I start defining people as "kill worthy" or "friend worthy" solely based on nationality, please take me out.
What gives with the media these days?
It's all too clear. Kinda like the cold war with Russia.
Except it's the Virtual War with China. Are yall ready for the next big pseudo war?
Arguably a war worth fighting, but at cost? Could this get ugly?
It sounds like a society where illegal immigrants are second class citizens isn't working for your state. I don't doubt they kill cheat and steal. I would too.
Where buying into a public option requires your health records to be filed electronically in a government secured database. The privately insured can also use the file-system, with consent of the patient and willingness of the Dr, but not mandated. That should keep everyone happy... No?
The internet, for most people, really just helps to ensure that they never have to step outside of their comfort zone
The internet, for all people, gives them the choice to decide what website to visit. If they stay in their comfort zone, that's their own choice, but I think many/most will venture out at some point in their life. Take you, for instance, it took some time, but eventually you "got back towards normal."
I don't think this is such an unexpected result. For many, it takes going to the extreme to "get over" something. I've experienced this phenomenon and although I can't quite articulate why, I think it's human nature.
The key though is choice. Everyone is not going to sit and relax in their own channels of comfort. They are going to engage, as they're doing already. They're going to integrate and realize that bipartisan politics is bullshit. The tea-party already acknowledges that discussing social issues (like gays and abortion) is divisive and is making a conscious decision to stay away from it.
I'm sorry, but I think your assessment of what the internet brings to democracy, healthy progress, and efficient governance is dead wrong. If we ever had a tool with the capacity to free us from our corporate overloads, it is indeed the internet.
I think the government should have no secrets*, and I bet many politically aware people, including Noam Chomsky, would be inclined to agree. Secrets cause more problems than they prevent. If you think they are necessary, it is only because there's some underlying problem elsewhere that makes it necessary. The underlying problem itself is not inherent and is probably an unnecessary constraint put in place by corrupt powers. Transparency in government is sorely needed, and with the internet I see a day where the citizens could and should be 100% knowledgeable of government processes. How else can you claim a democracy when people aren't aware of issues that they are supposedly electing people to handle?
* By secrets, I mean anything that if learned would piss off the citizens. Some data should be secret, but this should be limited to data itself, and not policy and procedure.
Maybe athiests have killed in the name of athiesm, but I think that's the wrong argument. Athiesm in my opinion, can be generalized to a universal anarchism of sorts. Now, if we say no anarchists ever killed in the name of anarchism, then we would be correct. Athiestic national figure-heads have killed in the name of bad religious ideology. That's separate from "in the name of athiesm".
And with similar logic, we can say Christian National figure-heads have killed in the name of bad religious ideology.
So the problem is bad ideology. Not religion, but rather the ideology that an institution espouses. And it just so happens athiesm is the one religion defined by not having an institution, and I think this generally means that it's adherents think for themselves; and further I think when people think for themselves, and not for ideology, they make more rational decisions that include ideas like "don't kill unnecessarily." I certainly believe athiests to be more religiously tolerant than most western religions, especially Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
A major difference to the US , which seems to have already granted corporations citizenship.
I think this is more accurate, and I suspect it is this American style corporate citizenship (actually corporations have more "honor" than people in the american justice system) that Germany is trying to prevent with its wording. Fascism is well understood and feared there.
Yeah, in optimal conditions we will all use a "coke can" of nuclear waste in our lifetimes. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed. Can be. Should be. Will be.
I've heard this from government programs before. When was the last government or large-funded commercial program that actually reached the optimal conditions that everyone here is touting? Are you all smoking crack?
If it were about science and efficiency and improving our lives, then I would be all for it. I have faith in science. Not in government.
Corporations will utilize and profit the most from this citizen-funded burden. And it won't trickle down. We'll use more, and produce more. That coke bottle, starts growing.
And why? We have the technology to make our lives more efficient without nuclear power. Get rid of cars. Restructure. We need less not more. Government and large corporations don't see this in our interests. Enter the media.
So you with the simple mind, who wild applies wild optimism to issues outside the realm of your understanding, go fuck yourself.
Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows, and solar when the sun is shining.
Is that it? Sounds pretty reliable and reasonable to me. If there's ever an extended period of time where no wind or sun is available, I would say we're screwed anyway. Not being advanced enough to harness all our energy needs from wind and sun is different than saying it's not as reliable as another form of energy.
Hmm... not too objective. Please point me to a nuclear program in the US that has actually provided a cheaper alternative to THE PEOPLE, net total. The coal, and yes even wood, required support the needs for a comfortable human life are very low. We need to reduce power hungry life-styles and infrastructures. Seriously. You don't need to compromise much. Just ridiculous things like sky-scrapers and other plagues of human ego that have never actually realized a positive benefit for society, and now with internet, are more useless than ever.
Why are we dumping tons of money into this? If it were fiscally sound, I might be on the other side of the fence, but I haven't seen the data, and promise of environmentally clean recycling at all costs just doesn't convince me of the necessity, at least not yet. Right now, the US economy and ENTIRE world are showing signs of unpredictability and stress. It seems maybe we should anticipate hardship and PUT MONEY INTO increasing sustainability and efficiency.
We are stupid, and could have so much more for so much less. This just seems like another ridiculous burden on top of all the others. I suppose... just keep fueling this thing, goddamnit.:)
Why does everyone here seem to be spewing out anti-Chinese propaganda? You do realize that the only reason the freedom of speech exists in this country [USA] was to win the support of liberal founding fathers who helped draft the constitution and rally the troops, right? There were serious capitalist interests in America winning their freedom, but they needed to convince the people it was worth fighting for. Don't get me wrong, in many ways because of the wording of this radical constitution, freedoms for people around the world have benefited... but this is almost in direct reverse-correlation to the effects of what the US government does. The people who gained power soon after the revolution was won, pretty much everyone after Jefferson, hasn't given two shits about civil liberties when not on the stump.
And similarly, we need a Chinese history lesson, to learn how the power of people's rebellion, such as the boxers rebellion, shaped the current policies that helped the government reign in the control of their people.
Trust me, if the US gov't didn't think their was any other way, then they'd take away our civil liberties too... err wait, that seems to have happened over the last couple hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the Chinese government and the American government aren't all that different (apologies to any chinese who may be reading, but yes, your government fucking sucks too). China has a completely different background, but have dealt with issues in a reactionary way that any wretched gov't in their situation would do. I wonder how long the US is going to get a free-pass because they have a bad-ass constitution (that is treated like the bible - good when it's convenient to conform to).
Both gov'ts are FUBARed, and pointing fingers and rehashing tired propaganda only makes matters worse. We need some real solutions, and this requires you to forget about what you think you know about right and wrong (and blow up your nearest starbucks - unoccupied at night of course - in a symbolic gesture against the real powers that fuck up our societies more than we want to admit. yes, the coffee shops).
We're looking at two fascist entities with similar fascist interests. As long as they both exist, they will always stand together in their fascist goals, above and beyond the needs of their people. There will be no war with China. Eventually the US government may convince the Chinese government to do as we do, make good and give the people the illusion of freedom of speech. And then when you're so powerful and can control the media, then you can keep those pesky conspiracy theories at bay about how you assassinate and suppress people who exercise their new found freedoms to your dis-taste *coughMLKcough*
Every once in a while, there are slashdot threads that hint at how clueless people who read (and post) news for nerds can be. Claims of "anti-technology" provide fuel for liberal-bashing and ideology-spouting and for some reason brings out the worst in nerds. Maybe they feel [falsely] threatened that their god (technology) is being dethroned.
If you believe the lies of the imperialist forces that have dominated the world we live in for the past few millenia (Earth), then perhaps I can understand your faith in government attempting a diplomatic solution. However, I think the reality is that while the government _always_ claims to desire a diplomatic solution, a militaristic one is always pursued, and the "claim" is merely that and not a good-faith attempt at actually following through.
Further, it's not hard to imagine that if there was a more "intelligent" network than the brain (the tree), then it may see the current state of earth's environmental manipulation as a threat to it's inhabitants.
And finally, to CmdrTaco, it was not an anti-technology movie at all. Did you miss the final scene with the protagonist wielding an submachine gun while riding the hawk thingy? And also the neural-avatar machine that made his saving the world possible?
The separation needs to be made between technology and imperialism. While the former often empowers the latter, this implies nothing about the positive capabilities of technology. Actually quite the opposite. Technology is here to stay and will continue to be used as a tool for imperialism and domination. Saying "technology is bad" will only result in your arse being kicked and not much else. Embracing technology on the otherhand, such as through internet, empowers positive forces that can help with the effect and cause of the imperialist mindset.
That's odd... I live in the US, and am currently staring at a lemon wedge floating in my ice-tea that has the laser printed letters 'Su' on the rind (I'm guessing Sunkist). I purchased the ice-tea at Chipotle. Does this mean Chipotle is not pursuant to FDA law?
I think the reason has more to do with necessity. It simply isn't all that helpful, living the rife of a rat, to remember more. Could they adapt their life-style to take advantage of an enhanced memory? Perhaps, but that's not how evolution works.
For humans, I think it's a little more interesting, but suffice to say we might just be a more egalitarian society if we didn't rely on memory to teach us right from wrong.
Although rare, sometimes you do need an apostrophe for plural. As in, "Mind your P's and Q's."
I find typing with automatic spell-checkers has improved my ability to spell, and I would've thunk other people felt the same way.
Bad grammar don't bother me none. Writing/speaking is about communicating with an audience. It seems the english language is way more nuanced than it needs to be to fulfill this function. The internet and the virtually unlimited networking it provides seems like the perfect ingredient to support evolution of typed languages (and friends).
Remember the recent scandal involving judges taking more than 2.6 million in payments from owner and builder of a juvenile detention center.
And don't forget Pennsylvania's judge Sabo, who unofficially handed out more death sentences than any judge in US history! Of course it's unofficial because such dubious records aren't kept in record-books... which seems bogus to me, since if we're going to support the death-sentence, then we need to do it with transparency and conviction, damnit.
Oh yeah, and how about the Move 9; nine black men who have spent nearly 30 years in prison for the same crime - allegedly killing a police officer who was shot with 1 bullet. Conveniently these men were all active members of a political family that openly complained about government corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
Different indeed, but it's not either or. We need both. There's something to be said for growing forests to sustain our wood needs while leaving the mature forest ecosystems alone. Both have their place, and are complementary.
To draw a parallel, while we cannot plant oil, we can use other complementary renewables. Just like we fought for the awareness that brought about these monoculture forests, we are in a fight for the awareness to bring about more renewables. It's really the same fight.
Of importance, is the fact that people never really stopped using timber. And although we use less for the same size house (early houses were predominantly all wood), more is being used than ever before. And I'll wager the same applies to energy needs. Sure our gadgets will use less energy and become more efficient, but overall we will use MORE energy. It's a pipe-dream to think that well stop by our own good-will to save the planet.
own people? americans? countrymen?
fuck em all. My allegiance are to my friends family and that pretty much turns out to be everyone I meet. The second I start defining people as "kill worthy" or "friend worthy" solely based on nationality, please take me out.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease" - Einstein
What gives with the media these days?
It's all too clear. Kinda like the cold war with Russia.
Except it's the Virtual War with China. Are yall ready for the next big pseudo war?
Arguably a war worth fighting, but at cost? Could this get ugly?
too bad the lunatic fringe often are calling the shots.
It sounds like a society where illegal immigrants are second class citizens isn't working for your state. I don't doubt they kill cheat and steal. I would too.
According to this entry on wikipedia:
"During a June 2009 speech, President Barack Obama outlined his strategy for reform. He mentioned electronic record-keeping."
He also supported a public option during the 08 campaign. I suppose Barack Obama would be a flame baiter here as well.
Where buying into a public option requires your health records to be filed electronically in a government secured database. The privately insured can also use the file-system, with consent of the patient and willingness of the Dr, but not mandated. That should keep everyone happy... No?
I expected some kind of two-slit or uncertainty principle thing with a very large object.
Hmmm... yeah. Me too.
The internet, for most people, really just helps to ensure that they never have to step outside of their comfort zone
The internet, for all people, gives them the choice to decide what website to visit. If they stay in their comfort zone, that's their own choice, but I think many/most will venture out at some point in their life. Take you, for instance, it took some time, but eventually you "got back towards normal."
I don't think this is such an unexpected result. For many, it takes going to the extreme to "get over" something. I've experienced this phenomenon and although I can't quite articulate why, I think it's human nature.
The key though is choice. Everyone is not going to sit and relax in their own channels of comfort. They are going to engage, as they're doing already. They're going to integrate and realize that bipartisan politics is bullshit. The tea-party already acknowledges that discussing social issues (like gays and abortion) is divisive and is making a conscious decision to stay away from it.
I'm sorry, but I think your assessment of what the internet brings to democracy, healthy progress, and efficient governance is dead wrong. If we ever had a tool with the capacity to free us from our corporate overloads, it is indeed the internet.
I think the government should have no secrets*, and I bet many politically aware people, including Noam Chomsky, would be inclined to agree. Secrets cause more problems than they prevent. If you think they are necessary, it is only because there's some underlying problem elsewhere that makes it necessary. The underlying problem itself is not inherent and is probably an unnecessary constraint put in place by corrupt powers. Transparency in government is sorely needed, and with the internet I see a day where the citizens could and should be 100% knowledgeable of government processes. How else can you claim a democracy when people aren't aware of issues that they are supposedly electing people to handle? * By secrets, I mean anything that if learned would piss off the citizens. Some data should be secret, but this should be limited to data itself, and not policy and procedure.
Maybe athiests have killed in the name of athiesm, but I think that's the wrong argument. Athiesm in my opinion, can be generalized to a universal anarchism of sorts. Now, if we say no anarchists ever killed in the name of anarchism, then we would be correct. Athiestic national figure-heads have killed in the name of bad religious ideology. That's separate from "in the name of athiesm".
And with similar logic, we can say Christian National figure-heads have killed in the name of bad religious ideology.
So the problem is bad ideology. Not religion, but rather the ideology that an institution espouses. And it just so happens athiesm is the one religion defined by not having an institution, and I think this generally means that it's adherents think for themselves; and further I think when people think for themselves, and not for ideology, they make more rational decisions that include ideas like "don't kill unnecessarily." I certainly believe athiests to be more religiously tolerant than most western religions, especially Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
A major difference to the US , which seems to have already granted corporations citizenship.
I think this is more accurate, and I suspect it is this American style corporate citizenship (actually corporations have more "honor" than people in the american justice system) that Germany is trying to prevent with its wording. Fascism is well understood and feared there.
reliance on dangerous regimes from Venezuela to Russia, to Iran for them
Not to be confused with peaceful regimes, like the United Sates, Britain and Australia.
There's reasons they don't.
Yeah, in optimal conditions we will all use a "coke can" of nuclear waste in our lifetimes. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed. Can be. Should be. Will be.
I've heard this from government programs before. When was the last government or large-funded commercial program that actually reached the optimal conditions that everyone here is touting? Are you all smoking crack?
If it were about science and efficiency and improving our lives, then I would be all for it. I have faith in science. Not in government.
Corporations will utilize and profit the most from this citizen-funded burden. And it won't trickle down. We'll use more, and produce more. That coke bottle, starts growing.
And why? We have the technology to make our lives more efficient without nuclear power. Get rid of cars. Restructure. We need less not more. Government and large corporations don't see this in our interests. Enter the media.
So you with the simple mind, who wild applies wild optimism to issues outside the realm of your understanding, go fuck yourself.
Wind/solar are not as reliable as nuclear because you only have wind when the wind blows, and solar when the sun is shining.
Is that it? Sounds pretty reliable and reasonable to me. If there's ever an extended period of time where no wind or sun is available, I would say we're screwed anyway. Not being advanced enough to harness all our energy needs from wind and sun is different than saying it's not as reliable as another form of energy.
"wack job"
Hmm... not too objective. Please point me to a nuclear program in the US that has actually provided a cheaper alternative to THE PEOPLE, net total. The coal, and yes even wood, required support the needs for a comfortable human life are very low. We need to reduce power hungry life-styles and infrastructures. Seriously. You don't need to compromise much. Just ridiculous things like sky-scrapers and other plagues of human ego that have never actually realized a positive benefit for society, and now with internet, are more useless than ever.
Why are we dumping tons of money into this? If it were fiscally sound, I might be on the other side of the fence, but I haven't seen the data, and promise of environmentally clean recycling at all costs just doesn't convince me of the necessity, at least not yet. Right now, the US economy and ENTIRE world are showing signs of unpredictability and stress. It seems maybe we should anticipate hardship and PUT MONEY INTO increasing sustainability and efficiency.
We are stupid, and could have so much more for so much less. This just seems like another ridiculous burden on top of all the others. I suppose... just keep fueling this thing, goddamnit. :)
Why does everyone here seem to be spewing out anti-Chinese propaganda? You do realize that the only reason the freedom of speech exists in this country [USA] was to win the support of liberal founding fathers who helped draft the constitution and rally the troops, right? There were serious capitalist interests in America winning their freedom, but they needed to convince the people it was worth fighting for. Don't get me wrong, in many ways because of the wording of this radical constitution, freedoms for people around the world have benefited... but this is almost in direct reverse-correlation to the effects of what the US government does. The people who gained power soon after the revolution was won, pretty much everyone after Jefferson, hasn't given two shits about civil liberties when not on the stump.
And similarly, we need a Chinese history lesson, to learn how the power of people's rebellion, such as the boxers rebellion, shaped the current policies that helped the government reign in the control of their people.
Trust me, if the US gov't didn't think their was any other way, then they'd take away our civil liberties too... err wait, that seems to have happened over the last couple hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the Chinese government and the American government aren't all that different (apologies to any chinese who may be reading, but yes, your government fucking sucks too). China has a completely different background, but have dealt with issues in a reactionary way that any wretched gov't in their situation would do. I wonder how long the US is going to get a free-pass because they have a bad-ass constitution (that is treated like the bible - good when it's convenient to conform to).
Both gov'ts are FUBARed, and pointing fingers and rehashing tired propaganda only makes matters worse. We need some real solutions, and this requires you to forget about what you think you know about right and wrong (and blow up your nearest starbucks - unoccupied at night of course - in a symbolic gesture against the real powers that fuck up our societies more than we want to admit. yes, the coffee shops).
We're looking at two fascist entities with similar fascist interests. As long as they both exist, they will always stand together in their fascist goals, above and beyond the needs of their people. There will be no war with China. Eventually the US government may convince the Chinese government to do as we do, make good and give the people the illusion of freedom of speech. And then when you're so powerful and can control the media, then you can keep those pesky conspiracy theories at bay about how you assassinate and suppress people who exercise their new found freedoms to your dis-taste *coughMLKcough*
Every once in a while, there are slashdot threads that hint at how clueless people who read (and post) news for nerds can be. Claims of "anti-technology" provide fuel for liberal-bashing and ideology-spouting and for some reason brings out the worst in nerds. Maybe they feel [falsely] threatened that their god (technology) is being dethroned.
If you believe the lies of the imperialist forces that have dominated the world we live in for the past few millenia (Earth), then perhaps I can understand your faith in government attempting a diplomatic solution. However, I think the reality is that while the government _always_ claims to desire a diplomatic solution, a militaristic one is always pursued, and the "claim" is merely that and not a good-faith attempt at actually following through.
Further, it's not hard to imagine that if there was a more "intelligent" network than the brain (the tree), then it may see the current state of earth's environmental manipulation as a threat to it's inhabitants.
And finally, to CmdrTaco, it was not an anti-technology movie at all. Did you miss the final scene with the protagonist wielding an submachine gun while riding the hawk thingy? And also the neural-avatar machine that made his saving the world possible?
The separation needs to be made between technology and imperialism. While the former often empowers the latter, this implies nothing about the positive capabilities of technology. Actually quite the opposite. Technology is here to stay and will continue to be used as a tool for imperialism and domination. Saying "technology is bad" will only result in your arse being kicked and not much else. Embracing technology on the otherhand, such as through internet, empowers positive forces that can help with the effect and cause of the imperialist mindset.
That's odd... I live in the US, and am currently staring at a lemon wedge floating in my ice-tea that has the laser printed letters 'Su' on the rind (I'm guessing Sunkist). I purchased the ice-tea at Chipotle. Does this mean Chipotle is not pursuant to FDA law?
I think the reason has more to do with necessity. It simply isn't all that helpful, living the rife of a rat, to remember more. Could they adapt their life-style to take advantage of an enhanced memory? Perhaps, but that's not how evolution works.
For humans, I think it's a little more interesting, but suffice to say we might just be a more egalitarian society if we didn't rely on memory to teach us right from wrong.
Would we be dead? Or would we have never existed? Or perhaps our soul would be embodied in a different evolved specie adapted for 70% nitrogen oxide.
Although rare, sometimes you do need an apostrophe for plural. As in, "Mind your P's and Q's."
I find typing with automatic spell-checkers has improved my ability to spell, and I would've thunk other people felt the same way.
Bad grammar don't bother me none. Writing/speaking is about communicating with an audience. It seems the english language is way more nuanced than it needs to be to fulfill this function. The internet and the virtually unlimited networking it provides seems like the perfect ingredient to support evolution of typed languages (and friends).
Pennsylvania. Say no more.
Remember the recent scandal involving judges taking more than 2.6 million in payments from owner and builder of a juvenile detention center.
And don't forget Pennsylvania's judge Sabo, who unofficially handed out more death sentences than any judge in US history! Of course it's unofficial because such dubious records aren't kept in record-books... which seems bogus to me, since if we're going to support the death-sentence, then we need to do it with transparency and conviction, damnit.
Oh yeah, and how about the Move 9; nine black men who have spent nearly 30 years in prison for the same crime - allegedly killing a police officer who was shot with 1 bullet. Conveniently these men were all active members of a political family that openly complained about government corruption.