As for the US not "trying," I see more hybrids on the street every day, and more demand means more will be built. The most popular car, the Toyota Camry, will be available in a hybrid version in 2007. There are luxury hybrids, SUV hybrids, regular sedan hybrids, and small hybrids.
Great. More fucking cars. America's solution to everything. Do you realize how much energy and raw material it takes to build a new car? It's probably more environmentally friendly to keep driving old cars until they die, than to rush out and replace them. Especially given how primitive today's hybrids are, they aren't very much more efficient than a Toyota or Honda from the 80s.
Where is the public transit in America? That would be far more effective than the private solution of more cars. How about riding a bike or walking?
Who said we were 100% doomed? This is the worst kind of propaganda, putting words into people's mouths, in the hope of tearing down a straw man. If environmentalists actually believed we were 100% doomed, why would they be putting so much effort into turning things around?
I should add that some of the technology they will be "sharing" is bogus. For example, the Australian government's idea of anti-green house technology is Carbon Dioxide Sequestering. You see, Australia has millions of tons of brown coal. It's a very cheap energy source, that the government and big mining interests want to keep burning. So, instead of switching to renewable energy, they want drill big, fucking expensive holes in the ground. Then, they put massive pipes going from the coal power stations to the hole in the ground, burying the CO2. Out of sight, out of mind.
Not only is this technology unproven, it would be extremely expensive, and hasn't even been dully designed yet. Out of sight, out of mind. In contrast, we have numerous alternative energy wources that are viable right now and will make profit. But the government will go to extreme lengths to avoid this and appease the mining and energy industries.
Furthermore - look at who is leading the countries you mention - Bush, Blair and Howard. How can anyone on earth trust these people? At the moment, your lauded "alternative to Kyoto" is just hot air. I'll believe it when they actually take action, and take it seriously. If there was anything behind their empty rhetoric, these leaders would be imploring their citizens to conserve energy, and make it clear that Climate Change is a serious issue. But they don't do that. they just talk about terrorists, even though climate change and energy sustainability is a far worse threat to humanity than terrorism.
Face it, their "alternative" is just a ruse to save face from global condemnation on environmental issues. Not going to work, unless they speak up, and put their money where their mouth is. Why have they obstructed Kyoto for so long? Why are they only coming up with vague ideas now, when they could have done something years ago. If they care about the environment, but didn't like Kyoto, then why didn't they make an alternative at the time they rejected Kyoto? they could have kicked Kyoto's ass if they wanted to (no international consensus or messy diplomacy needed). They could be achieving results by now, and be bragging about how their approach was more effective than Kyoto.
That's exactly what the US, Australia and Great Britain are doing.
That's just about "sharing technology" - not actually giving them the equipment for free.
And they are getting crap for it.
No, they are not being criticised for sharing technology. They are being criticised for not signing Kyoto, and coming up with a corrupt scheme to "set their own limits" and go easy on business. Can you point me to somebody criticising these countries for actually sharing technology, and not the other crap?
Why is it that the apologists for global warming never use facts, while accusing environmentalists of doing the same, even though the science is on the environmentalists' side?
That wasn't a personal attack on you in any way, and your response is markedly extreme given the situation.
You give the other poster too much credit. It wasn't an honest question. It was an attempt to distract from the actual issue by deliberately misinterpreting a few words in the writeup. If that person actually wanted to know the meaning of the phrase, he could actually, you know, Read The Fucking Research. But the idea was to discredit the study by pointing to a few words.
"Tripling of poor harvests" is needlessly ambiguous, and requires additional information to make sense.
How is it ambiguous, or require additional information? What else would it mean?
How do you know? Do you have the raw facts, or just basing it off of some throw away statement of "its triply as bad, I tells ya!"
What the hell? I wasn't referring to the accuracy of the statement - just its meaning. It obviously means three times as many poor harvests. What't the problem?
Lets go for the heart of the problem instead of pointing fingers and spreading fear.
Yes, lets. The heart of the problem is that politicians (especially Bush) want to ignore global warming, and are tied to the oil industry for funding.
Bush has nothing to do with America using renewable energy, and I'm sure he'd like them to stop, and use oil supplied by his favourite companies instead.
As far as I know, Yahoo and Microsoft have both agreed to self-censor for their Chinese operations, just likie Google. Except they censor less content.
If this is supposed to be an IT/nerd show - why do they insist on using such stupid and unusable video formats, and prepending the URL with that stupid "mms" thing?
Is that part of a joke or something? That IT doesn't work properly?
Libertarians are not liberals by any means - and they only support individual freedom. Societal freedom is much more important. You can theoretically have individual freedom - but it doesn't mean anything in a Libertarian world unless you are rich. They don't believe in things like publicly funded education and health care - which are essential for the practical exercise of freedom for many less fortunate people.
In a Libertarian world, these people would either die, or become slaves to the wealthy. That's not very free.
you have to watch the recent "booze cruise" episode of The Office:
Michael: "Leader - Ship. The word "ship" is hidden in the word "leadership." As its derivation. So, if this office is in fact a ship, as its leader, I am the Captain."
(puts Captain's hat on)
"But... we're all in the same boat. Teamwork! Now, on this ship which is the office, what is the sales department? Anyone?"
Daryl: "How about the sales department is the sails?"
Michael: "Yes, Daryl. the sales department makes sales. Good. Let me just explain. I see the sales department as the furnace."
interjection: "Yeesh, how old is this ship?"
Pam: "How about the anchor?"
somebody else: "What does the furnace do?"
Michael: "Alright, let's not get hung up on the furnace. it's... just... I see the sales department are down there in the furnace, and they're shoveling coal into the furnace, right? I mean, who saw the movie Titanic? they were very important in the movie Titanic. Who saw it? Show of hands."
worker: "I'm not really sure what movie you're talking about. Are you sure you got the title right?"
Michael: "Titanic!"
Pam: "I think you're talking about the Hunt for Red October."
Michael: "No!... I'm... Leo DiCaprio! Come on!"
worker: "Everyone in the engine room drowned."
Michael (sarcastic): "Thank you, spoiler alert!"
Michael: "You saw the movie, those of you that did... y... y... y... they're happy down there in the furnace room. i mean, they're dirty and grimy and sweaty, and they're singing their ethnic songs... Actually, that might be Warehouse."
worker: "What?"
Michael: "Th... the... no...no I didn't... OK, well, in a nutshell... what, what I'm saying is leadership. We'll talk more about that on the boat."
"Google's new China search engine not only censors many Web sites that question the Chinese government, but it goes further than similar services from Microsoft and Yahoo by targeting teen pregnancy, homosexuality, dating, beer and jokes."
Actually, some domains that are missing on Google.cn are available on e.g. Yahoo.cn or MSN. Declan also found, like I did during my comparison of Google.cn and Google.com, that users are not always informed when search results are missing. Declan points to a statement from Google, who say that "some Web site blockages are human errors that should be expected when any new service is introduced, and others represent a concerted attempt to comply with Chinese censorship laws."
How do you come out ahead with the take-away food, when you will probably end up on life-support someday because of it? I think the medical bills would be more than $10,000. Not to mention the pleasure of eating good food compared to take-away crap.
There are fast food restaurants in nearly every country on earth. This is much less lazy than fast food - you still have to prepare your food. So, if you are correct, why are there fast food restaurants outside the US?
What could possibly be lazier than going to a "drive-thru" and buying a substance that doesn't even resemble food, and eating it in the car?
What the heck? I use it constantly. it's on right now. Microwaves are only good for vegetables. Fast food sucks to badly, it's more like toxic waste. proper restaurants are expensive. Plus I can make a significantly better meal myself, than all but the most expensive restaurants. And I'd need an Iron Chef's salary to go to those restaurants.
Are you willing to prepare a dish in the morning and put it in the oven before you leave for work?
Absolutely.
Would you actually trust this thing not to burn down your house?
Sure. if it's a decent oven, it will be well insulated. Plus I have safety switches and fire detectors that will notify my mobile phone in case of a fire.
I've been cooking on the road for years. You just wrap your food in aluminium foil, strap it to the car's exhaust or engine. By the time you get where you are going, you have a lovely grilled meal. And it doesn't consume any electricity or extra energy other than what you normally use running your car.
Google is a great tool, and for most things, censorship will not change that. Were I given the choice between no internet access and censored internet access, I would choose censored,
This is not the choice. they already have censored access from Yahoo and Microsoft. the difference is that Google censors more content than either Yahoo or Microsoft, and goes beyond what the Chinese government requested. So, how does it help adding Google, when it is less open than the existing alternatives?
And why do you think they'll relax on free speech if they have no access to information?
But they already do have access to information. Google just wants to restrict it further.
If we try to exclude China from the world, they might just close up even further.
That's nonsense. China has more reason to accept freedom of speech than it does to "close up." there is no way they are suddenly going to reverse. However, if companies like Google allow them to extend their censorship regime - that will just make it last longer. On the other hand, if Google put pressure on China, they would likely open up more quickly. Stop trying to justify totalitarianism.
Why can't they get that from Microsoft or Yahoo? their censorship practices have been found to be less restictive than Google.cn. You can get webpages on MS or Yahoo search in China that Google won't let you see.
Additionally, Google are censoring searches of homosexuality, abortion, and other issues - not just the Chinese government requested ones. Why is Google being worse than the competition? How does adding an inferior search engine help the Chinese find more information?
Slashdot Mirror
Great. More fucking cars. America's solution to everything. Do you realize how much energy and raw material it takes to build a new car? It's probably more environmentally friendly to keep driving old cars until they die, than to rush out and replace them. Especially given how primitive today's hybrids are, they aren't very much more efficient than a Toyota or Honda from the 80s.
Where is the public transit in America? That would be far more effective than the private solution of more cars. How about riding a bike or walking?
Who said we were 100% doomed? This is the worst kind of propaganda, putting words into people's mouths, in the hope of tearing down a straw man. If environmentalists actually believed we were 100% doomed, why would they be putting so much effort into turning things around?
Not only is this technology unproven, it would be extremely expensive, and hasn't even been dully designed yet. Out of sight, out of mind. In contrast, we have numerous alternative energy wources that are viable right now and will make profit. But the government will go to extreme lengths to avoid this and appease the mining and energy industries.
Furthermore - look at who is leading the countries you mention - Bush, Blair and Howard. How can anyone on earth trust these people? At the moment, your lauded "alternative to Kyoto" is just hot air. I'll believe it when they actually take action, and take it seriously. If there was anything behind their empty rhetoric, these leaders would be imploring their citizens to conserve energy, and make it clear that Climate Change is a serious issue. But they don't do that. they just talk about terrorists, even though climate change and energy sustainability is a far worse threat to humanity than terrorism.
Face it, their "alternative" is just a ruse to save face from global condemnation on environmental issues. Not going to work, unless they speak up, and put their money where their mouth is. Why have they obstructed Kyoto for so long? Why are they only coming up with vague ideas now, when they could have done something years ago. If they care about the environment, but didn't like Kyoto, then why didn't they make an alternative at the time they rejected Kyoto? they could have kicked Kyoto's ass if they wanted to (no international consensus or messy diplomacy needed). They could be achieving results by now, and be bragging about how their approach was more effective than Kyoto.
Why didn't they?
That's just about "sharing technology" - not actually giving them the equipment for free.
And they are getting crap for it.
No, they are not being criticised for sharing technology. They are being criticised for not signing Kyoto, and coming up with a corrupt scheme to "set their own limits" and go easy on business. Can you point me to somebody criticising these countries for actually sharing technology, and not the other crap?
Why is it that the apologists for global warming never use facts, while accusing environmentalists of doing the same, even though the science is on the environmentalists' side?
You give the other poster too much credit. It wasn't an honest question. It was an attempt to distract from the actual issue by deliberately misinterpreting a few words in the writeup. If that person actually wanted to know the meaning of the phrase, he could actually, you know, Read The Fucking Research. But the idea was to discredit the study by pointing to a few words.
"Tripling of poor harvests" is needlessly ambiguous, and requires additional information to make sense.
How is it ambiguous, or require additional information? What else would it mean?
What the hell? I wasn't referring to the accuracy of the statement - just its meaning. It obviously means three times as many poor harvests. What't the problem?
But "per capita" doesn't stop America from being so damnbig, and therefore significant in the debate.
It means three times as many poor harvests. Are you so retarded you can't parse basic english?
What if the West were to supply renewable energy technology to China and India? Wouldn't that have a significant impact?
Yes, lets. The heart of the problem is that politicians (especially Bush) want to ignore global warming, and are tied to the oil industry for funding.
Bush has nothing to do with America using renewable energy, and I'm sure he'd like them to stop, and use oil supplied by his favourite companies instead.
As far as I know, Yahoo and Microsoft have both agreed to self-censor for their Chinese operations, just likie Google. Except they censor less content.
Is that part of a joke or something? That IT doesn't work properly?
It's Daleks all the way down.
In a Libertarian world, these people would either die, or become slaves to the wealthy. That's not very free.
Michael: "Leader - Ship. The word "ship" is hidden in the word "leadership." As its derivation. So, if this office is in fact a ship, as its leader, I am the Captain."
(puts Captain's hat on)
"But ... we're all in the same boat. Teamwork! Now, on this ship which is the office, what is the sales department? Anyone?"
Daryl: "How about the sales department is the sails?"
Michael: "Yes, Daryl. the sales department makes sales. Good. Let me just explain. I see the sales department as the furnace."
interjection: "Yeesh, how old is this ship?"
Pam: "How about the anchor?"
somebody else: "What does the furnace do?"
Michael: "Alright, let's not get hung up on the furnace. it's ... just ... I see the sales department are down there in the furnace, and they're shoveling coal into the furnace, right? I mean, who saw the movie Titanic? they were very important in the movie Titanic. Who saw it? Show of hands."
worker: "I'm not really sure what movie you're talking about. Are you sure you got the title right?"
Michael: "Titanic!"
Pam: "I think you're talking about the Hunt for Red October."
Michael: "No! ... I'm ... Leo DiCaprio! Come on!"
worker: "Everyone in the engine room drowned."
Michael (sarcastic): "Thank you, spoiler alert!"
Michael: "You saw the movie, those of you that did ... y ... y ... y ... they're happy down there in the furnace room. i mean, they're dirty and grimy and sweaty, and they're singing their ethnic songs... Actually, that might be Warehouse."
worker: "What?"
Michael: "Th ... the ... no ...no I didn't ... OK, well, in a nutshell ... what, what I'm saying is leadership. We'll talk more about that on the boat."
Dwight (saluting): "Aye, Aye, Captain!"
You forget that Jobs is an immortal alien cyborg who will never die.
But wouldn't someone then stab you to death for using Powerpoint? I don't see the advantage in being dead.
Why does insightfulness require more than one word?
How do you come out ahead with the take-away food, when you will probably end up on life-support someday because of it? I think the medical bills would be more than $10,000. Not to mention the pleasure of eating good food compared to take-away crap.
What could possibly be lazier than going to a "drive-thru" and buying a substance that doesn't even resemble food, and eating it in the car?
What the heck? I use it constantly. it's on right now. Microwaves are only good for vegetables. Fast food sucks to badly, it's more like toxic waste. proper restaurants are expensive. Plus I can make a significantly better meal myself, than all but the most expensive restaurants. And I'd need an Iron Chef's salary to go to those restaurants.
Are you willing to prepare a dish in the morning and put it in the oven before you leave for work?
Absolutely.
Would you actually trust this thing not to burn down your house?
Sure. if it's a decent oven, it will be well insulated. Plus I have safety switches and fire detectors that will notify my mobile phone in case of a fire.
I've been cooking on the road for years. You just wrap your food in aluminium foil, strap it to the car's exhaust or engine. By the time you get where you are going, you have a lovely grilled meal. And it doesn't consume any electricity or extra energy other than what you normally use running your car.
This is not the choice. they already have censored access from Yahoo and Microsoft. the difference is that Google censors more content than either Yahoo or Microsoft, and goes beyond what the Chinese government requested. So, how does it help adding Google, when it is less open than the existing alternatives?
And why do you think they'll relax on free speech if they have no access to information?
But they already do have access to information. Google just wants to restrict it further.
If we try to exclude China from the world, they might just close up even further.
That's nonsense. China has more reason to accept freedom of speech than it does to "close up." there is no way they are suddenly going to reverse. However, if companies like Google allow them to extend their censorship regime - that will just make it last longer. On the other hand, if Google put pressure on China, they would likely open up more quickly. Stop trying to justify totalitarianism.
Additionally, Google are censoring searches of homosexuality, abortion, and other issues - not just the Chinese government requested ones. Why is Google being worse than the competition? How does adding an inferior search engine help the Chinese find more information?