First of all I'm going to take a precautionary WOOSH over my own head about not getting the joke.
I don't think being a manager would entitle him to knowing details about operating an oil rig, hell even a few BP execs don't know that.
What if Bush would be the usual self and fucks up everything? With all the connections he's got in the oil industry and fucking Dick fucking Cheney, wouldn't he just be more gullible to BP's promises -- let the free market decide or such bullshit and let all the things be settled in court on individual basis or via class action. Would the government pressure BP to set up 20 bn escrow fund?
There's also additional irony in your statement, as republicans are always(say, since as far back as Reagan) have been perceived as being good on security and now you suggesting that a republican politician should probably handle a crisis that doesn't involve blowing shit up and/or killing people.
Sorry for using broad terms, but then how did we end up with corporation legally being a person? I read somewhere that a legal clerk messed up something citing judges "Corporation is in no way a person" to "Corporation is a person", I'm assuming that carries some weight.
It is not as if supreme court judges can do whatever they want. The law that legally makes corporation into a person caused that decision and should be stricken down, then even a conservative judge woudn't be able to argue for such nonsense.
and costs of 'cleaning up' disasters are much higher than costs of preventing them.
And your point being?
If a government wants to, has a political will and the correct structure (read: is not neck deep in taking 'contributions' and generally relying on the corporations for the (re)elections) then nothing at all can stop a government from suing.
Well, first of all, thanks for being civil, that really helps to get your point across.
Also as one of the people replying in the same thread pointed out, comparing BP disaster and G20 meeting is a false dichotomy, if you don't see it let me spell it out -- one is ecological disaster and the other is federal government are just being assholes, if anything G20 meeting reminds me of Mulroney farewell tour.
But since we are talking about BP, your argument is complete bullshit BP is liable, but it's a corporation it has a limited liability, government can sue them only for so much and you can't just jail and shoot people, there's this thing called constitution (both in US and in Canada) that prevents government doing exactly that, there's also pension funds across whole europe that invested in BP and whole lot other reasons; is it enough to say why BP shouldn't just be arbitrary put on a pike?
Also in your fluffy libertarian world with weak (read small) government anyone is supposed to prevent corporations influencing it?
Liberal fraud and G20 meetings are both examples of government waste, I don't really see how you can miss this.
What do you mean by 'play with your moderator points'?
I still have moderator points, but I haven't found '-1 Wrong and somewhat clueless' or '-1 Too stupid for a troll' option, so I'll just elaborate.
Your statement about the argument being bullshit is bullshit.
Just like in case of BP not spending the necessary money and not securing the Gulf of Mexico properly and now paying tens of billions for it + all that oil in the water, imagine if a representative of any country got hurt or killed, what that would do to the image of the country.
First of all, the accident happened with BP was the first of all due to lack of government regulation, does abbreviation MMS ring any bells? and greedy corporations being greedy and all. BP thing was entirely preventable and should not have happened at all, that's why everyone is pissed at them, and the billions it will pay will probably not cover all the damage anyway.
Sort of like that luge accident during the Vancouver Olympics that was totally avoidable had the organizers put some soft barriers, like nets in front of those metal posts that the poor 20y.o. Georgian dude killed himself against.
Allocating more money on the problem does not mean that the soft barriers would have been installed anyway, there's always multiple things to spend money on.
Should it be a billion or half of that or 2 billion, I don't know, but what is known is that a failure in this sort of thing would cost magnitudes more than this money spent.
The biggest problem here, as the parent pointed out, is that why the hell did the meeting had to take place in Toronto with government pointlessly spending garbles while paralyzing a major city and giving its inhabitance an impression of living in a police state? I'm not even evaluating a cost of failure in security, but it's efficacy and how it would have been much better for everyone if Stephen Harper would feel the need to compensate for the perception of the size of his penis, which now I have reason to assume is a quite a bit below average.
And what's up with that artificial lake?
Anyway even if I agreed with the whole point that these summits are in some way promoting Canada, I don't think being a pointless show-off and then letting taxpayers foot the bill gives the right message.
Hey, aren't you conservative libertarians are supposed to be for limited government and fiscal responsibility?
I think nobody is talking about this things because this isn't a real problem, electric car still has to store enough energy so it would be possible to go somewhere in it, and the electric heater would use a lot less energy than the electric motor, so a rough calculation would be (1/2 of full battery charge / small household heater power consumption per hour at max power), plus modern cars are well isolated from outside environment so all that heat wouldn't dissipate immediately, plus body heat from car occupants would be retain for a while, plus you don't need to clear snow from your car, so it would help retain some of the energy -- this should be enough.
I don't think that the batteries in an electric would melt down because of a small heater drawing current from them, after all they were designed to supply current to a much more powerful engine.
Also, current car batteries aren't designed to run car engine but to provide enough electricity to start the engine, light up dashboard run defroster and power windows at the same time before engine dynamo kicks in. Also there's a different technology at play, current car batteries are lead acid and the ones used in electric cars are lithium ion, hell, even NiMH batteries have greater power density than ones currently used.
By the way it's always a good idea to keep a thick blanket in the trunk, even in summertime, you never know when you're going to have a picnic.
Well, in the case of being stuck in a snow bank, you shouldn't run idle -- although your car will keep you warm, it could also give you carbon monoxide positioning if you do keep it running. Also, electric car would probably have an electric heater, which would keep you warm without producing carbon monoxide, which even with cold batteries should last for a while.
I think it's a wrong argument to say that despite being a dictator person 'X' is still would win a popular vote. With the presence of just voting system, free journalism or at least somewhat free journalism you'd never know how how the public opinion would sway and would the dictator actually stack up to the competition, on the second thought no one knows either by how much elections were rigged, and whether there was one or one million ballots stuffed.
I also think that this argument - "Putin is popular even without election rigging" is being used to make voter base feel apathetic and not want to do anything about the situation, so I'm a bit uneasy about it.
Found resources by drilling more oil? Gee that was hard, anyhow Russian military is a joke -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm. Everything that is still valuable, like the nuclear industry, was built in Soviet time, and hasn't yet completely fallen in disarray, this applies to the space agency as well; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion, Roscosmos 2.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency) even if everything is very cheap in Russia, which is not, the difference is staggering.
About nuclear power -- let me remind you in which country Chernobyl happened and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk, and lots of other really bad things. As much as I like the idea of nuclear power, Russia doesn't have a particularly good track record using it even for 'peaceful purposes'. Anyhow, the latest government's pet project is this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station which in my view seems to be a rather dumb idea.
There's no manufacturing capacity to speak of, most of the manufacturing facilities built in Soviet Union are now gone, you have no idea how hard Soviet economy crashed, all that's left, are manufactures that prepackage and deliver raw materials like oil, natural gas, nickel, aluminum, the list goes on. There's also a car maker that is getting bailed out over and over again -- http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html and if you think that GM and Chrysler got a sweet deal from the government, think again. On a related note, Americans really don't appreciate American cars.
Russia is slowly dying and things will not change unless the resent government suddenly vanishes. I read on some forum in 2002 or so that Mr. Putin's Russia will end up being a version of Soviet Union with healthcare system, army and education removed and it seems that that's the way it has been going all these years.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all I'm going to take a precautionary WOOSH over my own head about not getting the joke.
I don't think being a manager would entitle him to knowing details about operating an oil rig, hell even a few BP execs don't know that.
What if Bush would be the usual self and fucks up everything? With all the connections he's got in the oil industry and fucking Dick fucking Cheney, wouldn't he just be more gullible to BP's promises -- let the free market decide or such bullshit and let all the things be settled in court on individual basis or via class action. Would the government pressure BP to set up 20 bn escrow fund?
There's also additional irony in your statement, as republicans are always(say, since as far back as Reagan) have been perceived as being good on security and now you suggesting that a republican politician should probably handle a crisis that doesn't involve blowing shit up and/or killing people.
But it's not a van.
OMG 8 cylinders with body on frame that thing might as well have a beefy alternator as it needs some excuse for burning so much fuel.
It doesn't, I was wrong and then couldn't reply to my own post.
Though now it's evident that George Michael and Prince reside in the same part of my brain.
Always remember that this guy is responsible for this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3354flS1KJs
Sorry for using broad terms, but then how did we end up with corporation legally being a person? I read somewhere that a legal clerk messed up something citing judges "Corporation is in no way a person" to "Corporation is a person", I'm assuming that carries some weight.
It is not as if supreme court judges can do whatever they want. The law that legally makes corporation into a person caused that decision and should be stricken down, then even a conservative judge woudn't be able to argue for such nonsense.
Oh, please, does it have LVM support, Ext4 and a linux kernel that can boot off CD-ROM over USB?
Motorcycles also pollute 3x times as much as SUVs.
and costs of 'cleaning up' disasters are much higher than costs of preventing them.
And your point being?
If a government wants to, has a political will and the correct structure (read: is not neck deep in taking 'contributions' and generally relying on the corporations for the (re)elections) then nothing at all can stop a government from suing.
Most electoral campaigns in Canada are publicly funded -- http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada
Here's also a nice table from that website:
Public Support as Portion of Total Funding by Political Party (2007)
Bloc Québécois 86%
Green Party of Canada 65%
Liberal Party of Canada 63%
New Democratic Party of Canada 57%
Conservative Party of Canada 37%
Also your second to last paragraph is mostly an incomprehensible rant, try turning off the TV and learn how to paraphrase.
And fuck you too.
Well, first of all, thanks for being civil, that really helps to get your point across.
Also as one of the people replying in the same thread pointed out, comparing BP disaster and G20 meeting is a false dichotomy, if you don't see it let me spell it out -- one is ecological disaster and the other is federal government are just being assholes, if anything G20 meeting reminds me of Mulroney farewell tour.
But since we are talking about BP, your argument is complete bullshit BP is liable, but it's a corporation it has a limited liability, government can sue them only for so much and you can't just jail and shoot people, there's this thing called constitution (both in US and in Canada) that prevents government doing exactly that, there's also pension funds across whole europe that invested in BP and whole lot other reasons; is it enough to say why BP shouldn't just be arbitrary put on a pike?
Also in your fluffy libertarian world with weak (read small) government anyone is supposed to prevent corporations influencing it?
Liberal fraud and G20 meetings are both examples of government waste, I don't really see how you can miss this.
What do you mean by 'play with your moderator points'?
I still have moderator points, but I haven't found '-1 Wrong and somewhat clueless' or '-1 Too stupid for a troll' option, so I'll just elaborate.
Your statement about the argument being bullshit is bullshit.
Just like in case of BP not spending the necessary money and not securing the Gulf of Mexico properly and now paying tens of billions for it + all that oil in the water, imagine if a representative of any country got hurt or killed, what that would do to the image of the country.
First of all, the accident happened with BP was the first of all due to lack of government regulation, does abbreviation MMS ring any bells? and greedy corporations being greedy and all. BP thing was entirely preventable and should not have happened at all, that's why everyone is pissed at them, and the billions it will pay will probably not cover all the damage anyway.
Sort of like that luge accident during the Vancouver Olympics that was totally avoidable had the organizers put some soft barriers, like nets in front of those metal posts that the poor 20y.o. Georgian dude killed himself against.
Allocating more money on the problem does not mean that the soft barriers would have been installed anyway, there's always multiple things to spend money on.
Should it be a billion or half of that or 2 billion, I don't know, but what is known is that a failure in this sort of thing would cost magnitudes more than this money spent.
The biggest problem here, as the parent pointed out, is that why the hell did the meeting had to take place in Toronto with government pointlessly spending garbles while paralyzing a major city and giving its inhabitance an impression of living in a police state? I'm not even evaluating a cost of failure in security, but it's efficacy and how it would have been much better for everyone if Stephen Harper would feel the need to compensate for the perception of the size of his penis, which now I have reason to assume is a quite a bit below average.
And what's up with that artificial lake?
Anyway even if I agreed with the whole point that these summits are in some way promoting Canada, I don't think being a pointless show-off and then letting taxpayers foot the bill gives the right message.
Hey, aren't you conservative libertarians are supposed to be for limited government and fiscal responsibility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTP7zzUobnA
Transcript sucks, live performance is way better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk
This ran starts at about 0:40, though the whole thing is hilarious.
You are wrong, there's an extra scoped rifle sitting next to a door frame. The family is fully committed -- the dog isn't.
-1 Sarah Palin talking point.
Wasn't that someone named Jeremy Clarkson?
(the Saturn EV1 would have been selling like hotcakes a couple of years ago).
[Citation Needed]
yet still cling to such over-priced, gimmick-infested cars like the Cobalt
What's so wrong with Cobalt?
I think nobody is talking about this things because this isn't a real problem, electric car still has to store enough energy so it would be possible to go somewhere in it, and the electric heater would use a lot less energy than the electric motor, so a rough calculation would be (1/2 of full battery charge / small household heater power consumption per hour at max power), plus modern cars are well isolated from outside environment so all that heat wouldn't dissipate immediately, plus body heat from car occupants would be retain for a while, plus you don't need to clear snow from your car, so it would help retain some of the energy -- this should be enough.
I don't think that the batteries in an electric would melt down because of a small heater drawing current from them, after all they were designed to supply current to a much more powerful engine.
Also, current car batteries aren't designed to run car engine but to provide enough electricity to start the engine, light up dashboard run defroster and power windows at the same time before engine dynamo kicks in. Also there's a different technology at play, current car batteries are lead acid and the ones used in electric cars are lithium ion, hell, even NiMH batteries have greater power density than ones currently used.
By the way it's always a good idea to keep a thick blanket in the trunk, even in summertime, you never know when you're going to have a picnic.
Well, in the case of being stuck in a snow bank, you shouldn't run idle -- although your car will keep you warm, it could also give you carbon monoxide positioning if you do keep it running. Also, electric car would probably have an electric heater, which would keep you warm without producing carbon monoxide, which even with cold batteries should last for a while.
I think it's a wrong argument to say that despite being a dictator person 'X' is still would win a popular vote. With the presence of just voting system, free journalism or at least somewhat free journalism you'd never know how how the public opinion would sway and would the dictator actually stack up to the competition, on the second thought no one knows either by how much elections were rigged, and whether there was one or one million ballots stuffed.
I also think that this argument - "Putin is popular even without election rigging" is being used to make voter base feel apathetic and not want to do anything about the situation, so I'm a bit uneasy about it.
Haha, Bushes, Nixon(!) and Obama are progressives?!
Please turn off your Glenn Beck program and step away from the TV set.
Even better:
guest@xkcd:/$ whoami
You are Richard Stallman.
Also, a rather weird command execution:
guest@xkcd:/$ kill
Terminator deployed to 1984
But,
guest@xkcd:/$ kill 1
Unrecognized command. Type "help" for assistance.
Command parser definitely needs some work
guest@xkcd:/$ sudo -i
sudo: -i: command not found
Also I demand, while, for, if and which.
Eh, what are you talking about?
Found resources by drilling more oil? Gee that was hard, anyhow Russian military is a joke -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm. Everything that is still valuable, like the nuclear industry, was built in Soviet time, and hasn't yet completely fallen in disarray, this applies to the space agency as well; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion, Roscosmos 2.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency) even if everything is very cheap in Russia, which is not, the difference is staggering.
About nuclear power -- let me remind you in which country Chernobyl happened and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk, and lots of other really bad things. As much as I like the idea of nuclear power, Russia doesn't have a particularly good track record using it even for 'peaceful purposes'. Anyhow, the latest government's pet project is this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station which in my view seems to be a rather dumb idea.
There's no manufacturing capacity to speak of, most of the manufacturing facilities built in Soviet Union are now gone, you have no idea how hard Soviet economy crashed, all that's left, are manufactures that prepackage and deliver raw materials like oil, natural gas, nickel, aluminum, the list goes on. There's also a car maker that is getting bailed out over and over again -- http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html and if you think that GM and Chrysler got a sweet deal from the government, think again. On a related note, Americans really don't appreciate American cars.
The myth that Russia is strong and it is rising is perpetuated by the Russian government to disguise the fact that those who in charge are just interested pumping more oil, and if you don't approve of current government, you want Russia to fail, I am not kidding -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov#Memorable_quotes, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101510173019130.html
Russia is slowly dying and things will not change unless the resent government suddenly vanishes. I read on some forum in 2002 or so that Mr. Putin's Russia will end up being a version of Soviet Union with healthcare system, army and education removed and it seems that that's the way it has been going all these years.
Also a paper to about a downfall of Soviet Union, I don't think that too many things have changed since then -- http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html