i know what you mean. i'd prefer that they blow you hippie freaks away rather than just stunning you when you riot and destroy other peoples property.
Naw, life would be too dull if we didn't have hordes of idiots fawning over the Great Works of Che Guevera.
Also, if you switch to live ammo, Linux will die overnight, the makers of Mountain Dew will go out of business, and Slashdot will be full of people who RTFA. Can't have that, now can we?
I didn't RTFA... Apparently, a full charge is projected to cost ~$0.80 and will take you ~40 miles. $0.02/mile is tempting, but for a lot of people the 40 mile limit will be kind of a barrier. $0.50/gallon gas only barely edges out.
Yes, well, RTFA next time:)
Sure, it only takes you 40 miles on the electric charge. After your charge runs out, a gasoline generator kicks in which powers your electric motor for the rest of your journey. Using a genny means you don't need a transmission, and your engine can be very small (last time I checked they were talking about a teeny-tiny two-stroke in the trunk).
I love my current car, but if the Volt is half as good as it seems, I'll be buying one as soon as they become available.
Food is provided by nature for free, all we have to do is pay humans to plant the seeds, nurture the plants until they're ready for harvest, pick them, and transport them to market. Energy is a tax at every level of the food-enterprise, and eliminating the energy tax would allow farmers and the other people in the food chain to collect most of the money that gets spent therein.
The average 1st world family spends less than 25% of it's income on food, water, and all energy combined. That means that even if you could eliminate 100% of those costs, it would only remove 25% of their cost of living. Instead of working 5 days a week, they now have to work 3.75 days a week. Big deal. Do you REALLY think they won't continue working the full 5, just so they can earn that extra bit of cash to spend on themselves or their kids?
You really don't know the first thing about human nature, do you?
The democratization of energy portends a seismic shift in the economy. Over the next 5-10 years.....
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's the commie revolution all over again. Wake me up when I can buy Che Guevera brand solar panels.
Welfare must pay better than 10 hours a week. 10 hours a week even at a high salary wouldn't put me anywhere near covering basic expenses.
Not YOUR expenses, no, but then you don't live on the bare necessities, right? If all you cared about was having a roof over your head and enough food and water to avoid starvation, you COULD pay for it by working 10 hours a week. Of course, you might have to live the way people do in much less fortunate countries - by squeezing 8 bodies into a single-bedroom home, sewing your own clothes, doing a lot of dumpster diving, etc. But you could do it.
How do you think illegal immigrants manage to survive AND send money to their families back home, while often making less than minimum wage?
The problem here is that you (and to a much greater extent, the OP) have redefined "basic needs" to include things that westerners can't imagine living without. Even our "poor" have access to free health care, free schooling, low cost housing, and "social assistance". A poor family in the US will still typically have a home, a car, complete food preparation facilities, access to unlimited fresh water, even things like environmental control equipment, cable television, and often even internet access. They're not poor in any real sense - they're just poor in comparison to the rest of our society. Which brings us to the real problem with the OP's post: poverty isn't defined by a set standard, but rather by comparison to the society as a whole. That's why people will ALWAYS work as much as they comfortably can - because nobody wants to be at the bottom of the pile.
As the cost of energy plummets from the commodity rate (where you pay for every watt-hour/gallon consumed) to the... investment level (where you pay once, and for irregular maintenance), individuals will have a lot more time on their hands...
People in third world nations spend a MUCH higher proportion of their total work/income on securing food and energy than we do in the western world. If all you cared about was providing for your basic needs, you could work 10 hours a week, or just sit at home and collect welfare. There are many reasons why people work as much as they do, but the cost of energy has little to do with it. Most of us work because we either find enjoyment in the work itself, or because we want to splurge on luxuries, AND be able to make a statement about our earning ability. Why do you think guys buy expensive cars, and women like wearing flashy jewelry? Because the cost of electricity is so high that it's forcing everyone to buy shiny objects? Don't be a friggin' idiot.
Government revenues will fall like a rock. With people working less, income taxes receipts will fall like a brick.
Your ignorance of economic principles is truly mind-numbing.
I'm sure there are other problems with Energy Liberation, but these are just the three I've been thinking about...
The word "thinking" doesn't really belong in that sentence....
Plus you can take into account all the other advantages life on Earth has had to make it possible:
The things you list are factors which aid in the development of complex lifeforms. They're not really a factor when it comes to unicellular - or even simple multicellular - life.
There wouldn't be any need for anti-piracy schemes if people were trustworthy and didn't steal software.
Yeah, and people wouldn't need locks and car alarms if there were no car thieves. I'd still find it more than a little funny if every time you locked your keys in the car, you had to call up a car thief to open it for you. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd be laughing my ass off, just like I am at Ubi.
Well, gee. Why don't we talk about the TFA itself instead of the headline on slashdot? If you had read it, you might discover that is says nothing about quotas. The strawmen here are all yours.
From the article:
But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women
...
Applying Title IX to science was proposed eight years ago by Debra Rolison, a chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory. She argued that withholding federal money from "poorly diversified departments" was essential to "transform the academic culture." The proposal was initially greeted, in her words, with "near-universal horror."
Some female scientists protested that they themselves would be marginalized if a quota system revived the old stereotype that women couldn't compete on even terms in science.
I had assumed that you were a rational individual, capable of having a civilized discussion. It appears that I was wrong. Don't bother replying unless you're writing to apologize.
No, because in each of those fields they have separate standards for men and women.
Which is a whole separate load of horse-shit that needs to be addressed. If it's a requirement for a male infantry soldier to be able to carry his wounded fireteam partner for X number of meters, how can you seriously state that a female shouldn't need to meet the same standard? (BTW, I'm aware that the US and UK still don't allow women in the combat arms because of this, but on the modern battlefield it applies to support personnel also).
Despite the artificially lowered standards, women are expected to be able to keep up with the men, and carry out the same duties. Which, really, is all that matters. If they can do the job, great! If they can't do the job, though, it doesn't matter how many "standards" they pass - nobody will want to work with them.
Perhaps its not clear to you that similar arguments were made about black people not so long ago. "They just aren't interested in white-collar jobs. Can't you just admit that blacks and whites are different?"
And was that problem fixed by racial quotas? Or did it just work itself out once we gave blacks the same rights and opportunities as whites?
Moreover, the real reason blacks weren't going into white collar jobs is because they weren't given the same educational opportunities nor were they taken seriously by prospective employers. It had nothing to do with social conditioning of Blacks, and everything to do with the lack of opportunities offered to them. None of that can be said about women today. At least, not by any serious person. If you happen to be a militant feminist, I imagine you could say such things with a straight face without much difficulty - just don't be surprised when everyone laughs at you.
I'm a proud member of a group dedicated to fighting excessive acronym usage - we're the AAAAAAAAAA (the Australasian And American Association Against Any And All Acronym Abuse).
Well at least it's not a goddamn TLA. I really hate TLA's.
We'll see how motivated they are to blow themselves up when Allah himself tells them that suicide bombing is a deal breaker on the whole eternal paradise thing.
Brilliant! I hereby nominate you for the position of Head Messiah at the newly founded Ministry of Godly Voices.
What, you can sue because something is merely possible?
Yeah, that was my first thought. Everyone here's bitching about how horrible it is that the government's spying on people, but that's missing the point entirely - I'm much more concerned about the fact that the ACLU is launching a lawsuit based on a guess.
Not exactly. "Peak Oil" refers to the current economic realities of oil production.
Key word: "current".
"Economic realities" change on a regular basis. Do we really expect everything to stay static over the next 100 years?
This is exactly why "peak oil" predictions have continued to change. The original predictions had us hitting peak oil around, what, 1985? None of the predictions ever take into account new technologies. When the newest predictions were made, oil sands still weren't an economically feasible source of crude. Now they are. That makes a HUGE difference.
Shale, Sand, Deep Sea Drilling, the Arctic, etc all have vast reserves of petroleum, and we're pursuing those options as fast as we can.
Actually, no, we're not. The US is refusing to exploit many easily accessible reservoirs due to political considerations. You're also barely touching your oil shales. Meanwhile Canada has just recently started to exploit oil sands, and we're increasing production at a staggering rate.
Peak Oil refers not to "running out of oil" but the point at which production cannot be increased faster than demand is rising.
So what you're saying is that it's akin to fortune telling? Read my palm and tell me how much oil we're going to need?
I dunno... that's not my understanding of the peak-oil predictions, but if you're right then it's even more idiotic than I thought.
It's an inelastic commodity--we MUST have it regardless of price, as there's no readily available alternative in most cases. Net effect: skyrocketing price. Like now.
The current rise in price has more to do with the fact that oil has been artificially under priced for the last few decades. Now we're starting to pay for the true cost. But you're right - as China and India continue to grow, we're going to see even more demand. That's why it's important that we start opening new drill sites and start investing in oil sand and shale projects. We can offset the increased demand by opening new lines of supply, as well as by developing alternate fuel technologies.
Technically speaking, EVERYTHING is a finite resource. We'll run out of sunlight in a few billion years. What do we do then?
As the parent pointed out, we haven't even tapped much of the available oil. Current estimates of "peak oil" are based on oil which is easily accessible with current methods - it does NOT take into account the various oil sands and shales which exist around the world. When you factor in those deposits it becomes obvious that oil will still last us for a long, LONG time. I'd be very surprised if we haven't switched entirely to alternate fuels by the time we start to run low on oil.
Ah, yes. After all, clothing manufacture and open pit mining are so alike! Hell, I bet if we got rid of those pesky child labour laws, NASA would be replacing astronauts with 2 year olds. They're just SO much cheaper, AND they don't take up nearly as much space! We could make rockets that were half the size! Just imagine the savings....
Seriously.... I don't mind too much if you start comparing apples and oranges, but at this point it's more like you're comparing apples and particle accelerators. At least stick to produce.
Seriously, if you think a soldiers job is to obey unquestioningly, your career with the military must not have been a very successful one. As a section commander I went out of my way to try and get soldiers under my command who could think on their feet, and who weren't afraid to speak their minds. Most of my superiors attempted to cultivate similar attitudes at all levels of leadership. I'm sure that a soldier who can't think was a wonderful concept back in the 1800's, but in modern combat he's just another body waiting to fill a bag.
Now, if we ever start fighting all-out wars again, perhaps we'll need some mindless cannon-fodder to charge machine-gun nests over open ground. Until then, smart leaders are well advised to develop the minds of their subordinates at every opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
New rule: anyone who uses the word "fascist" when speaking about anything other than WW2-era Germany gets modded "-5 retarded".
Naw, life would be too dull if we didn't have hordes of idiots fawning over the Great Works of Che Guevera.
Also, if you switch to live ammo, Linux will die overnight, the makers of Mountain Dew will go out of business, and Slashdot will be full of people who RTFA. Can't have that, now can we?
Yes, well, RTFA next time :)
Sure, it only takes you 40 miles on the electric charge. After your charge runs out, a gasoline generator kicks in which powers your electric motor for the rest of your journey. Using a genny means you don't need a transmission, and your engine can be very small (last time I checked they were talking about a teeny-tiny two-stroke in the trunk).
I love my current car, but if the Volt is half as good as it seems, I'll be buying one as soon as they become available.
Not as much as Ottawa ;)
The average 1st world family spends less than 25% of it's income on food, water, and all energy combined. That means that even if you could eliminate 100% of those costs, it would only remove 25% of their cost of living. Instead of working 5 days a week, they now have to work 3.75 days a week. Big deal. Do you REALLY think they won't continue working the full 5, just so they can earn that extra bit of cash to spend on themselves or their kids?
You really don't know the first thing about human nature, do you?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's the commie revolution all over again. Wake me up when I can buy Che Guevera brand solar panels.
Not YOUR expenses, no, but then you don't live on the bare necessities, right? If all you cared about was having a roof over your head and enough food and water to avoid starvation, you COULD pay for it by working 10 hours a week. Of course, you might have to live the way people do in much less fortunate countries - by squeezing 8 bodies into a single-bedroom home, sewing your own clothes, doing a lot of dumpster diving, etc. But you could do it.
How do you think illegal immigrants manage to survive AND send money to their families back home, while often making less than minimum wage?
The problem here is that you (and to a much greater extent, the OP) have redefined "basic needs" to include things that westerners can't imagine living without. Even our "poor" have access to free health care, free schooling, low cost housing, and "social assistance". A poor family in the US will still typically have a home, a car, complete food preparation facilities, access to unlimited fresh water, even things like environmental control equipment, cable television, and often even internet access. They're not poor in any real sense - they're just poor in comparison to the rest of our society. Which brings us to the real problem with the OP's post: poverty isn't defined by a set standard, but rather by comparison to the society as a whole. That's why people will ALWAYS work as much as they comfortably can - because nobody wants to be at the bottom of the pile.
People in third world nations spend a MUCH higher proportion of their total work/income on securing food and energy than we do in the western world. If all you cared about was providing for your basic needs, you could work 10 hours a week, or just sit at home and collect welfare. There are many reasons why people work as much as they do, but the cost of energy has little to do with it. Most of us work because we either find enjoyment in the work itself, or because we want to splurge on luxuries, AND be able to make a statement about our earning ability. Why do you think guys buy expensive cars, and women like wearing flashy jewelry? Because the cost of electricity is so high that it's forcing everyone to buy shiny objects? Don't be a friggin' idiot.
Your ignorance of economic principles is truly mind-numbing.
The word "thinking" doesn't really belong in that sentence ....
The things you list are factors which aid in the development of complex lifeforms. They're not really a factor when it comes to unicellular - or even simple multicellular - life.
Yeah, and people wouldn't need locks and car alarms if there were no car thieves. I'd still find it more than a little funny if every time you locked your keys in the car, you had to call up a car thief to open it for you. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd be laughing my ass off, just like I am at Ubi.
How's that for a car analogy? :)
From the article:
But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women
Applying Title IX to science was proposed eight years ago by Debra Rolison, a chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory. She argued that withholding federal money from "poorly diversified departments" was essential to "transform the academic culture." The proposal was initially greeted, in her words, with "near-universal horror."
Some female scientists protested that they themselves would be marginalized if a quota system revived the old stereotype that women couldn't compete on even terms in science.
I had assumed that you were a rational individual, capable of having a civilized discussion. It appears that I was wrong. Don't bother replying unless you're writing to apologize.
Well, yes, it would have been, if I had been talking about the equal employment opportunity laws. But I wasn't.
Absolutely - but, once again, that's not what was being discussed. Look at the headline of the article: "The Push for Quotas for Women in Science".
I know that it's much easier to knock-over a straw man, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop constructing them :)
Which is a whole separate load of horse-shit that needs to be addressed. If it's a requirement for a male infantry soldier to be able to carry his wounded fireteam partner for X number of meters, how can you seriously state that a female shouldn't need to meet the same standard? (BTW, I'm aware that the US and UK still don't allow women in the combat arms because of this, but on the modern battlefield it applies to support personnel also).
Despite the artificially lowered standards, women are expected to be able to keep up with the men, and carry out the same duties. Which, really, is all that matters. If they can do the job, great! If they can't do the job, though, it doesn't matter how many "standards" they pass - nobody will want to work with them.
And was that problem fixed by racial quotas? Or did it just work itself out once we gave blacks the same rights and opportunities as whites?
Moreover, the real reason blacks weren't going into white collar jobs is because they weren't given the same educational opportunities nor were they taken seriously by prospective employers. It had nothing to do with social conditioning of Blacks, and everything to do with the lack of opportunities offered to them. None of that can be said about women today. At least, not by any serious person. If you happen to be a militant feminist, I imagine you could say such things with a straight face without much difficulty - just don't be surprised when everyone laughs at you.
Time to adjust your tinfoil helmet, dude.
Nice catch :) I didn't even think of that until you responded. I mean, what are the odds?
Right. It could get a little awkward, though, when your 8 year old niece goes from watching "Dora the Explorer" to "Star Trek the Next Penetration".
Well at least it's not a goddamn TLA. I really hate TLA's.
Brilliant! I hereby nominate you for the position of Head Messiah at the newly founded Ministry of Godly Voices.
Yeah, that was my first thought. Everyone here's bitching about how horrible it is that the government's spying on people, but that's missing the point entirely - I'm much more concerned about the fact that the ACLU is launching a lawsuit based on a guess.
7 digits, starting with 596 :) Take that!
Key word: "current".
"Economic realities" change on a regular basis. Do we really expect everything to stay static over the next 100 years?
This is exactly why "peak oil" predictions have continued to change. The original predictions had us hitting peak oil around, what, 1985? None of the predictions ever take into account new technologies. When the newest predictions were made, oil sands still weren't an economically feasible source of crude. Now they are. That makes a HUGE difference.
Actually, no, we're not. The US is refusing to exploit many easily accessible reservoirs due to political considerations. You're also barely touching your oil shales. Meanwhile Canada has just recently started to exploit oil sands, and we're increasing production at a staggering rate.
So what you're saying is that it's akin to fortune telling? Read my palm and tell me how much oil we're going to need?
I dunno ... that's not my understanding of the peak-oil predictions, but if you're right then it's even more idiotic than I thought.
The current rise in price has more to do with the fact that oil has been artificially under priced for the last few decades. Now we're starting to pay for the true cost. But you're right - as China and India continue to grow, we're going to see even more demand. That's why it's important that we start opening new drill sites and start investing in oil sand and shale projects. We can offset the increased demand by opening new lines of supply, as well as by developing alternate fuel technologies.
Technically speaking, EVERYTHING is a finite resource. We'll run out of sunlight in a few billion years. What do we do then?
As the parent pointed out, we haven't even tapped much of the available oil. Current estimates of "peak oil" are based on oil which is easily accessible with current methods - it does NOT take into account the various oil sands and shales which exist around the world. When you factor in those deposits it becomes obvious that oil will still last us for a long, LONG time. I'd be very surprised if we haven't switched entirely to alternate fuels by the time we start to run low on oil.
Ah, yes. After all, clothing manufacture and open pit mining are so alike! Hell, I bet if we got rid of those pesky child labour laws, NASA would be replacing astronauts with 2 year olds. They're just SO much cheaper, AND they don't take up nearly as much space! We could make rockets that were half the size! Just imagine the savings ....
Seriously .... I don't mind too much if you start comparing apples and oranges, but at this point it's more like you're comparing apples and particle accelerators. At least stick to produce.
WHOOOOOSH!
Oh, so you ran the PX then. Gotcha.
Seriously, if you think a soldiers job is to obey unquestioningly, your career with the military must not have been a very successful one. As a section commander I went out of my way to try and get soldiers under my command who could think on their feet, and who weren't afraid to speak their minds. Most of my superiors attempted to cultivate similar attitudes at all levels of leadership. I'm sure that a soldier who can't think was a wonderful concept back in the 1800's, but in modern combat he's just another body waiting to fill a bag.
Now, if we ever start fighting all-out wars again, perhaps we'll need some mindless cannon-fodder to charge machine-gun nests over open ground. Until then, smart leaders are well advised to develop the minds of their subordinates at every opportunity.