As another UK-er, I'd have to agree. It seems to me that people donating money to parties, shortly precedes said people being given fat contracts for this, or being left out of that piece of legislation. So much for funding.
Also, the labour party actually lost the popular vote in england, so much for the party.
One's appraisal of history is a series of value judgments of a series of value judgements. To believe otherwise is most definitely stupid.
> Millions of years of biological evolution would say otherwise. > Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as > humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate > behaviour doesn't mean that violence doesn't serve a purpose.
Well we're trying to put some of that behind us now, you know, the throwing of shit and hanging from trees by our tails. In all seriousness, apes are largely better behaved than we are. They argue, they beat their chests, they don't usually start laying into each other. And they don't kill each other. They do have orgies though. Maybe that's the secret.
In most species of animal, if any violence between competing males does occur, it is a recognised loss of status on someone's part that prevents further violence.
> People seem to think that violence is completely negative, however it has > served a purpose throughout history.
The violence of self-defence is arguably justified. I believe it is, others don't.
Most violence committed throughout history has been in the name of king and country, for the empire, the fatherland, the glorious republic, so some power-hungry visionary fool can have more lives to play with. I don't readily see the justification in that.
> To stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the immorality of violence, > because your modern values demand peace, would be to deny the bloodbath of > human history.
Some of us are promoting the ideas of progress, evolution, civilisation: let's push things forward. Enough with your atavistic recourse to murder.
> Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the > resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status
I think there are laws against this sort of attitude and with good reason. And "most importantly [...] loss of status"... ? The most breathtakingly ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Be advised that if you publicly prove me wrong, you'll have justified me smashing your face in with a brick.
> and ones resources.
That too is arguably justified, although less so than self-defence. I'm also going to advocate the slaughter of animals to serve my need for all sorts of delicious meat products, but I don't think I'd bother to try to justify it.
> These are important things in a social species such as humans.
Important to those who, like dogs, need to know their place in the order. And I'm guessing most us on slashdot would be somewhere near the bottom.
> Am I saying that violence is the only way? No. But you'd be stupid to think > that it never solved anything when history says otherwise.
According to this page http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2062 15 the problem was "incorrect coding on the web page itself. If the type attribute is not specified as "audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" in the html embed or object tag, ra, rm and ram file types will not play."
Ir provides you with a link to a modified problem that get's around this problem.
Anyway I installed the latest version of realalt 1.43 (which contains the modified plugin) and it works in FF fine now. IE now back to its one true use.
And the sound quality must have been awful. Realaudio may be a proprietary format but it compresses audio at a much higher rate than mp3 for a comparable quality.
I have to use IE anyway for webdev, and all I ever use it for is the BBC and for going "hmm, now why doesn't this work?"
Also, having read this http://www.grc.com/downloaders.htm coupled with the fact that realplayer always tries to dial out on any PC I've ever seen it on I decided to keep well away from realplayer.
But yeah you still chose right, cause it sure sticks in the throat to have to use IE for anything other than showing how shit IE is.
I installed real alternative so I could listen to the BBC, which is almost as much a pile of crap as real player; but it just about works and doesn't try to worm its way into the depths of your OS.
> No, not at all. Because I have to make trade-offs. If I wanted to fully cover every side issue that > comes up, I'd be here forever. But unlike you, I understand the concept of tradeoffs.
Is that another one of your emotional ad hominems that you try to berate me for. Your double standards are becoming almost endearing now.
> If human life extremely valuable? Yes.
In dollar terms I'm sure you think it is.
> Is it so valuable that no one should ever do anything that increases risk of death to themselves or > others? No.
Contrary to your pretense no one is claiming that.
> Is pollution bad? Yes. Is pollution so bad that under no circumstance should anyone ignite > anything?
Contrary to your pretense no one is claiming that.
> Is tearing slashdot environmentalists a collective new one on economics worth my time? Yes.
"[T]earing a new one" sounds dangerously like emotional talk. You don't tear anyone anything. On this particular issue, you steadfastly ignore all the environmental arguments (as you have no knowledge thereof) and come back with a load of "well it must be okay as otherwise it would cost more" nonsense.
See you shift the argument, or trade off (as you put it), from what you knwo you don't understand to what you think you do and then claim victory in an environmental argument by arguing (badly) about economics.
> Well that's not the main topic either now is it. You posted on slashdot that the pollution caused by > millions of disposed DVDs is negligible and I responded that it is not. The topic as far as we are > concerned would appear to be whether the pollution is negligible or not. So you seem to be > slightly off on the facts again. But really the main topic as far as your concerned is hastily trying > to conceal your rank stupidity.
> Ah, the emotion bubbling up again.
You call me stupid, that's okay. I call you stupid, that's not okay. Yes?
> Yes, I am dicussing the same topic. You brought up pollution and the waste of landfill space.
Are you on drugs? Seriously. You hallucinate. Where did I bring up the "waste of landfill space"? I'm bemoaning the use of landfill as a methodology, and therefore don't consider it possible to waste such a thing. I consider landfill sites a waste of... land. Now I see where your total lack of understanding springs from, from the weird hallucinations you keep having.
The "lack of landfill space" was 1980s scare-mongering that no-one uses as part of an argument in favour of recycling. I guess Penn & Teller didn't make that clear, huh?
> Those are separate issues. I agree that DVD makers should pay for the (tiny) pollution in the > manufacturing of the DVD. The remaining question is, what is the harm of burying them in > landfills? Are we really forgoing opportunities (i.e., causing waste) by burying them. In fact, we > are not, and I address your argument against this below.
You're redefining words to suit your whim. Municipal waste isn't "a forgone opportunity". Part of waste is a forgone opportunity sure, but that's all you can focus on. The money part, not the whole. There's more to life and there's more to problem of pollution.
Is shit the forgone opportunity of unmetabolised consumption? How about toxic effluent?
We don't "cause waste by burying" it. No one is claiming that.
"In fact, we are not, and I address your argument against this below." Well are you agreeing with me or not? You say "not X" and then say you'll address my argument against X. Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but... learn english boy.
> You're now trying to turn it into an economic argument about speculation, but seeing as you > didn't mention this to start with, it is, by your own criterion, invalid.
> Oh, I didn't mention it? I didn't mention it here:
> As does water seeping through clay, and gas spreading out into the atmosphere.
Well done, you've quickly checked that California uses so-called impermeable clay and slightly shored up the first point of your argument. But... "see below".
> Look, as much as I'd like to tear you a new one regarding property theory,
So why don't you try? Because you know you're onto a loser. I seem to recall that most of california was stolen during the goldrush by the US Military and by scalp-hunters. Which also involved a lot of murder. You've lost your "property theory" before you've even begun.
> it's really getting off the main topic, which is whether we're really forgoing > valuable opportunities by using landfills.
Well that's not the main topic either now is it. You posted on slashdot that the pollution caused by millions of disposed DVDs is negligible and I responded that it is not. The topic as far as we are concerned would appear to be whether the pollution is negligible or not. So you seem to be slightly off on the facts again. But really the main topic as far as your concerned is hastily trying to conceal your rank stupidity.
You posted some "facts" about landfill which you'd heard on a TV program like some giddy fanboy, and have since tried every trick in the book to draw attention away from that. You finally got round to the phrase "impermeable clay" but probably got this from a landfill company's website which (surprise surprise) failed to mention that impermeable clay isn't actually impermeable.
You're now trying to turn it into an economic argument about speculation, but seeing as you didn't mention this to start with, it is, by your own criterion, invalid.
> If there were future alternate uses > of this landfill space that actually satisfied human desires (including the > desire to "save the earth"), there would be much more upward pressure on the > price of landfill space, which would feed back to disposal costs and make > people not want to throw so much away.
The futures market is based on cod economic theory and does little other than fuck up alot of poor people's lives whilst making some rich people even richer.
Most people don't spend their lives in minute analysis of the future consequences of their actions; and even if they did, corporate lobbyists and the governmental spin machine do a good job at keeping them ill-informed of said consequences. The theory also fails to work when applied to anything longer than the medium-term. No one buys or bets on anything based on its value in a hundred years time. Environmental processes generally operate over the long-term.
Your argument is that land used for rubbish dumps costs what it does now because no-one is speculating that it will cost more in the future thereby driving up the cost: it's cheap now because people think it will be cheap in the future. You have fantastically misunderstood whole swathes of economic theory.
> Every one that can sell it for more than the (trivial) cost of doing so. I don't have numbers,
No. You don't have ANY facts at your disposal whatsoever.
> look what you're really claiming here: that businesses are basically ignoring a chance to get free > money. Now, you can claim corporations "only care about profit". Or you can claim they ignore > profit opportunities to fuck up the environment, but you can't do both. You might as well claim > that corporations regularly turn down donations from the public.
Actually all landfill sites have to recover methane else they suffer explosions, and quite alot of them just burn it off, thereby ignoring the chance to make free money. Check your facts.
I am claiming that corporations are largely irresponsible entities.
But I can claim what you state above. What alot of corporate management types fail to recognise these days is that eco-friendly tech often does provide a ROI. They hear "g
> Wow, you really need to tone it down a bit. I know the whole moral indignation > thing works on most people, but it really doesn't work on me. You think that > just because you're a lefty,
I'm not a Lefty. I'm a Righty. Tough luck with the appeal to emotions there.
> you have justice on your side. You don't.
No. I don't pay enough.
> My argument doesn't extend to plutonium because obviously the radiation spills > over to other people's property.
As does water seeping through clay, and gas spreading out into the atmosphere.
> "We" do not own the earth. Specific individuals own specific parts of the > earth, unless you're okay with me barging into your place and taking stuff you > don't need.
Specific individuals have taken large parts of the earth and now shoot or jail anyone who tries to do the same. True for the US and UK. Both those establishments barged into people's houses and took what they wanted.
Nice try with the old and tired (and emotive) argument against common land "well you wouldn't want me barging into your house etc". No I wouldn't (I might catch something), but a landfill site and it's surrounding area isn't a house, in fact most of this planet is not covered with houses, yet it all seems to be owned by someone for no very good reason. You just accept the law of voracious property-grabbing and I don't, and I think you're morally wrong for that. And a hypocrite to boot.
> The "metric communist" thing was a joke. Sheesh.
So were remarks regarding your ancestry. Sheesh yourself.
> You totally missed the point about eliminating things because they're not > necessary: your argument justifies the extermination of anyone who causes an > "unnecessary" imposition.
It's about trying to eliminate that which is unecessary and harmful.
> Every landfill that can harvest methane, does. It's free money. Ditto for any > other chemicals that can be resold.
So how many do?
> Insurance does fix the damages. They have to pay for the cleanup of everything > they damage. Again, I don't think you want a world where nobody is allowed to > do anything on the off chance it might hurt someone, even if they're fully > capable of compensating that damage, because that would justify zero products > ever being brought to market.
And if your health has suffered irreprably? How's the insurance help there? What if you're dead?
I don't want such a world either. I'd like some more responsibility from people and corporations, not state control - see, not a lefty. I didn't say ban the DVDs did I? I just said it was wrong. Balfour Beatty were fined £10 million today, a piss in the lake as far they're concerned, for not bothering to mend some rail track properly, resulting in... dead people.
I don't care a damn about sides but that is undoubtedly unjust.
And that was one of the few instances of a powerful group of people finally being held to account for the damage they've caused. Most of them get away with it.
> It seems you've never actually learned the arguments of the people you > disagree with, so you have to respond emotionally. That's also a sign you > don't know where you really stand. Please remedy this, and try to make your > case without naked appeal to emotion.
An emotional ad hominem in itself.
I have studied arguments such as yours and decided not to learn them.
Your primary reason for justifying landfills, that they are clay-lined and therefore safe, was rebutted unemotionally twice: clay seeps through water. When you've answered that, we can move on from there.
"Okay, let's go over the meaning of pollution. Now, if I throw trash all over my living room, is that pollution? I don't think so. Pollution is when you impose environmental degradation on other people or their property. So does burying trash in a landfill count? No. It's one person's property. He bought out all future users of that property. If using that underground space as a landfill would forgo some great opportunity, specualtors would make that reflected in the price. In reality, it doesn't, because you can dig so deep to bury the trash and not affect the land above it."
Nice use of sophistry and handwaving nonsense to justify your selfish actions. An extension of your "argument" would be that if I bury 10 tonnes of plutonium waste in back garden it isn't causing any pollution.
Another conclusion of your argument would be that the ozone hole isn't caused by CFC pollution, because no-one owns the ozone layer, so it cannot possibly suffer pollution. What about when the first person gets skin cancer from decreased UV protection? How does all the pollution that caused it suddenly magic itself into existence? Forgive my ignorance, I didn't study Republocrat Ecology 101 at University.
Your entire universe is clearly constucted around the principle of ownership. Thus you feel that if you "own" a patch of land then you own all the flora and fauna and that any action of yours which serve to kill them is not pollution as they're yours, to be exterminated at your whim.
Newsflash: we all own this planet. But I know you capitalist scum-fucks like to go round sticking your flags into the soil like substitue erections, and proclaiming it to be yours before murdering the indiginous populations.
"Regarding potential for pollution bleeding into groundwater and such, do you really know how landfills work? They have to put a bottom layer of clay 8+ feet thick."
"They have to..."
There's the flaw in that argument right there. And clay is permeable to water you know. But 2 marks for your quick use of google there.
"(That's more than 2 meters if you're a communist.) "
The rest of the world seems to have cottoned-on to decimalisation as being a bit more advanced than denarii and heads of wheat and god knows what else. Sorry if you think that's communism. It's actually called intelligence. Something which either hasn't spread to whichever backwater hicksville you call home, or was selected out through ruthless (in-)breeding.
"They have to obey all kinds of regulations "
There it is again: "They have to". Seems to be a lot of court cases in the US at the moment about companies not doing what they legally "have to".
"to insure the pollution doesn't bleed out. They generally hold insurance policies against liability in case it does, in which case the damage is paid out."
And what exactly do you expect a load of dead animals to do with an insurance payout cheque.
Are you really so stupid as to think that an insurance payout miraculously heals all the damage that has been done by an event? Or did Penn and Teller tell you it is so.
"(Fun fact: landfills extract the methane from degradation of garbage and use it to heat homes. So in one sense stuff you throw away already is recycled.)"
Yeah? As a percentage, how many dumps do this? What do they do about all the other chemicals, liquid and gas that they release?
"Source: again, the Penn and Teller show which can probably easily be verified."
So verify it. Don't just quote known prestigidators.
"If you really want to oppose "unnecessary" product use on the grounds that it may (and is extremely unlikely to) pollute outside a landfill and not get cleaned up, you should advocate the extermination of "unnecessary" people who may commit crimes and be unable to compensate the victims."
Sorry what's your point? That people are products? Well that's the initial assumption of this argument. Newsflash: some of "communists" like to be believe that people are people, not property.
Here's hoping you choke on the next corporate cock that feeds you...
Whilst one DVD may not be very polluting, the agenda of "sell more products" is. How un-polluting do you really suppose 100 million a year plus DVDs are? Now multiply this by all the crap-hole products that consumers buy and ditch often without even using said product.
Burying something in a landfill site, doesn't somehow mean that zero pollution is caused, which is what you seem to think. Chemicals will slowly leach out for years to come and what about the inital environmental costs of production?
> I own multiple retail businesses, and when a child steals from me, I guess I > "extort" the parent by saying "pay up or I'm calling the cops." In fact, I've > CALLED the cops a few times to arrest the kid, and the parent pays up, in > front of the cops, and I've never been arrested for extortion.
And on these occasions did you patiently explain to the police what you'd done, and that seeing as you had committed extortion you should be arrested? No? Then don't use their lack of action as justification for more of your morally dubious actions; actions made more dubious by the air of smugness you exude.
Honestly, try stopping the kids from leaving your store with your goods and not threatening their parents with something quite distressing, nor forcing a sale on them.
"The cunt splice is a knot of the splice variety, similar to the eye splice. It is typically used for light lines (e.g., the log-line) where a single splice would tend to come undone, the rope being frequently wet. It makes a very strong knot. A cunt splice is a join between two ropes, made by splicing the ends slightly apart, to make an eye in the joined rope which lies shut when the rope is taut. being frequently loosened by the water."
> You probably mistake capitalism for anarchy.
Anarchism is about not wanting to be ruled from on high, not about bribes, murderous practices or illegal deals.
You're probably mistaking anarchism for your own arse.
Slashdot Mirror
As another UK-er, I'd have to agree. It seems to me that people donating money to parties, shortly precedes said people being given fat contracts for this, or being left out of that piece of legislation. So much for funding.
Also, the labour party actually lost the popular vote in england, so much for the party.
Democracy? Pah.
> That's a value assumption on your behalf.
... ? The most breathtakingly ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Be advised that if you publicly prove me wrong, you'll have justified me smashing your face in with a brick.
One's appraisal of history is a series of value judgments of a series of value judgements. To believe otherwise is most definitely stupid.
> Millions of years of biological evolution would say otherwise.
> Just because you are morally outraged at the fact that species such as
> humanity have used violence for millions of years to curb socially inadequate > behaviour doesn't mean that violence doesn't serve a purpose.
Well we're trying to put some of that behind us now, you know, the throwing of shit and hanging from trees by our tails. In all seriousness, apes are largely better behaved than we are. They argue, they beat their chests, they don't usually start laying into each other. And they don't kill each other. They do have orgies though. Maybe that's the secret.
In most species of animal, if any violence between competing males does occur, it is a recognised loss of status on someone's part that prevents further violence.
> People seem to think that violence is completely negative, however it has
> served a purpose throughout history.
The violence of self-defence is arguably justified. I believe it is, others don't.
Most violence committed throughout history has been in the name of king and country, for the empire, the fatherland, the glorious republic, so some power-hungry visionary fool can have more lives to play with. I don't readily see the justification in that.
> To stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the immorality of violence,
> because your modern values demand peace, would be to deny the bloodbath of
> human history.
Some of us are promoting the ideas of progress, evolution, civilisation: let's push things forward. Enough with your atavistic recourse to murder.
> Some examples of violence being used to "solve problems" include gaining the
> resources of others and most importantly to defend against loss of status
I think there are laws against this sort of attitude and with good reason. And "most importantly [...] loss of status"
> and ones resources.
That too is arguably justified, although less so than self-defence. I'm also going to advocate the slaughter of animals to serve my need for all sorts of delicious meat products, but I don't think I'd bother to try to justify it.
> These are important things in a social species such as humans.
Important to those who, like dogs, need to know their place in the order. And I'm guessing most us on slashdot would be somewhere near the bottom.
> Am I saying that violence is the only way? No. But you'd be stupid to think
> that it never solved anything when history says otherwise.
See top.
According to this page http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2062 15 the problem was "incorrect coding on the web page itself. If the type attribute is not specified as "audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" in the html embed or object tag, ra, rm and ram file types will not play."
Ir provides you with a link to a modified problem that get's around this problem.
Anyway I installed the latest version of realalt 1.43 (which contains the modified plugin) and it works in FF fine now. IE now back to its one true use.
It's time to ditch that realplayer.
And the sound quality must have been awful. Realaudio may be a proprietary format but it compresses audio at a much higher rate than mp3 for a comparable quality.
You most certainly chose right.
I have to use IE anyway for webdev, and all I ever use it for is the BBC and for going "hmm, now why doesn't this work?"
Also, having read this http://www.grc.com/downloaders.htm coupled with the fact that realplayer always tries to dial out on any PC I've ever seen it on I decided to keep well away from realplayer.
But yeah you still chose right, cause it sure sticks in the throat to have to use IE for anything other than showing how shit IE is.
I installed real alternative so I could listen to the BBC, which is almost as much a pile of crap as real player; but it just about works and doesn't try to worm its way into the depths of your OS.
These days I pretty much only listen to WFMU anyway ( http://www.wfmu.org/ ).
> No, not at all. Because I have to make trade-offs. If I wanted to fully cover every side issue that
... land. Now I see where your total lack of understanding springs from, from the weird hallucinations you keep having.
... learn english boy.
> comes up, I'd be here forever. But unlike you, I understand the concept of tradeoffs.
Is that another one of your emotional ad hominems that you try to berate me for. Your double standards are becoming almost endearing now.
> If human life extremely valuable? Yes.
In dollar terms I'm sure you think it is.
> Is it so valuable that no one should ever do anything that increases risk of death to themselves or > others? No.
Contrary to your pretense no one is claiming that.
> Is pollution bad? Yes. Is pollution so bad that under no circumstance should anyone ignite
> anything?
Contrary to your pretense no one is claiming that.
> Is tearing slashdot environmentalists a collective new one on economics worth my time? Yes.
"[T]earing a new one" sounds dangerously like emotional talk. You don't tear anyone anything. On this particular issue, you steadfastly ignore all the environmental arguments (as you have no knowledge thereof) and come back with a load of "well it must be okay as otherwise it would cost more" nonsense.
See you shift the argument, or trade off (as you put it), from what you knwo you don't understand to what you think you do and then claim victory in an environmental argument by arguing (badly) about economics.
> Well that's not the main topic either now is it. You posted on slashdot that the pollution caused by
> millions of disposed DVDs is negligible and I responded that it is not. The topic as far as we are > concerned would appear to be whether the pollution is negligible or not. So you seem to be
> slightly off on the facts again. But really the main topic as far as your concerned is hastily trying > to conceal your rank stupidity.
> Ah, the emotion bubbling up again.
You call me stupid, that's okay. I call you stupid, that's not okay. Yes?
> Yes, I am dicussing the same topic. You brought up pollution and the waste of landfill space.
Are you on drugs? Seriously. You hallucinate. Where did I bring up the "waste of landfill space"? I'm bemoaning the use of landfill as a methodology, and therefore don't consider it possible to waste such a thing. I consider landfill sites a waste of
The "lack of landfill space" was 1980s scare-mongering that no-one uses as part of an argument in favour of recycling. I guess Penn & Teller didn't make that clear, huh?
> Those are separate issues. I agree that DVD makers should pay for the (tiny) pollution in the
> manufacturing of the DVD. The remaining question is, what is the harm of burying them in
> landfills? Are we really forgoing opportunities (i.e., causing waste) by burying them. In fact, we
> are not, and I address your argument against this below.
You're redefining words to suit your whim. Municipal waste isn't "a forgone opportunity". Part of waste is a forgone opportunity sure, but that's all you can focus on. The money part, not the whole. There's more to life and there's more to problem of pollution.
Is shit the forgone opportunity of unmetabolised consumption? How about toxic effluent?
We don't "cause waste by burying" it. No one is claiming that.
"In fact, we are not, and I address your argument against this below." Well are you agreeing with me or not? You say "not X" and then say you'll address my argument against X. Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but
> You're now trying to turn it into an economic argument about speculation, but seeing as you
> didn't mention this to start with, it is, by your own criterion, invalid.
> Oh, I didn't mention it? I didn't mention it here:
>
> As does water seeping through clay, and gas spreading out into the atmosphere.
... "see below".
Well done, you've quickly checked that California uses so-called impermeable clay and slightly shored up the first point of your argument. But
> Look, as much as I'd like to tear you a new one regarding property theory,
So why don't you try? Because you know you're onto a loser. I seem to recall that most of california was stolen during the goldrush by the US Military and by scalp-hunters. Which also involved a lot of murder. You've lost your "property theory" before you've even begun.
> it's really getting off the main topic, which is whether we're really forgoing
> valuable opportunities by using landfills.
Well that's not the main topic either now is it. You posted on slashdot that the pollution caused by
millions of disposed DVDs is negligible and I responded that it is not. The topic as far as we are concerned would appear to be whether the pollution is negligible or not. So you seem to be slightly off on the facts again. But really the main topic as far as your concerned is hastily trying to conceal your rank stupidity.
You posted some "facts" about landfill which you'd heard on a TV program like some giddy fanboy, and have since tried every trick in the book to draw attention away from that. You finally got round to the phrase "impermeable clay" but probably got this from a landfill company's website which (surprise surprise) failed to mention that impermeable clay isn't actually impermeable.
You're now trying to turn it into an economic argument about speculation, but seeing as you didn't mention this to start with, it is, by your own criterion, invalid.
> If there were future alternate uses
> of this landfill space that actually satisfied human desires (including the
> desire to "save the earth"), there would be much more upward pressure on the
> price of landfill space, which would feed back to disposal costs and make
> people not want to throw so much away.
The futures market is based on cod economic theory and does little other than fuck up alot of poor people's lives whilst making some rich people even richer.
Most people don't spend their lives in minute analysis of the future consequences of their actions; and even if they did, corporate lobbyists and the governmental spin machine do a good job at keeping them ill-informed of said consequences. The theory also fails to work when applied to anything longer than the medium-term. No one buys or bets on anything based on its value in a hundred years time. Environmental processes generally operate over the long-term.
Your argument is that land used for rubbish dumps costs what it does now because no-one is speculating that it will cost more in the future thereby driving up the cost: it's cheap now because people think it will be cheap in the future. You have fantastically misunderstood whole swathes of economic theory.
> Every one that can sell it for more than the (trivial) cost of doing so. I don't have numbers,
No. You don't have ANY facts at your disposal whatsoever.
> look what you're really claiming here: that businesses are basically ignoring a chance to get free
> money. Now, you can claim corporations "only care about profit". Or you can claim they ignore
> profit opportunities to fuck up the environment, but you can't do both. You might as well claim
> that corporations regularly turn down donations from the public.
Actually all landfill sites have to recover methane else they suffer explosions, and quite alot of them just burn it off, thereby ignoring the chance to make free money. Check your facts.
I am claiming that corporations are largely irresponsible entities.
But I can claim what you state above. What alot of corporate management types fail to recognise these days is that eco-friendly tech often does provide a ROI. They hear "g
> Wow, you really need to tone it down a bit. I know the whole moral indignation
... dead people.
> thing works on most people, but it really doesn't work on me. You think that
> just because you're a lefty,
I'm not a Lefty. I'm a Righty. Tough luck with the appeal to emotions there.
> you have justice on your side. You don't.
No. I don't pay enough.
> My argument doesn't extend to plutonium because obviously the radiation spills > over to other people's property.
As does water seeping through clay, and gas spreading out into the atmosphere.
> "We" do not own the earth. Specific individuals own specific parts of the
> earth, unless you're okay with me barging into your place and taking stuff you > don't need.
Specific individuals have taken large parts of the earth and now shoot or jail anyone who tries to do the same. True for the US and UK. Both those establishments barged into people's houses and took what they wanted.
Nice try with the old and tired (and emotive) argument against common land "well you wouldn't want me barging into your house etc". No I wouldn't (I might catch something), but a landfill site and it's surrounding area isn't a house, in fact most of this planet is not covered with houses, yet it all seems to be owned by someone for no very good reason. You just accept the law of voracious property-grabbing and I don't, and I think you're morally wrong for that. And a hypocrite to boot.
> The "metric communist" thing was a joke. Sheesh.
So were remarks regarding your ancestry. Sheesh yourself.
> You totally missed the point about eliminating things because they're not
> necessary: your argument justifies the extermination of anyone who causes an
> "unnecessary" imposition.
It's about trying to eliminate that which is unecessary and harmful.
> Every landfill that can harvest methane, does. It's free money. Ditto for any > other chemicals that can be resold.
So how many do?
> Insurance does fix the damages. They have to pay for the cleanup of everything > they damage. Again, I don't think you want a world where nobody is allowed to > do anything on the off chance it might hurt someone, even if they're fully
> capable of compensating that damage, because that would justify zero products > ever being brought to market.
And if your health has suffered irreprably? How's the insurance help there? What if you're dead?
I don't want such a world either. I'd like some more responsibility from people and corporations, not state control - see, not a lefty. I didn't say ban the DVDs did I? I just said it was wrong. Balfour Beatty were fined £10 million today, a piss in the lake as far they're concerned, for not bothering to mend some rail track properly, resulting in
I don't care a damn about sides but that is undoubtedly unjust.
And that was one of the few instances of a powerful group of people finally being held to account for the damage they've caused. Most of them get away with it.
> It seems you've never actually learned the arguments of the people you
> disagree with, so you have to respond emotionally. That's also a sign you
> don't know where you really stand. Please remedy this, and try to make your
> case without naked appeal to emotion.
An emotional ad hominem in itself.
I have studied arguments such as yours and decided not to learn them.
Your primary reason for justifying landfills, that they are clay-lined and therefore safe, was rebutted unemotionally twice: clay seeps through water. When you've answered that, we can move on from there.
"Okay, let's go over the meaning of pollution. Now, if I throw trash all over my living room, is that pollution? I don't think so. Pollution is when you impose environmental degradation on other people or their property. So does burying trash in a landfill count? No. It's one person's property. He bought out all future users of that property. If using that underground space as a landfill would forgo some great opportunity, specualtors would make that reflected in the price. In reality, it doesn't, because you can dig so deep to bury the trash and not affect the land above it."
..."
...
Nice use of sophistry and handwaving nonsense to justify your selfish actions.
An extension of your "argument" would be that if I bury 10 tonnes of plutonium waste in back garden it isn't causing any pollution.
Another conclusion of your argument would be that the ozone hole isn't caused by CFC pollution, because no-one owns the ozone layer, so it cannot possibly suffer pollution. What about when the first person gets skin cancer from decreased UV protection? How does all the pollution that caused it suddenly magic itself into existence? Forgive my ignorance, I didn't study Republocrat Ecology 101 at University.
Your entire universe is clearly constucted around the principle of ownership. Thus you feel that if you "own" a patch of land then you own all the flora and fauna and that any action of yours which serve to kill them is not pollution as they're yours, to be exterminated at your whim.
Newsflash: we all own this planet. But I know you capitalist scum-fucks like to go round sticking your flags into the soil like substitue erections, and proclaiming it to be yours before murdering the indiginous populations.
"Regarding potential for pollution bleeding into groundwater and such, do you really know how landfills work? They have to put a bottom layer of clay 8+ feet thick."
"They have to
There's the flaw in that argument right there. And clay is permeable to water you know. But 2 marks for your quick use of google there.
"(That's more than 2 meters if you're a communist.) "
The rest of the world seems to have cottoned-on to decimalisation as being a bit more advanced than denarii and heads of wheat and god knows what else. Sorry if you think that's communism. It's actually called intelligence. Something which either hasn't spread to whichever backwater hicksville you call home, or was selected out through ruthless (in-)breeding.
"They have to obey all kinds of regulations "
There it is again: "They have to". Seems to be a lot of court cases in the US at the moment about companies not doing what they legally "have to".
"to insure the pollution doesn't bleed out. They generally hold insurance policies against liability in case it does, in which case the damage is paid out."
And what exactly do you expect a load of dead animals to do with an insurance payout cheque.
Are you really so stupid as to think that an insurance payout miraculously heals all the damage that has been done by an event? Or did Penn and Teller tell you it is so.
"(Fun fact: landfills extract the methane from degradation of garbage and use it to heat homes. So in one sense stuff you throw away already is recycled.)"
Yeah? As a percentage, how many dumps do this? What do they do about all the other chemicals, liquid and gas that they release?
"Source: again, the Penn and Teller show which can probably easily be verified."
So verify it. Don't just quote known prestigidators.
"If you really want to oppose "unnecessary" product use on the grounds that it may (and is extremely unlikely to) pollute outside a landfill and not get cleaned up, you should advocate the extermination of "unnecessary" people who may commit crimes and be unable to compensate the victims."
Sorry what's your point? That people are products? Well that's the initial assumption of this argument. Newsflash: some of "communists" like to be believe that people are people, not property.
Here's hoping you choke on the next corporate cock that feeds you
Let me preface this by saying I don't own a car.
..."
Whilst one DVD may not be very polluting, the agenda of "sell more products" is. How un-polluting do you really suppose 100 million a year plus DVDs are? Now multiply this by all the crap-hole products that consumers buy and ditch often without even using said product.
Burying something in a landfill site, doesn't somehow mean that zero pollution is caused, which is what you seem to think. Chemicals will slowly leach out for years to come and what about the inital environmental costs of production?
"The fact is,
Why is what you say a "fact"?
> I own multiple retail businesses, and when a child steals from me, I guess I
> "extort" the parent by saying "pay up or I'm calling the cops." In fact, I've > CALLED the cops a few times to arrest the kid, and the parent pays up, in
> front of the cops, and I've never been arrested for extortion.
And on these occasions did you patiently explain to the police what you'd done, and that seeing as you had committed extortion you should be arrested? No? Then don't use their lack of action as justification for more of your morally dubious actions; actions made more dubious by the air of smugness you exude.
Honestly, try stopping the kids from leaving your store with your goods and not threatening their parents with something quite distressing, nor forcing a sale on them.
Microsoft is a bunch of fecking eejits.
The collective noun in UK-style action.
And a cunt is a type of knot.
"The cunt splice is a knot of the splice variety, similar to the eye splice. It is typically used for light lines (e.g., the log-line) where a single splice would tend to come undone, the rope being frequently wet. It makes a very strong knot. A cunt splice is a join between two ropes, made by splicing the ends slightly apart, to make an eye in the joined rope which lies shut when the rope is taut. being frequently loosened by the water."
> You probably mistake capitalism for anarchy. Anarchism is about not wanting to be ruled from on high, not about bribes, murderous practices or illegal deals. You're probably mistaking anarchism for your own arse.