Ah. What a humanitarian you are. Thanks for setting the record straight, although I was fairly certain you didn't "give a shit" about the rest of the world just judging by the arrogance in your initial statement.
Secular Europe != "Rest of the World", genius. I think the Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs may have had a different reaction than you.
I actually agree with most of what you said, I just find your arrogance astounding. You speak as if your beliefs are the One Self Evident Universal Truth, and that all Americans are fools because some of them disagree with you, even though on a global scale your views are the the minority by a long shot.
Which is, ofcourse, crap. If they can replicate stuff, then they can replicate currency, so ofcourse they had to find a way to explain why they're not just working their replicators overtime and buying up the entire Ferengi empire.
And the whole thing makes you wonder why they'd bother in the first place. Ferengi merchants probably wouldn't have much to offer that couldn't simply be replicated, and, even if they DID, it would make more sense fiscally speaking to trade goods for other goods instead of for bricks of gold pressed whatchamacallit. There's more profit to be made by loading up your ship with tradable commodities on both legs of the journey, than by only carrying goods one way, and carrying a hold full of "money" on your way back. And the Ferengi are all about maximizing profit.
The whole thing falls apart when you look at it from any logical standpoint. I think someone looked at the original, idealistic star trek, thougth to himself "god dammit, what were we thinking??" and tried to reintroduce money. Unfortunately they did it in the form of precious metals, which is just dumb. An economy which can replicate anything using anti-matter and dylithium crystals would have an economy based on antimatter and dylithium crystals. That would be the only form of currency which would mean anything.
Except the federation isn't really communist - it's just a society where individual wealth has little meaning. The problem is that they don't show you much in the way of private business, but you DO get a glimpse of privately owned starcraft, private businesses, a form of currency, etc. Not only that, but they seem to have no tax structure in place, whereas communist nations tend to take everything and then give you back what they think you need. They resemble a capitalist society far more than they do a communist one - the only difference is that people seem to have gotten past personal wealth as a measure of self worth, but even in the Federation it'd still be quit possible to stockpile currency and property if you so chose.
lol. ah, yes. "ok, you guys can keep polluting as much as you want, but...HEY! YOU YANKEE BASTARDS! CUT OUT THAT POLLUTION CRAP RIGHT NOW!"
Why does this remind me of the global position on EVERYTHING? Other countries can pollute, oppress their populations, start wars, deofrest the rainforests, fish and hunt species into extinction, break international laws, traffic in slaves, threaten neighbouring countries with extinction....and nobody says a peep. Maybe there's a few "tsk, tsk's" here and there, and if it's REALLY bad then the UN will write a letter to them,, and if it get's REALLY bad they'll write them a more strongly worded letter, but that's about it. Meanwhile, let the US try doing any of those things, and the whole globe is screaming at you to STOP YOUR IMPERIALIST FASCIST POLICIES THIS SECOND!!!!!!
I don't know man. I don't see what's "fair" about any of that. That's just me though. I feel that, in addition to taking the fall for all the bad things done in the last millennium, western civilization and the US specifically should also get the credit for all the positive things which the rest of the world had no part in achieving. You know, I believe in this little thing called "perspective". While we were busy polluting the world and oppressing the blacks, we also came up with the ideals of universal rights and freedoms, extended the human life span to twice it's normal length, and created technologies to fix most of the problems we've created along the way. Saying that the US "doesn't get to pollute any more because you already polluted too damn much" tends to ignore all the things made possible by that pollution. It tends to ignore the fact that the third world has accomplished exactly jack shit except killing eachother for the last few centuries and mooching off the modern world whenever possible. Could you imagine telling the Ford Motor Company that they can't have any more metal because they've used more of it than that drunken homeless guy in the corner who's passed out in a puddle of his own vomit? Perspective is an important thing. Too many people have lost all sight of it.
Considering that the Sealand came into existence because Roy Bates beat the shit out of some drifters, I'd call that a pretty good precedent for using force in order to gain control of territory.
Although it wouldn't have to be the US - RIAA could simply hire a handful of Blackwater merks.
Frankly, I don't know why the Brits don't just take it back. The worst that could happen is they get nailed under international salvage guidelines, and have to pay the guy for "salvaging" their platform for them.
Piracy committed in international waters is one of those gray-area things, but the international agreements seems to be that any vessel of any nation may use whatever force is necessary in order to stop an act of piracy in international water. Therefore, technically speaking, any government would be fully justified in invading this "sealand" and putting a stop to their criminal activities. Actually, to be fully correct, it wouldn't even have to be a government ship, since even private vessels are authorized to act in order to stop pirate activity. Therefore, I could rent a boat, sail over to the platform, board it, confiscate their computer equipment, and go home. It'd be perfectly legal. Probably pretty safe too - I don't think computer nerds are quite as dangerous as the original pirates.
Your browser must not have parsed my sarcasm tags. Let's try that again:
[SARCASM]That must have been REALLY tough for you. On the one hand you've got an evil scum-sucking earth raping corporation. On the other hand you've got the family of a baby-killing stormtrooper of the BushHitler regime.[/SARCASM] I'll bet your tiny little head topped 3,000 RPM while trying to figure out which side to defend, and which one to attack.
No, I'm arguing that countries which sign the Kyoto agreement and then proceed to increase their emissions at a higher rate than the US have no business criticizing the US for not signing the Kyoto protocol. Kyoto has always been a joke, and the actions of these signatories only confirms this.
As for the rest, the US may be the world's biggest polluter, but what else can you expect from the worlds biggest producer? Sure, there's plenty of room for improvement, but singling them out for criticism is just silly. It also seems to be status-quo these days - all other nations get a free pass on everything, as long as they can shift blame to the US.
That must have been REALLY tough for you. On the one hand you've got an evil scum-sucking earth raping corporation. On the other hand you've got the family of a baby-killing stormtrooper of the BushHitler regime. I'll bet your tiny little head topped 3,000 RPM while trying to figure out which side to defend, and which one to attack.
You may be right about the US corporations being the worst of the bunch, although I sincerely doubt it. Japanese sweatshops often don't treat workers well even within their own nation, AND they're some of the most xenophobic people in the world, so I find it difficult to believe they'd be acting like angels of mercy in the third world.
However, I don't have any specific figures that break down the corporations by nationality, so I can't say with certainty. My only defence is that when I said "US corporations" I was using it as a generic term to encompass all modern corporations operating in foreign nations.
Percentages increases are a measure of trends. Over time, the country which expands it's emissions at a higher rate will surpass a country which expands at a slower rate, regardless of the initial figures. Measuring growth in absolute figures rather than percentages is just silly - you can't possibly expect a country like the US to have the same absolute growth as a tiny place like Ireland, but you CAN expect them to maintain the same or a lower percentage. If you're going to tell me that you expect them to maintain the same absolute growth, then you are beyond reason, and we have nothing left to discuss.
Please supply a reference which concludes that the Kyoto Treaty is the direct cause for the building of third-world coal plants.
Well, I just concluded it in my last post, so there you go:)
You and I both know that there's no direct link. But you are doubtless also aware that there's a lot of very suggestive information, and that there's very little regulation over how the "gas credits" are spent. So let's not play games.
Sustainable environmental management is wealth redistribution.
Hardly. If you truly beleive that third wolrd nations infused with massive ammounts of wealth are going to turn around and use that wealth to benefit the environment, then I've got some beachfront property to sell you. Sustainable enviornmental management depends on developing the required technology in the west, and then convincing other nations to make use of it. Wealth redistribution just takes away resources which could be going towards further research.
Environmental management needs a big policy push for everyone. The US(government) has shown very little will to do this.
At last look, the US has made the biggest strides in hydrogen fuels technology, they have the only viable all-electric sports car, and they're making breakthroughs in solar cell technology. As far as I can tell, the US is making bigger strides toward the elimination of fossil fuels than all the other nations put together.
It's great, and the ozone layer is closing. But that's not what we're talking about - the ice is still melting...
Who said anything about the ozone? I said greenhouse gases. That includes that big-bad-boogeyman, CO2. Here:
US greenhouse gas emissions have grown 16% since 1990, hardly a point of pride, but slower than Kyoto signatories New Zealand (21%), Ireland (23%), Canada (27%), Portugal (41%) and Spain (49%).
How 'bout them apples?
Your own post shows a shaky logic at best and has facts that read more like talking points on Fox News.
The fact that you use phrases like "talking points on Fox News" tells me all I need to know about your level of discourse. "Bumper Sticker Thinker" seems an appropriate label.
Eh, no, sorry, not quite. All that Kyoto buys is more coal-powered plants for third world nations. If anything Kyoto is more likely to harm the environment, and is, in any event, more of a wealth redistribution scheme than it is an environmental management plan.
It's also funny to note that the country which "hates the worlds children" has made bigger strides in combating GHG emissions than several Kyoto signatories.
But hey, who needs facts and logic when you can get all your opinions from the "down with HaliBusHitler" maniacs, eh?
While I appreciate the anecdote, it's just another "I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend" type story. And look at your source. A "a Nigerian unionist"? Yeah, not like he'd have a reason to exaggerate! Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm sure that conditions there are far from ideal, but since the whole country is shit, I seriously doubt foreign investment would have made them any worse. This is just another attempt to demonize the foreign devils. You see it everywhere, and most of the time it's bullshit. And people like you just eat it up. For some reason it seems you like to believe that when anything goes wrong anywhere in the world, western culture must be the cause. I don't know where this belief comes from, but it's one of the silliest things that our societies have managed to come up with.
Sorry, but the link you provided links to nothing for me, and in the 10 minutes I spent looking, I haven't been able to find any claims of multinational oil companies stealing these peoples land. I did ofcourse find out that there are oil companies there, and that the people in the region have all sorts of problems, but that's about it. This paragraph caught my attention though:
"A study of the six major causes of death in Nigeria (measles, malaria, pneumonia, tetanus, dysentery and tuberculosis) indicate that the coastal area constitutes a zone of disproportionately high mortality proneness to these diseases. Other diseases affecting the people of the Niger Delta include worm infestation, gastroenteritis, hypertension and sexually transmitted diseases, especially among adolescents."
It seems that oil flares and chemical spills (if any) are the LEAST of their problems....
"China, Three Gorges Project - 1.3 million relocated"
Horrible example. The people are being relocated, so a) they won't be working at the dam and b) they're being given land elsewhere.
"China, Hunan Province, 2006 - Water Pollution Control Facility"
Can't say I'm familiar with that project, but it sounds much the same as the other one you listed.
Not to mention that both projects are being carried out by the government for the benefit of their own populations. That's not what we were discussing. Show me a modern example of a foreign company moving in to a country, annexing a bunch of land, building some sort of facility, and leaving the locals with no option but to work for that company. Chinese government projects which compensate the displaced people don't exactly fall into that category.
The principles are quite simple really, and seem to be recognized in every written body of law on the planet.
Maybe so, but law approaches it a bit more logically than you have. In law, your tow truck driver might be held liable for damaging the vehicle that he was towing, sure. But he's not going to be held liable for crushing other vehicles while working his second job at the scrap-yard.
Or, if we can throw away the idiotic analogies for a second, you're not arguing that Bill Gates' charity should be held responsible because they were negligent and accidentally injected some kid with the wrong kind of liquid - you're saying that the charity should be held responsible for something a totally different company is doing. That's pretty damn illogical, and it certainly doesn't have any basis in law.
It simply isn't enough to do Good Works to glorify your name; it is also necessary to use the skills of a philanthropist to keep from doing obvious harm.
Not by any law I've ever heard of, and certainly not by any moral requirements. If they wish to do charitable work, good on 'em. If a bank robber decides to give away half of the money he stole, great! Let's be realistic here - if it's a choice between stopping the charitable work, or stopping their other practises, which do you think they'll chose? Your idealism is nice and all, but that's not the way the world works, my friend.
You might want to make sure you actually understand what he's saying before you go calling him an idiot. As it is, you're looking a wee bit silly yourself.
His point was that it makes more sense to make SUV's hybrid because it'll make a bigger difference than if you make compact cars hybrid, and he's absolutely correct. The fact that the compact car will still be more fuel-efficient is irrelevant. The fact that my bicycle is still more efficient than your compact car is also irrelevant. What matters is that by making the SUV hybrid you're saving 15+ mpg for those who were going to buy an SUV anyway, whereas by making a car hybrid, you're saving a lot less on a per-vehicle basis.
US companies generally pay wages that are higher than the local standard, so you can shitcan that part of your argument. It's the reason locals flock to work there - not only do they provide new jobs, but they usually provide better working conditions, AND they pay better than the locals.
Also, I'd love to see you provide a modern example of people being dislocated from their farm-land in order to build an oil field (or any other kind of business), and then having no option but to work for that company. For some reason I get the distinct impression that you're just talking out of your ass.
So the obvious solution is stop doing charity work. Imagine that you're the tow-truck driver, and over the course of many years you've spent thousands of hard earned dollars, and helped hundreds of families. Then one day the accident occurs, and suddenly, the whole state decides that you're an evil bastard who needs to reform his tow-truck use. Not only that but they're going to review all of your actions in the future, and blame you for any small slip-up that occurs. You scratched that guys bumper while pulling him out of the ditch! You touched that womans tit while you were giving her CPR! EVIL!
Screw that shit. The moment that charity becomes that much trouble is the moment I stop trying.
Maybe I should change my tagline to "I don't respond to idiots".
For you, I'll make an exception. Let me lay it out for you Einstein:
You are equating poverty with equality. That my friend is a communist, or at the very least "socialist", mindset. You are in effect saying that eliminating poverty is not enough - we must also work to make sure that everyone is as equal as possible. Now, in your ignorance, I'm sure that this sounds like a fantastic idea.
Having grown up under a communist regime, I know better.
I could spend days expounding on the kind of depravity and oppression which can be justified by such ideologies. I could spend hours trying to explain to you why such behaviour is the equivalent of societal suicide. I'll do neither, since the record of the communist ideology is clear to see for anyone who cares to look around.
Enforced "equality" has been used to justify so much slaughter, oppression, and misery that, in this respect, it is almost on par with religion. Feel-good ideas like yours are the security-blankets of weak minds, and a trademark of the bumper-sticker philosopher. I'll be damned if I'll let mindless cretins such as yourself take away my money and achievements just because others were too stupid, lazy, or incompetent to acquire the same for themselves. Today it's asking me to subsidize the wireless access of "poor" families - tomorrow it's telling me that I can't have any bread because I'm big and strong and able to work for myself, but the fat lazy slob in the corner gets a loaf because he's "poor, weak, and unable to provide for himself". I've seen what your kinds of mindset leads to. If you want to drag me down that road you'd better bring some heavy artillery, because I'll be fighting every step of the way.
"Insightful"? Dammit. Slashdot REALLY needs a better moderation system.
This psychotic-chainsaw-with-artificial-intelligence analogy is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Maybe the author of that post is really so ignorant about computers that he believes them capable of free-thought and action. If he is, I feel sorry for him. The people who modded him up, though, should know better. Computers require programming or user input, or both. Either way, they only do what SOMEONE ELSE has told them to do. So if you REALLY wanted a chainsaw analogy, this is more akin to someone breaking into your house, stealing your chainsaw, and then using it to slaughter half the town. After which you, naturally, wake up, curse the makers of the chainsaw, and try to convince everyone that this never would have happened if only the chainsaw had come with better security.
Seriously, the ignorance in this place never fails to amaze me....
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. What a humanitarian you are. Thanks for setting the record straight, although I was fairly certain you didn't "give a shit" about the rest of the world just judging by the arrogance in your initial statement.
Secular Europe != "Rest of the World", genius. I think the Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs may have had a different reaction than you.
I actually agree with most of what you said, I just find your arrogance astounding. You speak as if your beliefs are the One Self Evident Universal Truth, and that all Americans are fools because some of them disagree with you, even though on a global scale your views are the the minority by a long shot.
Which is, ofcourse, crap. If they can replicate stuff, then they can replicate currency, so ofcourse they had to find a way to explain why they're not just working their replicators overtime and buying up the entire Ferengi empire.
And the whole thing makes you wonder why they'd bother in the first place. Ferengi merchants probably wouldn't have much to offer that couldn't simply be replicated, and, even if they DID, it would make more sense fiscally speaking to trade goods for other goods instead of for bricks of gold pressed whatchamacallit. There's more profit to be made by loading up your ship with tradable commodities on both legs of the journey, than by only carrying goods one way, and carrying a hold full of "money" on your way back. And the Ferengi are all about maximizing profit.
The whole thing falls apart when you look at it from any logical standpoint. I think someone looked at the original, idealistic star trek, thougth to himself "god dammit, what were we thinking??" and tried to reintroduce money. Unfortunately they did it in the form of precious metals, which is just dumb. An economy which can replicate anything using anti-matter and dylithium crystals would have an economy based on antimatter and dylithium crystals. That would be the only form of currency which would mean anything.
Except the federation isn't really communist - it's just a society where individual wealth has little meaning. The problem is that they don't show you much in the way of private business, but you DO get a glimpse of privately owned starcraft, private businesses, a form of currency, etc. Not only that, but they seem to have no tax structure in place, whereas communist nations tend to take everything and then give you back what they think you need. They resemble a capitalist society far more than they do a communist one - the only difference is that people seem to have gotten past personal wealth as a measure of self worth, but even in the Federation it'd still be quit possible to stockpile currency and property if you so chose.
lol. ah, yes. "ok, you guys can keep polluting as much as you want, but...HEY! YOU YANKEE BASTARDS! CUT OUT THAT POLLUTION CRAP RIGHT NOW!"
Why does this remind me of the global position on EVERYTHING? Other countries can pollute, oppress their populations, start wars, deofrest the rainforests, fish and hunt species into extinction, break international laws, traffic in slaves, threaten neighbouring countries with extinction....and nobody says a peep. Maybe there's a few "tsk, tsk's" here and there, and if it's REALLY bad then the UN will write a letter to them,, and if it get's REALLY bad they'll write them a more strongly worded letter, but that's about it. Meanwhile, let the US try doing any of those things, and the whole globe is screaming at you to STOP YOUR IMPERIALIST FASCIST POLICIES THIS SECOND!!!!!!
I don't know man. I don't see what's "fair" about any of that. That's just me though. I feel that, in addition to taking the fall for all the bad things done in the last millennium, western civilization and the US specifically should also get the credit for all the positive things which the rest of the world had no part in achieving. You know, I believe in this little thing called "perspective". While we were busy polluting the world and oppressing the blacks, we also came up with the ideals of universal rights and freedoms, extended the human life span to twice it's normal length, and created technologies to fix most of the problems we've created along the way. Saying that the US "doesn't get to pollute any more because you already polluted too damn much" tends to ignore all the things made possible by that pollution. It tends to ignore the fact that the third world has accomplished exactly jack shit except killing eachother for the last few centuries and mooching off the modern world whenever possible. Could you imagine telling the Ford Motor Company that they can't have any more metal because they've used more of it than that drunken homeless guy in the corner who's passed out in a puddle of his own vomit? Perspective is an important thing. Too many people have lost all sight of it.
Because I want the computer equipment. Maybe they'll even have something powerful enough to run Vista....
Considering that the Sealand came into existence because Roy Bates beat the shit out of some drifters, I'd call that a pretty good precedent for using force in order to gain control of territory.
Although it wouldn't have to be the US - RIAA could simply hire a handful of Blackwater merks.
Frankly, I don't know why the Brits don't just take it back. The worst that could happen is they get nailed under international salvage guidelines, and have to pay the guy for "salvaging" their platform for them.
Piracy committed in international waters is one of those gray-area things, but the international agreements seems to be that any vessel of any nation may use whatever force is necessary in order to stop an act of piracy in international water. Therefore, technically speaking, any government would be fully justified in invading this "sealand" and putting a stop to their criminal activities. Actually, to be fully correct, it wouldn't even have to be a government ship, since even private vessels are authorized to act in order to stop pirate activity. Therefore, I could rent a boat, sail over to the platform, board it, confiscate their computer equipment, and go home. It'd be perfectly legal. Probably pretty safe too - I don't think computer nerds are quite as dangerous as the original pirates.
Your browser must not have parsed my sarcasm tags. Let's try that again:
[SARCASM]That must have been REALLY tough for you. On the one hand you've got an evil scum-sucking earth raping corporation. On the other hand you've got the family of a baby-killing stormtrooper of the BushHitler regime.[/SARCASM] I'll bet your tiny little head topped 3,000 RPM while trying to figure out which side to defend, and which one to attack.
No, I'm arguing that countries which sign the Kyoto agreement and then proceed to increase their emissions at a higher rate than the US have no business criticizing the US for not signing the Kyoto protocol. Kyoto has always been a joke, and the actions of these signatories only confirms this.
As for the rest, the US may be the world's biggest polluter, but what else can you expect from the worlds biggest producer? Sure, there's plenty of room for improvement, but singling them out for criticism is just silly. It also seems to be status-quo these days - all other nations get a free pass on everything, as long as they can shift blame to the US.
That must have been REALLY tough for you. On the one hand you've got an evil scum-sucking earth raping corporation. On the other hand you've got the family of a baby-killing stormtrooper of the BushHitler regime. I'll bet your tiny little head topped 3,000 RPM while trying to figure out which side to defend, and which one to attack.
There are many studies, although most lump all the companies together under the title of "multinational corporations". For instance, this one:
a pers/article.asp?id=1369
http://www.independent.org/publications/working_p
You may be right about the US corporations being the worst of the bunch, although I sincerely doubt it. Japanese sweatshops often don't treat workers well even within their own nation, AND they're some of the most xenophobic people in the world, so I find it difficult to believe they'd be acting like angels of mercy in the third world.
However, I don't have any specific figures that break down the corporations by nationality, so I can't say with certainty. My only defence is that when I said "US corporations" I was using it as a generic term to encompass all modern corporations operating in foreign nations.
Percentages increases are a measure of trends. Over time, the country which expands it's emissions at a higher rate will surpass a country which expands at a slower rate, regardless of the initial figures. Measuring growth in absolute figures rather than percentages is just silly - you can't possibly expect a country like the US to have the same absolute growth as a tiny place like Ireland, but you CAN expect them to maintain the same or a lower percentage. If you're going to tell me that you expect them to maintain the same absolute growth, then you are beyond reason, and we have nothing left to discuss.
You and I both know that there's no direct link. But you are doubtless also aware that there's a lot of very suggestive information, and that there's very little regulation over how the "gas credits" are spent. So let's not play games.
Hardly. If you truly beleive that third wolrd nations infused with massive ammounts of wealth are going to turn around and use that wealth to benefit the environment, then I've got some beachfront property to sell you. Sustainable enviornmental management depends on developing the required technology in the west, and then convincing other nations to make use of it. Wealth redistribution just takes away resources which could be going towards further research.
At last look, the US has made the biggest strides in hydrogen fuels technology, they have the only viable all-electric sports car, and they're making breakthroughs in solar cell technology. As far as I can tell, the US is making bigger strides toward the elimination of fossil fuels than all the other nations put together.
Who said anything about the ozone? I said greenhouse gases. That includes that big-bad-boogeyman, CO2. Here:
US greenhouse gas emissions have grown 16% since 1990, hardly a point of pride, but slower than Kyoto signatories New Zealand (21%), Ireland (23%), Canada (27%), Portugal (41%) and Spain (49%).
How 'bout them apples?
The fact that you use phrases like "talking points on Fox News" tells me all I need to know about your level of discourse. "Bumper Sticker Thinker" seems an appropriate label.
Eh, no, sorry, not quite. All that Kyoto buys is more coal-powered plants for third world nations. If anything Kyoto is more likely to harm the environment, and is, in any event, more of a wealth redistribution scheme than it is an environmental management plan.
It's also funny to note that the country which "hates the worlds children" has made bigger strides in combating GHG emissions than several Kyoto signatories.
But hey, who needs facts and logic when you can get all your opinions from the "down with HaliBusHitler" maniacs, eh?
While I appreciate the anecdote, it's just another "I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend" type story. And look at your source. A "a Nigerian unionist"? Yeah, not like he'd have a reason to exaggerate! Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm sure that conditions there are far from ideal, but since the whole country is shit, I seriously doubt foreign investment would have made them any worse. This is just another attempt to demonize the foreign devils. You see it everywhere, and most of the time it's bullshit. And people like you just eat it up. For some reason it seems you like to believe that when anything goes wrong anywhere in the world, western culture must be the cause. I don't know where this belief comes from, but it's one of the silliest things that our societies have managed to come up with.
Sorry, but the link you provided links to nothing for me, and in the 10 minutes I spent looking, I haven't been able to find any claims of multinational oil companies stealing these peoples land. I did ofcourse find out that there are oil companies there, and that the people in the region have all sorts of problems, but that's about it. This paragraph caught my attention though:
"A study of the six major causes of death in Nigeria (measles, malaria, pneumonia, tetanus, dysentery and tuberculosis) indicate that the coastal area constitutes a zone of disproportionately high mortality proneness to these diseases. Other diseases affecting the people of the Niger Delta include worm infestation, gastroenteritis, hypertension and sexually transmitted diseases, especially among adolescents."
It seems that oil flares and chemical spills (if any) are the LEAST of their problems....
"China, Three Gorges Project - 1.3 million relocated"
Horrible example. The people are being relocated, so a) they won't be working at the dam and b) they're being given land elsewhere.
"China, Hunan Province, 2006 - Water Pollution Control Facility"
Can't say I'm familiar with that project, but it sounds much the same as the other one you listed.
Not to mention that both projects are being carried out by the government for the benefit of their own populations. That's not what we were discussing. Show me a modern example of a foreign company moving in to a country, annexing a bunch of land, building some sort of facility, and leaving the locals with no option but to work for that company. Chinese government projects which compensate the displaced people don't exactly fall into that category.
Or, if we can throw away the idiotic analogies for a second, you're not arguing that Bill Gates' charity should be held responsible because they were negligent and accidentally injected some kid with the wrong kind of liquid - you're saying that the charity should be held responsible for something a totally different company is doing. That's pretty damn illogical, and it certainly doesn't have any basis in law.
Not by any law I've ever heard of, and certainly not by any moral requirements. If they wish to do charitable work, good on 'em. If a bank robber decides to give away half of the money he stole, great! Let's be realistic here - if it's a choice between stopping the charitable work, or stopping their other practises, which do you think they'll chose? Your idealism is nice and all, but that's not the way the world works, my friend.
You might want to make sure you actually understand what he's saying before you go calling him an idiot. As it is, you're looking a wee bit silly yourself.
His point was that it makes more sense to make SUV's hybrid because it'll make a bigger difference than if you make compact cars hybrid, and he's absolutely correct. The fact that the compact car will still be more fuel-efficient is irrelevant. The fact that my bicycle is still more efficient than your compact car is also irrelevant. What matters is that by making the SUV hybrid you're saving 15+ mpg for those who were going to buy an SUV anyway, whereas by making a car hybrid, you're saving a lot less on a per-vehicle basis.
US companies generally pay wages that are higher than the local standard, so you can shitcan that part of your argument. It's the reason locals flock to work there - not only do they provide new jobs, but they usually provide better working conditions, AND they pay better than the locals.
Also, I'd love to see you provide a modern example of people being dislocated from their farm-land in order to build an oil field (or any other kind of business), and then having no option but to work for that company. For some reason I get the distinct impression that you're just talking out of your ass.
So the obvious solution is stop doing charity work. Imagine that you're the tow-truck driver, and over the course of many years you've spent thousands of hard earned dollars, and helped hundreds of families. Then one day the accident occurs, and suddenly, the whole state decides that you're an evil bastard who needs to reform his tow-truck use. Not only that but they're going to review all of your actions in the future, and blame you for any small slip-up that occurs. You scratched that guys bumper while pulling him out of the ditch! You touched that womans tit while you were giving her CPR! EVIL!
Screw that shit. The moment that charity becomes that much trouble is the moment I stop trying.
Maybe I should change my tagline to "I don't respond to idiots".
For you, I'll make an exception. Let me lay it out for you Einstein:
You are equating poverty with equality. That my friend is a communist, or at the very least "socialist", mindset. You are in effect saying that eliminating poverty is not enough - we must also work to make sure that everyone is as equal as possible. Now, in your ignorance, I'm sure that this sounds like a fantastic idea.
Having grown up under a communist regime, I know better.
I could spend days expounding on the kind of depravity and oppression which can be justified by such ideologies. I could spend hours trying to explain to you why such behaviour is the equivalent of societal suicide. I'll do neither, since the record of the communist ideology is clear to see for anyone who cares to look around.
Enforced "equality" has been used to justify so much slaughter, oppression, and misery that, in this respect, it is almost on par with religion. Feel-good ideas like yours are the security-blankets of weak minds, and a trademark of the bumper-sticker philosopher. I'll be damned if I'll let mindless cretins such as yourself take away my money and achievements just because others were too stupid, lazy, or incompetent to acquire the same for themselves. Today it's asking me to subsidize the wireless access of "poor" families - tomorrow it's telling me that I can't have any bread because I'm big and strong and able to work for myself, but the fat lazy slob in the corner gets a loaf because he's "poor, weak, and unable to provide for himself". I've seen what your kinds of mindset leads to. If you want to drag me down that road you'd better bring some heavy artillery, because I'll be fighting every step of the way.
That was truly the most Orwellian thing I've read in a LONG time. I'm sorry, I can't help you.
"Insightful"? Dammit. Slashdot REALLY needs a better moderation system.
This psychotic-chainsaw-with-artificial-intelligence analogy is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Maybe the author of that post is really so ignorant about computers that he believes them capable of free-thought and action. If he is, I feel sorry for him. The people who modded him up, though, should know better. Computers require programming or user input, or both. Either way, they only do what SOMEONE ELSE has told them to do. So if you REALLY wanted a chainsaw analogy, this is more akin to someone breaking into your house, stealing your chainsaw, and then using it to slaughter half the town. After which you, naturally, wake up, curse the makers of the chainsaw, and try to convince everyone that this never would have happened if only the chainsaw had come with better security.
Seriously, the ignorance in this place never fails to amaze me....