Because you're projecting on world economies TODAY and in the future, where Europe is a single unit economically.
The only reason why not combining Europe into a single unit would make sense is if you believed that the currently-growing European economic hegemony will disintegrate during the scope of your prediction.
Dude, you're missing my point entirely by getting bogged down in exposition of your point. This isn't the first time this has happened in a thread between the two of us, so this will be my last post in this thread.
If you can lose something, it's not a right. It's a privilege.
You can be prevented from exercising your rights, but any society that willfully denies someone the exercise of their rights is not a just society; I prefer to believe that we are in a society that at least tries to be just, and doesn't just pay lip service to its ideals. Privileges are a different story. If you abuse a privilege, it can get taken away.
I still stand that it's disingenuous to compare the output of Moghul India or China to single European entities in the context of this argument (since today, Europe is a single economic entity for the purposes of this discussion).
Combined, Europe had a larger GDP than India in 1600, though China was very slightly larger.
I also wonder if this wasn't part quid-pro-quo for getting the merger approved.
Hruh? Please elaborate. Why would the EC hinge merger approval on replacing Sun employees with new engineers and sales force post merger completion? You really think 2000 jobs would be enough to sway the EC on the monopoly issue? You think all those jobs would be in Europe? Sales jobs would need to be market-location-specific. Engineering... there could be a case there.
Do you know what the worlds two biggest economies were 400 years ago? India and China.
Hmm, you're saying that those two economies were larger than the economy of the Europe/Mediterranean region? Because that's the apt comparison... I'm not saying you aren't correct, I'm just curious as to what economies you compare them to. I'm also very curious as to what your source is... 400 years ago Europe had a far different economy than India or China, with industrialism beginning to take root.
And if my inbox is not full of spam, I do have free speech?
Maybe you didn't actually bother reading my post (or to give it more than a second's thought on your way to posting a reply that completely dodges the point of my post).
i don't know what exactly that you are missing about this simple obvious truth
Maybe I'm not the person missing something... if a "truth" is so obvious, then for me to disagree with that "truth" probably means that it's not so obvious as you think.
Rights linked to responsibilities cannot be considered rights. They are privileges, if they are revocable. I don't know what's so difficult with understanding this... And once you understand it, perhaps you should think about what that implies.
That's not to say I think the levels you are suggesting are actually dangerous, just that no one without a pre-existing deficiency would need to supplement to that level.
Actually, it's quite likely that the amounts could be toxic, especially for people with certain thyroid conditions. No one should consider taking that much Vit D unless they've consulted with a doctor; the amounts he suggests could very likely be toxic to some people.
if people don't live up to their responsibilities, they lose their rights. not as a matter of some government mandate, but as a simple logical, natural consequence of ruining things- the internet, safe roads, a healthy economy, etc., for other people
That shits on centuries of philosophical thought.
I think you confuse the word 'right' with the word 'privilege'. Driving a car? That's a privilege, revocable when used irresponsibly.
The internet is developing into a primary means of communication, especially political communication. There's an argument to be made that internet access needs to be a right (as intrinsic to the rights of association and speech), not a privilege.
This is not "a simple logical, natural consequence of ruining things" -- it is more complex than that. To reduce it to something that simple is similar to outlawing the speech of those the government finds distasteful... while it's convenient to those in charge, it DOES trample the rights of someone, and thus should not be done.
It's a liberalism thing. Liberal politicians have spent decades telling people that it is someone else's fault whatever the problem is. It's the rich bankers/oil companies/insurance companies etc. that are the cause of all your problems, you have no responsibility for your life.
Horsecrap.
It doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. Conservatives have been playing the same cards for decades (and longer), substituting "large government" as the source of all your problems (among other sources, such as Commies and illegal immigrants).
Can you honestly say with a straight face that conservatives have not blamed illegal immigrants for high unemployment among citizens?
Then there are phones and musical devices. Want one that uses half of its' own waste heat to recharge itself, perhaps doubling battery life?
There's a reason we don't already use the waste heat for recharging electronics... because it's damn expensive. There are far better components for turning a heat gradient into electricity than this type of motor.
Looking at your other examples... the promise of this device is not in turning heat into electrical power. It's about turning heat into physical power. Think transport of tiny, tiny objects (microsurgery for vascular repair, for example).
1. Algae grow just fine without us going out of our ways to add fertilizer to them
Only when there are already phosphorous and nitrogen (and other required factors) present. Growing algae in sufficient amounts for biodiesel and other fuel sources requires fertilization.
2. There are plenty of ways to produce fertilizer that don't involve fossil fuels
Oh? At the scales we're talking about? Cost-effectively? Maybe you're aware of something that world agricultural industry is not. Please share, a discovery like that would be worthy of a Nobel Prize. There's a reason almost all fertilizer produced uses tons of fossil fuels in production... it's because there is no cost-effective alternative.
OK, so whoever wrote that wasn't thinking straight. But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.
Phosphate fertilizer (ortho- or poly-phosphates) is synthesized in an energy-intensive process. Organic phosphates, like those from manure (or waste treatment plant effluent), help solve this problem.
For nitrate fertilizer, it's even more extreme. Please read about the Haber Process.
Yes, John, most fertilizer does come from fossil fuels.
So, yes, whoever wrote that made a mistake. However, it's no lie to say that fertilizer production uses a huge amount of fossil fuel.
I have no way of knowing which corporations are getting my money through the various funds that are offered to me. Now those same corporations I am force to invest in are able to take my money and support politics and policies that I don't agree with. How is that fair?
You don't have to invest in funds. You can invest in single stocks.
If you're talking about a 401k, or an IRA, that's your choice to participate. You could invest on your own if you so choose (though you wouldn't get the tax benefits of those type of investment vehicles).
Just another note... it is false that you have no way of knowing which corporations those funds invest in. By law (for a qualifying 401k or IRA) you are able to get that information from the fund manager.
Try doing some of your homework. Talk to your plan administrator (if through your work) or to your agent (if private) and get the fund prospectus for any fund you are interested in. You'll see where the fund puts its money.
On the D&D scale, are you chaotic evil or neutral evil?
That's harsh, man. He could be anywhere on the Law->Chaos spectrum, and on the Good->Evil spectrum, he could be neutral. Pretty much he could be any alignment available to 1st-edition thieves. We don't know without the context of his other actions.
Or, he could be willing to offend his deity if he's Good. We'll never know.
What we do know is that you and I are far nerdlier than we had supposed prior to this thread...
And you must be some current-day republican/asshat (there are no conservatives left), bitching and moaning in a non sequitur in the hope it'll get you some popularity points.
That's a pretty confident attitude, considering that you have your facts wrong.
No they aren't. Their job is to uphold the constitution and by extension, the will of the people; not blindly uphold every decision regardless.
False. The role of the Department of Justice (as an outgrowth of the office of Attorney General via the Act to Establish the Department of Justice of 1870) is to represent the US in any matter of government interest in the courts, and to answer legal questions posed to it by the Executive branch (and for Constitutional matters, the Attorney General may not delegate). Upholding the Constitution is not a DoJ responsibility -- providing legal opinions on Constitutionality is.
Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional. Period.
Please quote the Constitutional section that so clearly makes those damages unconstitutional. Also please provide where it was determined that actual loss is limited to profit on an item (or even retail value, which would e higher) that was made available for sharing. Turns out that there is a ton of debate on limits to punitive damages, and the matter is far from settled. It's only in the past 15 years that SCOTUS (and by extension, the entire federal system) has placed any restraints on punitive damages, which had been handled at the State level previously.
I agree that the RIAA needs to FOAD. But if you're going to argue the matter, please get your facts straight... you're obviously misinformed on civics issues, and it would help you make your points if you didn't use bullshit to support them.
It's not the DoJ that lies at blame here (though with how it's been stocked with RIAA advocates lately, I'm sure they do share some responsibility. Please lay blame where blame is due... at the feet of the RIAA member companies and at the feet of the House and Senate members who support draconian copyright laws. Surely you don't believe that the DoJ should just ignore the law of the land?
Slashdot Mirror
Because you're projecting on world economies TODAY and in the future, where Europe is a single unit economically.
The only reason why not combining Europe into a single unit would make sense is if you believed that the currently-growing European economic hegemony will disintegrate during the scope of your prediction.
Dude, you're missing my point entirely by getting bogged down in exposition of your point. This isn't the first time this has happened in a thread between the two of us, so this will be my last post in this thread.
If you can lose something, it's not a right. It's a privilege.
You can be prevented from exercising your rights, but any society that willfully denies someone the exercise of their rights is not a just society; I prefer to believe that we are in a society that at least tries to be just, and doesn't just pay lip service to its ideals. Privileges are a different story. If you abuse a privilege, it can get taken away.
Ah ha! Now we know for sure which dinosaur got the worm.
OK, I think I'm done now.
I still stand that it's disingenuous to compare the output of Moghul India or China to single European entities in the context of this argument (since today, Europe is a single economic entity for the purposes of this discussion).
Combined, Europe had a larger GDP than India in 1600, though China was very slightly larger.
Red herring. Has nothing to do with the gist of my post.
There's a reason why companies like Oracle have an M&A team... operationally, they are very similar.
Confuciusornis say, man who guess dinosaur feather color knows dinosaurs ex-tint.
Hruh? Please elaborate. Why would the EC hinge merger approval on replacing Sun employees with new engineers and sales force post merger completion? You really think 2000 jobs would be enough to sway the EC on the monopoly issue? You think all those jobs would be in Europe? Sales jobs would need to be market-location-specific. Engineering... there could be a case there.
Hmm, you're saying that those two economies were larger than the economy of the Europe/Mediterranean region? Because that's the apt comparison... I'm not saying you aren't correct, I'm just curious as to what economies you compare them to. I'm also very curious as to what your source is... 400 years ago Europe had a far different economy than India or China, with industrialism beginning to take root.
In short, Citation Needed.
Maybe you didn't actually bother reading my post (or to give it more than a second's thought on your way to posting a reply that completely dodges the point of my post).
Maybe I'm not the person missing something... if a "truth" is so obvious, then for me to disagree with that "truth" probably means that it's not so obvious as you think.
Rights linked to responsibilities cannot be considered rights. They are privileges, if they are revocable. I don't know what's so difficult with understanding this... And once you understand it, perhaps you should think about what that implies.
Actually, it's quite likely that the amounts could be toxic, especially for people with certain thyroid conditions. No one should consider taking that much Vit D unless they've consulted with a doctor; the amounts he suggests could very likely be toxic to some people.
That shits on centuries of philosophical thought.
I think you confuse the word 'right' with the word 'privilege'. Driving a car? That's a privilege, revocable when used irresponsibly.
The internet is developing into a primary means of communication, especially political communication. There's an argument to be made that internet access needs to be a right (as intrinsic to the rights of association and speech), not a privilege.
This is not "a simple logical, natural consequence of ruining things" -- it is more complex than that. To reduce it to something that simple is similar to outlawing the speech of those the government finds distasteful... while it's convenient to those in charge, it DOES trample the rights of someone, and thus should not be done.
Where did you do your research?
8 oz (a short glass) of vitamin D enriched milk has about 100 IU of vit D; USRDA for vit D is 400 IU.
So that's four short glasses, or 2-3 taaaallll glasses to get the RDA.
Horsecrap.
It doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. Conservatives have been playing the same cards for decades (and longer), substituting "large government" as the source of all your problems (among other sources, such as Commies and illegal immigrants).
Can you honestly say with a straight face that conservatives have not blamed illegal immigrants for high unemployment among citizens?
Go back under your bridge, troll.
There's a reason we don't already use the waste heat for recharging electronics... because it's damn expensive. There are far better components for turning a heat gradient into electricity than this type of motor.
Looking at your other examples... the promise of this device is not in turning heat into electrical power. It's about turning heat into physical power. Think transport of tiny, tiny objects (microsurgery for vascular repair, for example).
Only when there are already phosphorous and nitrogen (and other required factors) present. Growing algae in sufficient amounts for biodiesel and other fuel sources requires fertilization.
Oh? At the scales we're talking about? Cost-effectively? Maybe you're aware of something that world agricultural industry is not. Please share, a discovery like that would be worthy of a Nobel Prize. There's a reason almost all fertilizer produced uses tons of fossil fuels in production... it's because there is no cost-effective alternative.
You're thinking too small.
The correct question is, how many beer kegs fit in a 0.5 micrometer fridge?
You know how big a millimeter is, right? A micrometer is one thousandth the length of a millimeter.
A cubic micrometer is the volume occupied by a cube one micrometer on each side.
10^7 cubic micrometers would fill a cube about one-fifth of a millimeter on a side. Smaller than a pinhead.
OK, so whoever wrote that wasn't thinking straight. But it is true that fertilizer (both phosphates and nitrogen) require a lot of fossil fuel to produce -- usually natural gas.
Phosphate fertilizer (ortho- or poly-phosphates) is synthesized in an energy-intensive process. Organic phosphates, like those from manure (or waste treatment plant effluent), help solve this problem.
For nitrate fertilizer, it's even more extreme. Please read about the Haber Process.
Yes, John, most fertilizer does come from fossil fuels.
So, yes, whoever wrote that made a mistake. However, it's no lie to say that fertilizer production uses a huge amount of fossil fuel.
You don't have to invest in funds. You can invest in single stocks.
If you're talking about a 401k, or an IRA, that's your choice to participate. You could invest on your own if you so choose (though you wouldn't get the tax benefits of those type of investment vehicles).
Just another note... it is false that you have no way of knowing which corporations those funds invest in. By law (for a qualifying 401k or IRA) you are able to get that information from the fund manager.
Try doing some of your homework. Talk to your plan administrator (if through your work) or to your agent (if private) and get the fund prospectus for any fund you are interested in. You'll see where the fund puts its money.
That's harsh, man. He could be anywhere on the Law->Chaos spectrum, and on the Good->Evil spectrum, he could be neutral. Pretty much he could be any alignment available to 1st-edition thieves. We don't know without the context of his other actions.
Or, he could be willing to offend his deity if he's Good. We'll never know.
What we do know is that you and I are far nerdlier than we had supposed prior to this thread...
And you must be some current-day republican/asshat (there are no conservatives left), bitching and moaning in a non sequitur in the hope it'll get you some popularity points.
False. The role of the Department of Justice (as an outgrowth of the office of Attorney General via the Act to Establish the Department of Justice of 1870) is to represent the US in any matter of government interest in the courts, and to answer legal questions posed to it by the Executive branch (and for Constitutional matters, the Attorney General may not delegate). Upholding the Constitution is not a DoJ responsibility -- providing legal opinions on Constitutionality is.
Damages in excess of 10,000 times the value of actual loss is clearly unconstitutional. Period.
Please quote the Constitutional section that so clearly makes those damages unconstitutional. Also please provide where it was determined that actual loss is limited to profit on an item (or even retail value, which would e higher) that was made available for sharing. Turns out that there is a ton of debate on limits to punitive damages, and the matter is far from settled. It's only in the past 15 years that SCOTUS (and by extension, the entire federal system) has placed any restraints on punitive damages, which had been handled at the State level previously.
I agree that the RIAA needs to FOAD. But if you're going to argue the matter, please get your facts straight... you're obviously misinformed on civics issues, and it would help you make your points if you didn't use bullshit to support them.
It's not the DoJ that lies at blame here (though with how it's been stocked with RIAA advocates lately, I'm sure they do share some responsibility. Please lay blame where blame is due... at the feet of the RIAA member companies and at the feet of the House and Senate members who support draconian copyright laws. Surely you don't believe that the DoJ should just ignore the law of the land?
no worries... it's just that you said i should be a LAWYER... that was pretty insulting :)
I'm a right-coaster... so I guess I'll have to continue making my own bacon ice cream.
He's not repurposing, he's multipurposing. Now it's the Ice Cream Bacon Mover. Twice the fun...