But what if there isn't enough time for alternative energy sources to become mature enough to displace oil production? Demand for fossil fuel is increasing, and there isn't a single alternate energy that is anywhere near ready to displace the *increased* demand, let alone what we are already using.
These problems are extremely hard to solve. Many potential sources of energy would need to become *several degrees of magnitude* more efficient before they would compete with oil, even at $150 or $200 a barrel. Simply pumping money into research doesn't guarantee that problems get solved.
Are you willing to bet the future stability of our economy (and potentially society as a whole) on the invisible hand solving that problem? I sure as hell wish we would've got started decades ago.
There's a very strong distinction between the physical and metaphysical. If unicorns live on Earth, it's *extremely* likely that we would have found physical evidence of them. People can create hypothesis about unicorns (or Bigfoot, Nessie, etc.) and those hypothesis can be tested by observation of physical phenomena. Even though we can never strictly prove unicorns do not exist, we can accumulate evidence that makes that possibility very unlikely.
But the God "theory" posits that God is outside of physical phenomena. There's no way to accumulate physical evidence and formulate scientific studies about God's existence, so there is no way to deny the theory. There has not been, nor will there ever be, a single piece of evidence even *suggesting* God does not exist. It's logically impossible.
So while someone might *effectively* be an atheist, it's not useless to make the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. It shows a more thorough understanding of the philosophy behind the science.
Whether or not the right to bear arms is a natural right, it most certainly is a legal right spelled out in the constitution. Concerning legality, that's the only thing that matters.
Considering that the 2nd and 4th amendments are both equally valid laws (being part of the constitution), it's a little ridiculous to claim that gun control laws are legal but wiretapping isn't simply on the basis of natural law. Just as legislators have read the 2nd amendment to mean that gun control is OK, the executive has read the 4th amendment to mean that in this specific case it was not necessary to obtain a warrant before listening in on a conversation.
My point in my first post was that both problems are similar, because neither is explicitly addressed in the constitution. If it was there wouldn't be the major debate we have right now. But there are intelligent, well-respected legal minds on each side of these issues. Hopefully the courts will clear this up soon, because these are important issues.
Not all rebellions have to be a nationwide, overthrow the federal government type. The last successful armed revolution was in 1946 in Athens, Tennessee.
So, if that justification for the second amendment is obsoleced, then the only real justifications are hunting, protection, and for sport. Which makes me feel fine tolerating pretty restrictive gun control.
I could see someone supporting an amendment revoking the second amendment. But are you really ok with laws that go against the Constitution of the US? Just because gun laws don't bother you personally, they are still a violation of our explicit legal rights in the same sense that warrantless wiretapping is.
During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
Looks like he said that he created the Internet, not invented it. Massive difference there. I'm sure it was bad grammar as opposed to Al Gore actually claiming he alone created the Internet, but that doesn't make it any less funny.
People used to hammer Dan Quayle all the time and there are entire books about President Bush misspeaking. If recent history is anything to go by, people are much more likely to mock a conservative politician for making demonstrably false claims or screwing up a speech.
It's funny. Get the stick out of your ass and laugh a little bit, even if it's your guy they're making fun of.
Church tax is compulsory in Austria and Catholics can be sued by the Church for not paying it. Anyone who wants to stop paying it has to declare in writing, at their local municipal council, that they are leaving the Church. They are then crossed off the Church registers and can no longer receive the sacraments. The tax amounts to about 1% of the income.
They have showed images of Mohammad uncensored before in the Super Best Friends episode. It was before the Danish cartoon controversy while the Cartoon Wars episode was after, so I'm not sure if Comedy Central actually censored the cartoon or it was a political statement or joke.
Why is it not the same? It *was* intended for playback, but he realized that technology was far beyond him. As it says in TFA, he was simply hoping to put down a recording that someone would later be able to decipher, which is exactly what happened. Thomas Edison definitely still deserves credit for his invention, but this is pretty remarkable nonetheless.
You're attacking a straw man. That argument against libertarianism is similar to the false argument thrown up against anarchism. All but the craziest of crazies believe that some form of government is necessary, if only for the limited purposes of resolving disputes between individuals. Most libertarians concede that things such as public education and public defense are good things.
Libertarians hold personal liberty as the ultimate goal of any good society, and reject any system of government that restricts personal liberty. Most libertarians, and certainly the most influential, don't care when or where there is initiation of force, but whether or not a particular action results in more or less personal liberty. Under that belief, taxes and social programs are acceptable as long as they clearly promote individual freedom.
Ron Paul supporters tend to be young, intelligent, and educated white men. IT workers fit this much more than the general population. As to why those people are more likely to support Ron Paul, I'm not sure. I would like to think that any intelligent person would be strictly libertarian but that's obviously not the case.
You are right, the ballots are public. And they don't show anything like what you describe. (Excel sheet, look at rows 4199-4203).
Total number of registered voters in Gahanna, Ohio: 3090. Total number voted: 1996. Total for Bush: 1085. Total for Kerry: 881.
What was that again? You were quoting a secondary source on the internet and uncritically accepted it because it supported your political beliefs? That's okay, I would hate for the truth to get in the way of your opinions.
Yes, I've read What Happened in Ohio? and many articles on the subject. There has never been any hard evidence that the Republicans rigged the 2004 election. You have to reconcile yourself to the fact that your country actually *did* vote George Bush into two consecutive terms.
The first incident is pretty bad. I've seen cops acting like that and it's pretty easy to believe that's how it actually happened. But it's hard to judge the second story without more information. It's possible they were searching for a car that looked like yours or searching for a man that fit your description. It really sucks, but unless you have a reason to believe they are harassing you or this is standard procedure in your city, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the police.
In the city I live the police give you a little card with their name and police department contact info on it every time they pull you over. I'm not sure if this is a law or just PD policy, but it's a great idea. It lets you avoid the *extremely* awkward and tense exchange where you have to ask the officer's name or ID#.
That's because sometimes it's a little too simple, and you can accomplish most things without really understanding what you're doing. That doesn't make it a very good language for teaching, but it's often very useful in practical applications.
For the last time, we don't have to be grateful that our taxes are lower than yours. That's the way we want it. We can still complain that taxes should be lower. Prices elsewhere in the world are completely irrelevant. If the Dutch people wanted it that way, taxes would be lower there as well.
When will they learn? It's the movies, stupid! Hollywood had an excellent year because the movies were better. They had decent blockbusters, and for quality movies we had the best year (IMHO) in over a decade. You had a ton of mainstream movies like Transformers, Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates 3, Harry Potter, Bourne 3, etc. You had incredible smaller films like No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Jesse James, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Michael Clayton, 4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days, etc.
The theater/DVD system isn't fundamentally broken like the modern music industry. Piracy, casual sharing, and complete dreck aren't killing the market. During years when the movies are shit, profits and revenues fall. When you have an absolutely fantastic year like 2007, profits rise. It's pretty goddamn simple.
Sorry, but you're extremely wrong. The Beatles most certainly did not invent heavy metal music. They were one of many bands experimenting with "heavy" guitar music, but they probably aren't one of the top five proto-metal bands, let alone the only one.
I Feel Fine was not the first song to use guitar distortion, that's been around nearly as long as the electric guitar. What you are probably thinking about is feedback. I Feel Fine is (AFAIK) the first popular record to use feedback, but they certainly didn't invent it, in fact they most likely took the idea from someone else.
The thing that's special about the Beatles is that they were the first band to successfully merge experimental, avant garde stuff with regular pop music. Before them, there were artists doing crazy experimental stuff and pop music artists. But they Beatles were the first to eliminate that dichotomy. They were instrumental in bringing modern pop and rock music into being. But they were far from the only band doing unique and interesting things at the time.
I can see how someone might not like their earlier, boy band stuff, or their later period experimental tripe. I don't care for a lot of it myself. But it's completely incomprehensible for me for someone to entirely dismiss the Beatles. I know you're probably not a music critic, but I'd be interested in some more explicit reasons why you don't like the Beatles.
Also, what type of music do you like? I imagine you don't like pop songs that much, but I would be *very* interested to hear your point of view if you like pop/early rock music but dislike the Beatles.
Anyone from 100 years ago would consider our society unbearably sexually depraved, and it's only going further down that road.
They would probably also be outraged that a black man and white woman were leading presidential candidates. Why the fuck would we judge our society today on what someone from 100 years ago *might* have thought?
Ma Bell is actually a pretty bad example. It was broken up into smaller companies, all of which are profitable and are re-consolidating, causing little or no harm to the actual company or investors. Standard Oil was the first big antitrust case, and was broken up into Exxon, Mobil (later merged to form the world's most profitable corporation), Amoco (now owned by BP), and Chevron. You seem to think that Microsoft is somehow hurting since the antitrust case, but they actually had a record profit in the third quarter of last year and their stock is doing better than any time since the crash. General Electric, which is arguably the most successful corporation in the world, has been hit with antitrust lawsuits throughout its history, including in the past decade.And IBM has been hit with many antitrust cases, just nothing as dramatic as the Microsoft case.
Even when lawsuits occasionally becomes a public fiasco like the Microsoft or AT&T cases, it's still just viewed as a cost of doing business. Even when convicted, the penalty is rarely greater than the profits made.
So yes, if you would like your point to stand, you need to provide examples. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.
Microsoft did NOT do "what any sane company would do"! Most sane companies do not deliberately engage in monopolist practices in order to cheat and delude their customers. Microsoft did. There is no argument about that... they have been CONVICTED many times now of doing just that, in both U.S. and European courts!
Yes, they did do what any sane company would do. You really don't think most companies would break a (relatively speaking) minor law to become one of the most profitable companies in the entire world? Hell, a huge amount of companies would rape and plunder to reach the position Microsoft is in if they could get away with it. Most companies salivate at the opportunity to abuse a monopoly.
I think the silent majority really doesn't care about pedophiles as much as the media exposure would suggest, and I think most of the media exposure is fueled by a minority who actually enjoy hearing about, and overreacting to, such macabre and lurid reports.
Maybe, but if the majority actually disliked stupid arguments such as this, they would stop listening and the news media would stop reporting it. I think more likely is that the "silent majority" doesn't know what the fuck is actually going on, and will watch anything the news puts on the tube that draws their attention. They just listen to what they're being told. Whether they actually care or not is irrelevant if they're still watching.
If you don't want to be in a place because people are smoking, then don't go in! I don't particularly like secondhand smoke either. But if I don't feel like being around it, then I will avoid places where people are smoking. It's that simple. I live in a state where smoking indoors in public is still legal, and I can't remember the last time I went somewhere that I was bothered by secondhand smoke. Most restaurants ban it, and there are a few smoke-free clubs and even bars. I would much rather be slightly inconvenienced every once in a while and enjoy my freedom than have a restrictive, authoritarian law that makes me more comfortable.
This is a solution looking for a problem. If the government wants to ban something because it's dangerous, they better have some conclusive scientific studies backing them up. The thing I find most disturbing about this is the cities and states who consider themselves the most liberal are the most adamant about protecting people from themselves. How the hell is this nanny-state bullshit liberalism? San Francisco wants to legalize marijuana but ban smoking? Where the hell did that come from?
Well I was being pedantic anyway, so obviously don't worry too much. But it's very confusing that the modern German language, the ancient language that's the root of all Germanic languages, the modern German state, the modern German people, the Germanic tribes, and the land occupied by the Germanic tribes are all referred to using the same name in English.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if there isn't enough time for alternative energy sources to become mature enough to displace oil production? Demand for fossil fuel is increasing, and there isn't a single alternate energy that is anywhere near ready to displace the *increased* demand, let alone what we are already using.
These problems are extremely hard to solve. Many potential sources of energy would need to become *several degrees of magnitude* more efficient before they would compete with oil, even at $150 or $200 a barrel. Simply pumping money into research doesn't guarantee that problems get solved.
Are you willing to bet the future stability of our economy (and potentially society as a whole) on the invisible hand solving that problem? I sure as hell wish we would've got started decades ago.
There's a very strong distinction between the physical and metaphysical. If unicorns live on Earth, it's *extremely* likely that we would have found physical evidence of them. People can create hypothesis about unicorns (or Bigfoot, Nessie, etc.) and those hypothesis can be tested by observation of physical phenomena. Even though we can never strictly prove unicorns do not exist, we can accumulate evidence that makes that possibility very unlikely.
But the God "theory" posits that God is outside of physical phenomena. There's no way to accumulate physical evidence and formulate scientific studies about God's existence, so there is no way to deny the theory. There has not been, nor will there ever be, a single piece of evidence even *suggesting* God does not exist. It's logically impossible.
So while someone might *effectively* be an atheist, it's not useless to make the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. It shows a more thorough understanding of the philosophy behind the science.
If the only reason you don't kill people in real life is because you can't get away with it, you should reexamine your ethics.
Whether or not the right to bear arms is a natural right, it most certainly is a legal right spelled out in the constitution. Concerning legality, that's the only thing that matters.
Considering that the 2nd and 4th amendments are both equally valid laws (being part of the constitution), it's a little ridiculous to claim that gun control laws are legal but wiretapping isn't simply on the basis of natural law. Just as legislators have read the 2nd amendment to mean that gun control is OK, the executive has read the 4th amendment to mean that in this specific case it was not necessary to obtain a warrant before listening in on a conversation.
My point in my first post was that both problems are similar, because neither is explicitly addressed in the constitution. If it was there wouldn't be the major debate we have right now. But there are intelligent, well-respected legal minds on each side of these issues. Hopefully the courts will clear this up soon, because these are important issues.
Not all rebellions have to be a nationwide, overthrow the federal government type. The last successful armed revolution was in 1946 in Athens, Tennessee.
I could see someone supporting an amendment revoking the second amendment. But are you really ok with laws that go against the Constitution of the US? Just because gun laws don't bother you personally, they are still a violation of our explicit legal rights in the same sense that warrantless wiretapping is.
Looks like he said that he created the Internet, not invented it. Massive difference there. I'm sure it was bad grammar as opposed to Al Gore actually claiming he alone created the Internet, but that doesn't make it any less funny.
People used to hammer Dan Quayle all the time and there are entire books about President Bush misspeaking. If recent history is anything to go by, people are much more likely to mock a conservative politician for making demonstrably false claims or screwing up a speech.
It's funny. Get the stick out of your ass and laugh a little bit, even if it's your guy they're making fun of.
You might want to look again.
From the very first entry:
They have showed images of Mohammad uncensored before in the Super Best Friends episode. It was before the Danish cartoon controversy while the Cartoon Wars episode was after, so I'm not sure if Comedy Central actually censored the cartoon or it was a political statement or joke.
Why is it not the same? It *was* intended for playback, but he realized that technology was far beyond him. As it says in TFA, he was simply hoping to put down a recording that someone would later be able to decipher, which is exactly what happened. Thomas Edison definitely still deserves credit for his invention, but this is pretty remarkable nonetheless.
You're attacking a straw man. That argument against libertarianism is similar to the false argument thrown up against anarchism. All but the craziest of crazies believe that some form of government is necessary, if only for the limited purposes of resolving disputes between individuals. Most libertarians concede that things such as public education and public defense are good things.
Libertarians hold personal liberty as the ultimate goal of any good society, and reject any system of government that restricts personal liberty. Most libertarians, and certainly the most influential, don't care when or where there is initiation of force, but whether or not a particular action results in more or less personal liberty. Under that belief, taxes and social programs are acceptable as long as they clearly promote individual freedom.
Ron Paul supporters tend to be young, intelligent, and educated white men. IT workers fit this much more than the general population. As to why those people are more likely to support Ron Paul, I'm not sure. I would like to think that any intelligent person would be strictly libertarian but that's obviously not the case.
You are right, the ballots are public. And they don't show anything like what you describe. (Excel sheet, look at rows 4199-4203).
Total number of registered voters in Gahanna, Ohio: 3090. Total number voted: 1996. Total for Bush: 1085. Total for Kerry: 881.
What was that again? You were quoting a secondary source on the internet and uncritically accepted it because it supported your political beliefs? That's okay, I would hate for the truth to get in the way of your opinions.
Yes, I've read What Happened in Ohio? and many articles on the subject. There has never been any hard evidence that the Republicans rigged the 2004 election. You have to reconcile yourself to the fact that your country actually *did* vote George Bush into two consecutive terms.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Unless, of course, you can provide some sort of reference.
The first incident is pretty bad. I've seen cops acting like that and it's pretty easy to believe that's how it actually happened. But it's hard to judge the second story without more information. It's possible they were searching for a car that looked like yours or searching for a man that fit your description. It really sucks, but unless you have a reason to believe they are harassing you or this is standard procedure in your city, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the police.
In the city I live the police give you a little card with their name and police department contact info on it every time they pull you over. I'm not sure if this is a law or just PD policy, but it's a great idea. It lets you avoid the *extremely* awkward and tense exchange where you have to ask the officer's name or ID#.
That's because sometimes it's a little too simple, and you can accomplish most things without really understanding what you're doing. That doesn't make it a very good language for teaching, but it's often very useful in practical applications.
For the last time, we don't have to be grateful that our taxes are lower than yours. That's the way we want it. We can still complain that taxes should be lower. Prices elsewhere in the world are completely irrelevant. If the Dutch people wanted it that way, taxes would be lower there as well.
When will they learn? It's the movies, stupid! Hollywood had an excellent year because the movies were better. They had decent blockbusters, and for quality movies we had the best year (IMHO) in over a decade. You had a ton of mainstream movies like Transformers, Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates 3, Harry Potter, Bourne 3, etc. You had incredible smaller films like No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Jesse James, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Michael Clayton, 4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days, etc.
The theater/DVD system isn't fundamentally broken like the modern music industry. Piracy, casual sharing, and complete dreck aren't killing the market. During years when the movies are shit, profits and revenues fall. When you have an absolutely fantastic year like 2007, profits rise. It's pretty goddamn simple.
Sorry, but you're extremely wrong. The Beatles most certainly did not invent heavy metal music. They were one of many bands experimenting with "heavy" guitar music, but they probably aren't one of the top five proto-metal bands, let alone the only one.
I Feel Fine was not the first song to use guitar distortion, that's been around nearly as long as the electric guitar. What you are probably thinking about is feedback. I Feel Fine is (AFAIK) the first popular record to use feedback, but they certainly didn't invent it, in fact they most likely took the idea from someone else.
The thing that's special about the Beatles is that they were the first band to successfully merge experimental, avant garde stuff with regular pop music. Before them, there were artists doing crazy experimental stuff and pop music artists. But they Beatles were the first to eliminate that dichotomy. They were instrumental in bringing modern pop and rock music into being. But they were far from the only band doing unique and interesting things at the time.
I can see how someone might not like their earlier, boy band stuff, or their later period experimental tripe. I don't care for a lot of it myself. But it's completely incomprehensible for me for someone to entirely dismiss the Beatles. I know you're probably not a music critic, but I'd be interested in some more explicit reasons why you don't like the Beatles.
Also, what type of music do you like? I imagine you don't like pop songs that much, but I would be *very* interested to hear your point of view if you like pop/early rock music but dislike the Beatles.
Here are some Beatles clips, because I can.
Eleanor Rigby
Twist and Shout
In My Life
With a Little Help from My Friends
Help!
Ticket to Ride
Norwegian Wood
Here Comes the Sun
Hey Jude
Yesterday
They would probably also be outraged that a black man and white woman were leading presidential candidates. Why the fuck would we judge our society today on what someone from 100 years ago *might* have thought?
Ma Bell is actually a pretty bad example. It was broken up into smaller companies, all of which are profitable and are re-consolidating, causing little or no harm to the actual company or investors. Standard Oil was the first big antitrust case, and was broken up into Exxon, Mobil (later merged to form the world's most profitable corporation), Amoco (now owned by BP), and Chevron. You seem to think that Microsoft is somehow hurting since the antitrust case, but they actually had a record profit in the third quarter of last year and their stock is doing better than any time since the crash. General Electric, which is arguably the most successful corporation in the world, has been hit with antitrust lawsuits throughout its history, including in the past decade.And IBM has been hit with many antitrust cases, just nothing as dramatic as the Microsoft case.
Even when lawsuits occasionally becomes a public fiasco like the Microsoft or AT&T cases, it's still just viewed as a cost of doing business. Even when convicted, the penalty is rarely greater than the profits made.
So yes, if you would like your point to stand, you need to provide examples. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.
Yes, they did do what any sane company would do. You really don't think most companies would break a (relatively speaking) minor law to become one of the most profitable companies in the entire world? Hell, a huge amount of companies would rape and plunder to reach the position Microsoft is in if they could get away with it. Most companies salivate at the opportunity to abuse a monopoly.
Maybe, but if the majority actually disliked stupid arguments such as this, they would stop listening and the news media would stop reporting it. I think more likely is that the "silent majority" doesn't know what the fuck is actually going on, and will watch anything the news puts on the tube that draws their attention. They just listen to what they're being told. Whether they actually care or not is irrelevant if they're still watching.
If you don't want to be in a place because people are smoking, then don't go in! I don't particularly like secondhand smoke either. But if I don't feel like being around it, then I will avoid places where people are smoking. It's that simple. I live in a state where smoking indoors in public is still legal, and I can't remember the last time I went somewhere that I was bothered by secondhand smoke. Most restaurants ban it, and there are a few smoke-free clubs and even bars. I would much rather be slightly inconvenienced every once in a while and enjoy my freedom than have a restrictive, authoritarian law that makes me more comfortable.
This is a solution looking for a problem. If the government wants to ban something because it's dangerous, they better have some conclusive scientific studies backing them up. The thing I find most disturbing about this is the cities and states who consider themselves the most liberal are the most adamant about protecting people from themselves. How the hell is this nanny-state bullshit liberalism? San Francisco wants to legalize marijuana but ban smoking? Where the hell did that come from?
Well I was being pedantic anyway, so obviously don't worry too much. But it's very confusing that the modern German language, the ancient language that's the root of all Germanic languages, the modern German state, the modern German people, the Germanic tribes, and the land occupied by the Germanic tribes are all referred to using the same name in English.