Bah. There have always been people who can't navigate to save their own lives. The difference is that now they have a GPS to navigate for them and take the blame for their inability to navigate.
Well of course most people don't have a concept of which way a road runs in cardinal directions. Most local roads don't run in cardinal directions, or even directly between cardinal directions. They usually run something like "sort of south-east until they get to the church and then turns northerly curving around to full north to get around the lake, then turns back east".
So what happens when someone with very different ethical standards shows up in your country demanding special accommodations for their culture? Or when they get into a war with you?
The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.
With the problem that it's not true. We already produce enough food for everyone in the world, but fail to distribute it to everyone due to political problems.
SCHEME (noun): a dialect of the programming language Lisp based upon simplified syntax, elegantly minimal semantics, and building from powerful primitives up to complex systems. See: call-with-current-continuation
So we can thus translate this article and the CEO's comments to: NEWS FLASH: person who thinks they'd be the Queen wants the organization of human work turned into an insect hive. BFD.
80K/year is "barely a living wage"? If you want a 4 bedroom house with a three car garage, 2 Hummers, 3 kids, a couple of dogs, and a 2-week overseas vacation every year, maybe.
As your luck would have it, my family makes just about that much. We indeed have a 4-bedroom house, and 2 dogs. But we can only afford 2 kids, 2 cars (one of which is 12 years old and inherited from a dead relative), and a single week of vacation inside the United States per year.
I suppose we might be able to "live it up" more if we didn't have to pay my university tuition (and soon my brother's) or save for the future.
Riches ain't what they used to be. Mind you, we live in the Albany, NY area where a dollar still goes quite far.
Wow, you imposing increased costs supported by arbitrary and fallacious reasoning is the free market. Wow, now I have seen it fucking all. Hey, you owe me $20 because your computer uses more energy then mine thereby polluting my air. You can either pay it or turn the damn thing off, that's the free market in your world.
Except for the bit where we democratically elect the people who tell us how much we pay to offset excessive emissions or can choose a more energy-efficient computer that doesn't pollute, yeah, that's how it works.
You attempting to punish people by forcing them to pay more for decisions made under completely different rules then you are willing to work by.
Actually, I have to abide by the law also. We left-wingers don't get a little pass in the mail that entitles us to free carbon-dioxide emissions for being Right Thinking or any bullshit like that.
And "innocent" people? This is a political, economic, and technological one. It isn't an issue of sin or ritual purity. We're still Americans, not Fremen. Get your head out of the fantasy world where a radical Communist government has tried to limit everyone's standard of living by rationing energy. The right-wing demanded a free market approach to limiting emissions, and your request was answered. Deal with it, delay the problem until energy rationing becomes the only workable solution, just don't keep trying to ignore the problem. And yes, we have to get China and India to abide by these rules too. I'm not letting them ruin my planet.
I'm not talking about "having" people give up their homes. I'm talking about making them pay for the environmental cost of their energy usage. If they want to, they can just reduce their energy usage without moving. If that's genuinely scientifically and economically impossible, then they can move. That's free markets for you; nobody ought to subsidize your inability to afford the lifestyle you want.
To say that I'm forcing people to "give up their homes" by making them pay for their energy is like claiming that not subsidizing the local supermarket is forcing people to give up their food.
Then why are you kvetching about a law that would make energy producers pay the environmental cost of their violation of rights to life and property (ie: pollution).
Seriously, you thinking you have an answer to a problem -- that scares the hell out of me.
Yes, it's much less scary for problems to go entirely unsolved than for people to invent solutions, because the solutions might have side effects or, God forbid, not be perfect.
There is a point in which people cannot trim their gas usage any lower. Going to and from work is mandatory if you want to keep a job, regardless of what anyone thinks of public transportation, it's non-existent in many if not the majority of places.
Then maybe people can finally move out of the sticks and live somewhere civilized. I know that many supposedly enjoy the countryside, but exurbs are not countryside. Too many Americans now live in the worst of all possible locales: too rural for the benefits of city life, too dense for untamed wilderness, and with land prices too high for self-sufficient farming.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. The Duke and Jessica were as married as feudal nobles ever really get.
Bah. There have always been people who can't navigate to save their own lives. The difference is that now they have a GPS to navigate for them and take the blame for their inability to navigate.
Well of course most people don't have a concept of which way a road runs in cardinal directions. Most local roads don't run in cardinal directions, or even directly between cardinal directions. They usually run something like "sort of south-east until they get to the church and then turns northerly curving around to full north to get around the lake, then turns back east".
Yeah, well there's a reason X11 had its own chapter in UHH.
The IQ test has, built into it, the cultural bias of the white, european, while completely disregarding other values.
Yes, that explains why Jews and East Asians do so horrifically on it.
So what happens when someone with very different ethical standards shows up in your country demanding special accommodations for their culture? Or when they get into a war with you?
And a subtle, suave, sexy reference to Futurama's own Captain Zapp Brannigan.
The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.
With the problem that it's not true. We already produce enough food for everyone in the world, but fail to distribute it to everyone due to political problems.
Super Tuna Fish! FUCK YEAH!!!! Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!
It just looks like a bunch of heaving meat to me. Are they going to zoom out to get a look at the whole thing or what?
SCHEME (noun): a dialect of the programming language Lisp based upon simplified syntax, elegantly minimal semantics, and building from powerful primitives up to complex systems. See: call-with-current-continuation
So when the stars are right, the living creatures of Earth all die. Sounds like it's nearly time for Cthulhu to rise again!
Damn it, pun threads are for Reddit!
So we can thus translate this article and the CEO's comments to: NEWS FLASH: person who thinks they'd be the Queen wants the organization of human work turned into an insect hive. BFD.
Yeah, but then you have to put up with being told you're neither a Real Texan nor a Real American ;-).
80K/year is "barely a living wage"? If you want a 4 bedroom house with a three car garage, 2 Hummers, 3 kids, a couple of dogs, and a 2-week overseas vacation every year, maybe.
As your luck would have it, my family makes just about that much. We indeed have a 4-bedroom house, and 2 dogs. But we can only afford 2 kids, 2 cars (one of which is 12 years old and inherited from a dead relative), and a single week of vacation inside the United States per year.
I suppose we might be able to "live it up" more if we didn't have to pay my university tuition (and soon my brother's) or save for the future.
Riches ain't what they used to be. Mind you, we live in the Albany, NY area where a dollar still goes quite far.
Do you like fishsticks?
Oooh, ooh! I've got one... the spice melange! Oh, wait...
Wow, you imposing increased costs supported by arbitrary and fallacious reasoning is the free market. Wow, now I have seen it fucking all. Hey, you owe me $20 because your computer uses more energy then mine thereby polluting my air. You can either pay it or turn the damn thing off, that's the free market in your world.
Except for the bit where we democratically elect the people who tell us how much we pay to offset excessive emissions or can choose a more energy-efficient computer that doesn't pollute, yeah, that's how it works.
You attempting to punish people by forcing them to pay more for decisions made under completely different rules then you are willing to work by.
Actually, I have to abide by the law also. We left-wingers don't get a little pass in the mail that entitles us to free carbon-dioxide emissions for being Right Thinking or any bullshit like that.
And "innocent" people? This is a political, economic, and technological one. It isn't an issue of sin or ritual purity. We're still Americans, not Fremen. Get your head out of the fantasy world where a radical Communist government has tried to limit everyone's standard of living by rationing energy. The right-wing demanded a free market approach to limiting emissions, and your request was answered. Deal with it, delay the problem until energy rationing becomes the only workable solution, just don't keep trying to ignore the problem. And yes, we have to get China and India to abide by these rules too. I'm not letting them ruin my planet.
I'm not talking about "having" people give up their homes. I'm talking about making them pay for the environmental cost of their energy usage. If they want to, they can just reduce their energy usage without moving. If that's genuinely scientifically and economically impossible, then they can move. That's free markets for you; nobody ought to subsidize your inability to afford the lifestyle you want.
To say that I'm forcing people to "give up their homes" by making them pay for their energy is like claiming that not subsidizing the local supermarket is forcing people to give up their food.
Then why are you kvetching about a law that would make energy producers pay the environmental cost of their violation of rights to life and property (ie: pollution).
Seriously, you thinking you have an answer to a problem -- that scares the hell out of me.
Yes, it's much less scary for problems to go entirely unsolved than for people to invent solutions, because the solutions might have side effects or, God forbid, not be perfect.
Do not drink from the water of life while pregnant.
Bi-la kaifa, Saint Alia of the Knife!
There is a point in which people cannot trim their gas usage any lower. Going to and from work is mandatory if you want to keep a job, regardless of what anyone thinks of public transportation, it's non-existent in many if not the majority of places.
Then maybe people can finally move out of the sticks and live somewhere civilized. I know that many supposedly enjoy the countryside, but exurbs are not countryside. Too many Americans now live in the worst of all possible locales: too rural for the benefits of city life, too dense for untamed wilderness, and with land prices too high for self-sufficient farming.
Why does "Eurotrash losers" and a direct invocation of Godwin's Law get +1 insightful when it trashes environmentalism?