The goal of politicians is to gain power. So apparently the liberal blogger in question is a politician because he's doing what's best for his candidate, not what's best for the country.
But what if those two goals are one and the same? Is it better for the country to elect McCain or Obama?
And by the way, Palestine was never supposed to become an independent nation under modern Arab rule either.
What do you mean by this "supposed to"? Since when has world politics, geography, or in fact, human reality been shaped by what was "supposed to" happen? Shit happens, despite what anybody thinks was supposed to happen. Once upon a time, the sun was supposed to revolve around the earth.
How do they decide? What's uncontroversial to one group, is highly controversial to another. In issues like this, how is it at all possible to take a non-controversial route?
The irony is that becoming a computer geek is kinda mundane.
How is that ironic? the post you were replying to was basically saying that being a computer geek is mundane. What's irony you are referring to? Is it a common perception that being a computer geek is racy, thrilling and dangerous?
But becoming a legitimate gun geek, ah that's got the rarity, the obscurity and even some element of danger that should make it SO much more interesting.
What's rare or obscure about being a gun geek? They are extremely common. They have their own magazines (the paper kind, not the ammunition-carrying variety). What's the element of danger you are referring to? Being a gun geek doesn't make you a secret agent or something
BTW, what's a "legitimate" gun geek, versus a non-legitimate one?
It always amuses me that the slashdot crowd will defend some technology (e.g. vulnerability detection software, p2p, etc) and claim that the individual is responsible for the use, but then say things like what you've said.
This may be a revelation to you, but there is no "slashdot crowd," there is no hive mind that encompasses the "slashdot point-of-view." Slashdot is just a bunch of different people posting their comments. Those individuals have different thoughts and beliefs.
I would have thought your own post would be evidence of that. Is your post indicative of the slashdot crowd?
Your argument doesn't make any sense. A thief is undeterred by laws against stealing (which carry greater punishment than trespassing) - so why is s/he going to be deterred by laws against trespassing? Trespassing laws only stop the law-abiding from entering your property, and those aren't the ones you need to worry about, they aren't the "bad folks" you are trying to deter.
So, you're willing to pay for all this other stuff, but insist the government subsidize your fuel costs? I never mentioned anything about living in a grass hut. I'm just saying, if you want the luxuries, you should pay for them yourself, not insist that somebody else subsidizes your laziness and wastefulness.
Anybody with half a brain could see this increase in energy prices coming, for at least the last few decades, and plan accordingly. Did you really think you would be exempt from the obviously inevitable?
I can't say I was ever into the "brand name" thing but then I was a teenager during the 70s here in the UK when the whole "brand name" thing was in its infancy so I kind of missed it That doesn't make any sense. Brand names and advertising were completely mature in the 1970s, they'd been going for over a century by that point, and really picked up steam during the industrial revolution.
Not all oil used in transportation is used by people commuting back and forth in their cars you know...
I never said it was. But what's wrong with saving the oil for the kind of transportation that needs it? Massive amounts of oil are used on personal transportation that simply doesn't require internal combustion engines. My comments are directed at those who seem to be the typical whioners about gas prices - those who drive a massive car or SUV around, usually as the only occupant.
I live in Texas and 12 miles from work. At 6am, it's 80 degrees and 90% humidity. No thanks.
Sorry to reply again, but this really illustrates what your argument is all about. It's all about your personal convenience and luxury. We should start tapping into valuable strategic reserves simply because you drive 12 miles to work with the airconditioning on. We should do it simply because you're annoyed at having to pay for gas.
Is there anything in your argument that isn't based on selfishness? You sound like a crying child. Most people in the world have to put up with a lot more difficult daily lives. You poor thing. A whole 12 miles to work.
How do I explain the profits? Demand for gas is through the roof. Everybody wants it. And the cost of raw materials isn't the main factor. The average person can't buy a barrel of oil and refine it into gasoline. It's pretty simple really, the gas companies have something that everybody wants, and will gladly pay for. You choose to give them your money, they make profit. You know, this little thing called economics.
Alternatives are stupid? Nobody has a choice? WTF?
I know hundreds of people who cycle and use public transport instead of driving. And people who drive small cars and motorcycles instead of massive SUVs. Nobody has a choice but to buy the biggest gas guzzler possible? I don't think so. Who forced you to buy it? Who is stopping you from using alternative modes of transportation?
We import over 2/3 of our oil now. Doesn't take a rocket sciewntist to see that is a bad thing from ecomomic and national security point of view.
So, why is it a bad thing? It means that the US gets to use up the domestic supply of other nations, preserving its own for a time of real need. Sounds great from an economic and security perspective. Would you rather we used up our own supply on petty uses? The we would really be at risk in the future, when oil becomes expensive and other nations can hold an economic gun to our heads.
Umm...heard of Supply and Demand? More Supply, cost drops. They've had that one figured out for quite a while.
Nope, not always. Especially not in this case. Demand for oil is massive. A small increase in supply is going to have negligible (or none at all) effect on prices at the pump. And why would they sell it at a reduced price to American motorists, when there are plenty of other buyers who would pay the market rate? It doesn't make any sense, economically, unless you are advocating some socialist means of distribution with controlled pricing.
And that's not even considering the costs of refining and distribution to the retail market. Domestic drilling just isn't going to have any effect on prices at the pump. Unless you are talking about some sort of charity case or government subsidy. And why should the government offer such a subsidy? I consume very little gasoline, I spend a lot more on computers, technology and food. Should the government subsidize my computer purchases because I feel they are too expensive?
P.S: Note how I said "long-term" value? And if there is a war or big enough emergency, efforts will be made to open up supplies very quickly, and any such major emergency is going to be a long-term operation, anyway.
How about we start moving to open up those supplies if other countries stop selling the stuff? It makes no sense when we are currently being supplied with vast quantities of cheap foreign oil.
$5 a gallon? That's nothing. That's cheap. You ain't seen nothing yet.
And do your really think that domestic drilling is going to keep oil prices low? Tell me how that works, then.
Those oil reserves have immense long-term strategic and economic value. What's your reason for tapping them now? To save a few cents for people who are wasting oil just to fill their SUV to go to the supermarket? What a total waste. Instead of just throwing it all away for frivious purposes today, why not wait until it is really needed, and use it in a more efficient manner?
It's not really a good idea wasting precious oil on fueling private cars. We can do transport without oil. But it's harder to replace when making things like plastics and petrochemicals. Sure, there are some substitutes emerging. But oil would be really useful in the case of a real national emergency where we need to manufacture or rebuild things quickly, or in the case of a real war.
I still can't get over the fact that you think current gas prices are expensive, and that's significant justification for tapping domestic supplies. That's fucking hilarious.
Rather than impeaching the bastard, why not just use him as proof that we need to enact a constitutional requirement requiring a certain minimum score on a standard intelligence test in order to run for President?
How would that help? IQ tests are useless in determining intelligence, and they don't even measure morality, ethics, or malicious intent at all.
You know, comparing Bush to Stalin, Hitler, or Genghis Khan is one of the best ways to alienate listeners from any discussion.
All it does is establish that you're a batshit-insane loony-tunes motherfucker who has no concept of reality.
Yeah, it insults Hitler, Stalin and Khan. Imagine being mentioned in the same breath as Bush Jr... oh, the indignity!
Slashdot Mirror
But what if those two goals are one and the same? Is it better for the country to elect McCain or Obama?
Drug taking? I don't think so. If that were the case, they might have been able to release some decent software. I see trend-following whores instead.
What do you mean by this "supposed to"? Since when has world politics, geography, or in fact, human reality been shaped by what was "supposed to" happen? Shit happens, despite what anybody thinks was supposed to happen. Once upon a time, the sun was supposed to revolve around the earth.
Uhhhh... why is Israel demolishing houses in the first place? And what's your definition of "every effort"?
I don't get it. Why do houses need to be demolished? Those are people's houses.
Not really ironic, just fucking depressing.
How do they decide? What's uncontroversial to one group, is highly controversial to another. In issues like this, how is it at all possible to take a non-controversial route?
Isn't pretending that Palestine doesn't exist also a common practice in the West? In this article, it's even included in scare quotes.
How is that ironic? the post you were replying to was basically saying that being a computer geek is mundane. What's irony you are referring to? Is it a common perception that being a computer geek is racy, thrilling and dangerous?
But becoming a legitimate gun geek, ah that's got the rarity, the obscurity and even some element of danger that should make it SO much more interesting.What's rare or obscure about being a gun geek? They are extremely common. They have their own magazines (the paper kind, not the ammunition-carrying variety). What's the element of danger you are referring to? Being a gun geek doesn't make you a secret agent or something
BTW, what's a "legitimate" gun geek, versus a non-legitimate one?
This may be a revelation to you, but there is no "slashdot crowd," there is no hive mind that encompasses the "slashdot point-of-view." Slashdot is just a bunch of different people posting their comments. Those individuals have different thoughts and beliefs.
I would have thought your own post would be evidence of that. Is your post indicative of the slashdot crowd?
Your argument doesn't make any sense. A thief is undeterred by laws against stealing (which carry greater punishment than trespassing) - so why is s/he going to be deterred by laws against trespassing? Trespassing laws only stop the law-abiding from entering your property, and those aren't the ones you need to worry about, they aren't the "bad folks" you are trying to deter.
Wait, the US is on the moon now? Actually, that might explain a lot about the bizarro world we are living in.
So, you're willing to pay for all this other stuff, but insist the government subsidize your fuel costs? I never mentioned anything about living in a grass hut. I'm just saying, if you want the luxuries, you should pay for them yourself, not insist that somebody else subsidizes your laziness and wastefulness.
Anybody with half a brain could see this increase in energy prices coming, for at least the last few decades, and plan accordingly. Did you really think you would be exempt from the obviously inevitable?
Yeah, a one-time $99 developer fee, combined with the ongoing costs of administering and bookkeeping those developers, is a real gravy-train of cash.
I never said it was. But what's wrong with saving the oil for the kind of transportation that needs it? Massive amounts of oil are used on personal transportation that simply doesn't require internal combustion engines. My comments are directed at those who seem to be the typical whioners about gas prices - those who drive a massive car or SUV around, usually as the only occupant.
Sorry to reply again, but this really illustrates what your argument is all about. It's all about your personal convenience and luxury. We should start tapping into valuable strategic reserves simply because you drive 12 miles to work with the airconditioning on. We should do it simply because you're annoyed at having to pay for gas.
Is there anything in your argument that isn't based on selfishness? You sound like a crying child. Most people in the world have to put up with a lot more difficult daily lives. You poor thing. A whole 12 miles to work.
How do I explain the profits? Demand for gas is through the roof. Everybody wants it. And the cost of raw materials isn't the main factor. The average person can't buy a barrel of oil and refine it into gasoline. It's pretty simple really, the gas companies have something that everybody wants, and will gladly pay for. You choose to give them your money, they make profit. You know, this little thing called economics.
Alternatives are stupid? Nobody has a choice? WTF?
I know hundreds of people who cycle and use public transport instead of driving. And people who drive small cars and motorcycles instead of massive SUVs. Nobody has a choice but to buy the biggest gas guzzler possible? I don't think so. Who forced you to buy it? Who is stopping you from using alternative modes of transportation?
Can I get mine in corduroy, or velvet?
So, why is it a bad thing? It means that the US gets to use up the domestic supply of other nations, preserving its own for a time of real need. Sounds great from an economic and security perspective. Would you rather we used up our own supply on petty uses? The we would really be at risk in the future, when oil becomes expensive and other nations can hold an economic gun to our heads.
Umm...heard of Supply and Demand? More Supply, cost drops. They've had that one figured out for quite a while.Nope, not always. Especially not in this case. Demand for oil is massive. A small increase in supply is going to have negligible (or none at all) effect on prices at the pump. And why would they sell it at a reduced price to American motorists, when there are plenty of other buyers who would pay the market rate? It doesn't make any sense, economically, unless you are advocating some socialist means of distribution with controlled pricing.
And that's not even considering the costs of refining and distribution to the retail market. Domestic drilling just isn't going to have any effect on prices at the pump. Unless you are talking about some sort of charity case or government subsidy. And why should the government offer such a subsidy? I consume very little gasoline, I spend a lot more on computers, technology and food. Should the government subsidize my computer purchases because I feel they are too expensive?
P.S: Note how I said "long-term" value? And if there is a war or big enough emergency, efforts will be made to open up supplies very quickly, and any such major emergency is going to be a long-term operation, anyway.
How about we start moving to open up those supplies if other countries stop selling the stuff? It makes no sense when we are currently being supplied with vast quantities of cheap foreign oil.
What, you don't have legs? Never ridden a bicycle? Never heard of an electric car or train?
Anyway, if you think your argument isn't delusional, then tell me two things:
$5 a gallon? That's nothing. That's cheap. You ain't seen nothing yet.
And do your really think that domestic drilling is going to keep oil prices low? Tell me how that works, then.
Those oil reserves have immense long-term strategic and economic value. What's your reason for tapping them now? To save a few cents for people who are wasting oil just to fill their SUV to go to the supermarket? What a total waste. Instead of just throwing it all away for frivious purposes today, why not wait until it is really needed, and use it in a more efficient manner?
It's not really a good idea wasting precious oil on fueling private cars. We can do transport without oil. But it's harder to replace when making things like plastics and petrochemicals. Sure, there are some substitutes emerging. But oil would be really useful in the case of a real national emergency where we need to manufacture or rebuild things quickly, or in the case of a real war.
I still can't get over the fact that you think current gas prices are expensive, and that's significant justification for tapping domestic supplies. That's fucking hilarious.
How would that help? IQ tests are useless in determining intelligence, and they don't even measure morality, ethics, or malicious intent at all.
Yeah, it insults Hitler, Stalin and Khan. Imagine being mentioned in the same breath as Bush Jr... oh, the indignity!
I'd like to take this opportunity to denounce Stalin...