If thoughts turn out to be patentable, then I'm going to be first in line to patent any sexual or obscene thought involving a virtualization of another human being, animal or farm implement used for or engaging in sexual activity, for the purpose of self-stimulation.
health care is much cheaper for everybody, including the rich, in countries with public health care. The US has the most expensive health-care costs in the world, because of its private, profit-based system.
I'm not sure what else we can do for them. Like everyone else, they get access to a free education, where they in turn are educated about the dangers of drugs and unprotected sex. If they choose to reject those opportunities, I don't care if they are from Mars - it's their choice.
You have no fucking idea. What hardships have you experienced in life? It's hardly a choice for many of these kids. they don't get good education, and many of them are abused and extremely poor. how do you concentrate on classes when you don't have enough to eat, and are constantly getting beaten on, or raped?
I lost track of the times that I heard someone tell my father that they didn't know how that marijuana got in their backpack.
That actually happens a lot - smugglers use unknowing "mules" to transposrt drugs. but, of course, you assume they are guilty. Why don't you even challenge the idea that marijuana should be illegal? it's not a valid law in the first place.
Why the hell is their website at songbirdnest.com, instead of songbird.com? Not very consumer-friendly. Even Firefox has a URL that is the same name as the product.
If the former is the case, then it is completely bogus. It is very difficult to get Quicktime without the iTunes bundle,
How difficult is it to go to www.quicktime.com and click on "download"? They don't even make you enter an email address, or hide the download like Real does. If this is difficult for you, then I don't know what to say.
So what if the companies backing one format guaranteed they will replace your movies with the competing format if theirs flops?
What company is going to imply that their product might be a flop? That's a terrible idea from a marketing standpoint. Not to mention that if it does flop, they will just redefine "flop" so they don't have to pay out.
Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment.
What nonsense. There is constant speech against lesbians and homosexuals by the government, and pro-gay speech is often supressed. I'm not sure what planet you are are living on - where the lesbians are all-powerful. In most parts of the world, they are very marginalized.
So, was the Dick Van Dyke show responsible for the degenerate values you put on display here, like the fear of sex and liberty, and your appeals to authority?
How about "not even fucking close to being there"? How about "deficient in almost every way possible"? Or maybe "how stupid I am to even think it is close"?
Setting aside the fact that they are not all political problems - why do you write off politics as irrelevant? Political problems are very important in our world. I guess you propose we get rid of the problem by eliminating politics? Good luck.
Great. Why don't you start by turning off your computer, ceasing to eat any food that was grown or transported on an oil-burning vehicle, or using any product that was made further than walking distance away from your dwelling?
Computers are part of the solution. By using communications technology, we don't need to transport people and goods as much - we can transmit information much more efficiently.
Are you suggesting that we turn off all non-essential electronics in the wealthy nations so that some of that energy can provide fuel to cook and preserve food in the developing world?
No.
Maybe you're just suggesting we tell the developing world to (in the words of Dick Cheney) Go F*** itself.
Definitely not. The developing world would be much better off without the political and economic problems of using non-renewable sources.
a few perfectly safe pre-fab pebble bed reactors could provide both the power and clean (desalinated) water needed for a fair portion of the poorest nations -- turning arid wastelands full of disease and starvation into working cropland.
Talk about nonsense. A "few reactors" will not save the starving world. That is a much deeper problem, much better solved by simple, low-tech, local solutions. not Western fantasies and pipe-dreams of nuclear technology.
You want to know what protects the environment more than anything else? Wealth. Wealth protects the environment.
What evidence do you have to support this? The wealthier nations generally waste a lot more energy than the poorer nations.
You're right, and the most "practical" way to keep that energy use down is to have a mass genocide and remove 1/4 of the world's population that is quickly coming into massive industrialization.
That doesn't make any sensel. Why would reducing our energy consumption result in genocide? If anything, wars over energy will cause genocide and war. Pollution causes death. Resource wars create death.
Nuclear works anywhere and anytime. It is the most viable option for replacing the energy production of the world.
No, it doesn't. You have to get the fuel from somewhere. Uranium is quite concentrated, it is not universally available. Just look at the problems some countries are having obtaining nuclear fuel.
Since you're suddenly looking worried about the desecration of land.... how about we put wind turbines on that land? I'm sure that isn't "desecrating" anything.
Wind farms cause very little desecration, because they sit on top of the land, with a very small footprint. Mines cause a lot of damage. And most of the world's uranium is located under sacred indigenous land, which we don't have the right to desecrate for our energy needs.
Nuclear isn't the magic bullet, but all of your alternatives are non-functional. They require the world to magically have zero population growth and zero increase in industry.
I hope you enjoy your new lifestyle of never moving more than 100 miles from the place you were born, extracting your water from a well, and hoping the pony express can deliver your next slashdot postings.
No. We don't need to live primitive lifestyles to reduce our energy consumption. Most of our travel is pointless short-distance driving, not traveling 100 miles or more.
Slashdot Mirror
I went to Harvard for this??!!
I think there is a very good reason you are not a TV writer.
When did Futurama ever get preachy about environmentalism, or any other issue, for that matter?
Family Guy came back after being canceled, and is doing great.
Ahhh, screw the whole damn thing.
Sorry, I have prior art on that.
health care is much cheaper for everybody, including the rich, in countries with public health care. The US has the most expensive health-care costs in the world, because of its private, profit-based system.
You have no fucking idea. What hardships have you experienced in life? It's hardly a choice for many of these kids. they don't get good education, and many of them are abused and extremely poor. how do you concentrate on classes when you don't have enough to eat, and are constantly getting beaten on, or raped?
Liar.
That actually happens a lot - smugglers use unknowing "mules" to transposrt drugs. but, of course, you assume they are guilty. Why don't you even challenge the idea that marijuana should be illegal? it's not a valid law in the first place.
Absolutely, because I have seen Tron dozens of times over the last two decades, and have never heard of the "Tron Guy."
Why the hell is their website at songbirdnest.com, instead of songbird.com? Not very consumer-friendly. Even Firefox has a URL that is the same name as the product.
How difficult is it to go to www.quicktime.com and click on "download"? They don't even make you enter an email address, or hide the download like Real does. If this is difficult for you, then I don't know what to say.
What company is going to imply that their product might be a flop? That's a terrible idea from a marketing standpoint. Not to mention that if it does flop, they will just redefine "flop" so they don't have to pay out.
What nonsense. There is constant speech against lesbians and homosexuals by the government, and pro-gay speech is often supressed. I'm not sure what planet you are are living on - where the lesbians are all-powerful. In most parts of the world, they are very marginalized.
Actually, there is the Greens, who are very honest and competent. It's a lot better than the US, where there is no relevant third party.
So, was the Dick Van Dyke show responsible for the degenerate values you put on display here, like the fear of sex and liberty, and your appeals to authority?
Gee, the whole of Norway? The vendors must be jumping for joy about selling 4 more projectors.
How about "not even fucking close to being there"? How about "deficient in almost every way possible"? Or maybe "how stupid I am to even think it is close"?
Setting aside the fact that they are not all political problems - why do you write off politics as irrelevant? Political problems are very important in our world. I guess you propose we get rid of the problem by eliminating politics? Good luck.
Practical for everybody. Saving energy saves money, saves stress, and generally makes our lives better.
Computers are part of the solution. By using communications technology, we don't need to transport people and goods as much - we can transmit information much more efficiently.
No.
Maybe you're just suggesting we tell the developing world to (in the words of Dick Cheney) Go F*** itself.
Definitely not. The developing world would be much better off without the political and economic problems of using non-renewable sources.
a few perfectly safe pre-fab pebble bed reactors could provide both the power and clean (desalinated) water needed for a fair portion of the poorest nations -- turning arid wastelands full of disease and starvation into working cropland.
Talk about nonsense. A "few reactors" will not save the starving world. That is a much deeper problem, much better solved by simple, low-tech, local solutions. not Western fantasies and pipe-dreams of nuclear technology.
You want to know what protects the environment more than anything else? Wealth. Wealth protects the environment.
What evidence do you have to support this? The wealthier nations generally waste a lot more energy than the poorer nations.
That doesn't make any sensel. Why would reducing our energy consumption result in genocide? If anything, wars over energy will cause genocide and war. Pollution causes death. Resource wars create death.
Nuclear works anywhere and anytime. It is the most viable option for replacing the energy production of the world.
No, it doesn't. You have to get the fuel from somewhere. Uranium is quite concentrated, it is not universally available. Just look at the problems some countries are having obtaining nuclear fuel.
Since you're suddenly looking worried about the desecration of land.... how about we put wind turbines on that land? I'm sure that isn't "desecrating" anything.
Wind farms cause very little desecration, because they sit on top of the land, with a very small footprint. Mines cause a lot of damage. And most of the world's uranium is located under sacred indigenous land, which we don't have the right to desecrate for our energy needs.
Nuclear isn't the magic bullet, but all of your alternatives are non-functional. They require the world to magically have zero population growth and zero increase in industry.
Why? You don't give any reason why this is true.
No. We don't need to live primitive lifestyles to reduce our energy consumption. Most of our travel is pointless short-distance driving, not traveling 100 miles or more.