Because while the US may have higher emissions per-capita, their ratio of emissions vs energy produced is a lot LOWER than a country like China. Now, while there is a bit of room for decreasing energy consumption in the western world through things like more efficient fridges and light bulbs, the fact of the matter is that any modern society is going to require massive amounts of energy. The US or any other modern country could never bring their emissions as low as China simply because much of China doesn't even have electricity yet. As China continues to grow and modernize itself, we'll all be VERY lucky if they manage to keep their per-capita emissions below US levels. And the most likely way to make that happen isn't by taxing the shit out of western business to pay for "emission control", but by putting more funding into researching alternative energy generation and storage methods. That way, by the time China's industry goes into full swing, we'll have alternatives to offer them instead of having them rely on coal and oil.
Kyoto's pretty much useless. You want to reduce global emissions? Set realistic standards for countries to meet, and then impose penalty fees if they don't meet them. Then take those penalty fees and funnel them into alternate fuels research. Fund everything from solar cells and more efficient batteries to hydrogen engines, to nuclear plants and fusion research. Hell, since the UN is pretty good at administration (if nothing else) get them to set up a research facility and extend invitations to the leading scientists in those fields. With all western nations participating you could have nearly unlimited funding. The modern (and more productive) version of the Manhattan project. Kyoto right now is nothing more than a wealth-redistribution campaign to move funds from western nations to the third world, and help us feel like we're "doing something". If we really want to reduce emissions, let's get serious.
You know, I've been aware for quite a while now that BDS can cause all sorts of mental disorders in people such as yourself, but I'd never seen it demonstrated so clearly before.
For your sake, I'll take the time to explain this nice and slow-like, just in case it's not yet too late to de-program you.
I said:
Well, ofcourse there wouldn't be any anxiety about it. It's only logical that the guy who "created the internet" should be in charge of it.
After which you started accusing me of saying that Al Gore invented the internet.
Now, look at the quoted text carefully. See the lack of the word "invented"? Yes, that would be because I never SAID that. In fact, I was making fun of him for claiming that he "created" the internet.
Are we clear now? I'm not "changing the subject". I made a simple statement, and you, in your "MUSTKILLBUSHHITLERNAZINOW!" mindset decided to try and bite my head off, without even reading my post properly. Now, if you're that high strung, I would suggest you lay off the crack-pipe for a while, and maybe switch to weed. It's supposed to have a really mellowing effect. Ask your democrat buddies, I'm sure they can hook you up.
Steele is known to be a Conspiracy nut, and is a few letters short of a full acronym if you know what I mean....
Pretty much anything that this man claims, I can guarantee that the opposite is true. Google may very well have partnered with the CIA in the past, but nothing to the extent to which Mr. Steele is alluding.
Buddy, you're hilarious! You link to a bill which deals with alien illegal combatants as proof that the US has lost the right to freedom of speech! Christ man, even my 12 year old sister has better comprehensive abilities than that!
Since you seem a little...."slow"....I'll explain why I suggested that you're living in an Orwellian universe. See, the US is one of the few western nations without hate-speech legislation. As such, the US provides a greater degree of freedom of speech than pretty much any other country on this planet. Yet, you seem to believe that the opposite is true.
I had an excellent reply to this typed up...and I guess I forgot to hit the submit button or something because it seems to be gone. Suffice it to say that when you say:
Do you think that you should instead go "Oh fuck it, the [rest of the world] will again find ways to blame us so why bother" ?
The answer is "yes". Look at the Tsunami incident if you need an example. The world took turns between insisting that the US wasn't giving enough, and making fun of Bush for sending an aircraft carrier. I didn't see a single "thank you".
We are called the Europe, we are quite content with the degree of freedom we have, and we are tired of hearing how the USA is the best place in the world to live in.
If France is any indication right now, you better enjoy your freedom while it lasts. Just try not to piss off the US too much, or they may not come to your rescue this time.
What are you, retarded? I understand that some people hate Bush so much that they start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of his name...but that's no excuse for building your own little Orwellian universe, and locking yourself away inside of it.
That press freedom thing has got to be the most arbitrary list I've seen in a while. What was their methodology exactly? How did they arrive at those conclusions? It seems to me that you could have an equally "scientific" list if you just sat 10 random people in a room and said "hare, rank these countries based on how much you like them". And the fact is that those idiots claim the US is carrying out "arbitrary arrests" of journalists in Iraq when, in fact, the only example they can give is a guy who provided photographs of terrorists posing with hostages, and corpses. Seems to me they're being a wee bit irrational.
Now THAT is funny. The world thanking the US. Heh. You've got quite an imagination.
Maybe if the world were more democratic and rational, that would happen. On the other hand, if the world were more rational, the US wouldn't have so much of a problem handing over control of the net.
It's like Human rights, it should apply to anyone regardless of their citizenship.
Uhuh. And who's going to protect those rights?
Your statements display an utter inability to understand how the world works. Humans have always banded together in groups in order to protect eachother from other groups. Modern society makes the need for such tribalism unnecessary within civilized nations, however, the nations themselves are basically just larger and more complex tribes. The success and survival of the tribe has always hinged on treating outsiders differently, and that's not about to change any time soon.
"Poor non-native speaking" kids like me you mean? When I moved here I found the public school system ludicrously easy. The ONLY thing I had a problem with was English, and I managed to learn it adequately in about 5 months. Within 2 years I was spelling and writing better than my native-born classmates. Many immigrants are the same, simply because they have a better work ethic than the kids who grow up in first world countries. As long as they're motivated to adapt and become part of the new society, they'll do better than the native children.
Most immigrant children will only be a problem in schools and communities where integration isn't encouraged. If I were say, Mexican, and moved into an all Mexican community within the US, I'd have no motivation to learn English or to integrate in any way whatsoever. That's when you start seeing poor performance at school.
Thanks, you just about covered what my response would have been.
Being a citizen of any given country comes with certain rights and certain responsibilities. If EVERYONE has the same rights as a US citizen, then what's the point of having citizenship at all?
"Good question, but considering that he's already going to jail for what essentially amounts to thoughtcrime"
Conspiracy is not a thought crime. Conspiracy consists of planning and usualy preparation, most often involving several individuals. It's one thing for you to think "I want to kill George Bush", it's quite another if you go up to your friends and say "hey guys, I bought this here rifle...who wants to be my spotter when I go assassinate the president?".
At this point, the government can put you in jail for pretty much anything. And with the death of habeas corpus on October 18 2006, they don't even have to give you a trial.
I swear to god I'm going to take a claw hammer to the next person who repeats that myth.
For the thousandth fucking time, that bill only applies to non-citizens!
Ohhh, you don't say! Some people are going to take advantage of it. Wow. That's the most insightful thing I've ever read! I would have NEVER thought of that on my own.
On the other hand, how exactly that says anything either positive or negative about the law is beyond my ability to comprehend. Perhaps you're just entirely too clever for me, but I fail to see how a few criminals abusing their authority in any way, shape, or form either validates or invalidates any given law.
Your statement is equivalent to stating that some police are liable to use their government-issued sidearms to commit murder. It's a pointless statement of fact that does nothing to either validate or invalidate the issuing of weapons to police officers. Both your statement and my analogy are statements of facts which should be obvious to everyone, as well as being examples of an individual using a totally irrelevant comment to slyly imply that the issue being discussed is a bad idea. It's a dishonest way to cast aspersion on your opposition.
So according to you, the "realists view" is that the government has implemented a new policy to confiscate laptops so that a bunch of security guards will have something to play Quake on.....
Ok, where's the camera?
The basic concept is so stupid I don't know whether to laugh at you or poke you with a stick. Not to mention the type of paranoia it takes to be willing to label an entire industry as nothing but a bunch of thieves. Especially an industry which is dedicated to PROTECTING private property.
While I agree with the gyst of your argumentm, I would suggest that you not attempt using that line of reasoning after digging up a corpse in a cemetery in London, no matter how long it may have been buried.
Slashdot Mirror
Because while the US may have higher emissions per-capita, their ratio of emissions vs energy produced is a lot LOWER than a country like China. Now, while there is a bit of room for decreasing energy consumption in the western world through things like more efficient fridges and light bulbs, the fact of the matter is that any modern society is going to require massive amounts of energy. The US or any other modern country could never bring their emissions as low as China simply because much of China doesn't even have electricity yet. As China continues to grow and modernize itself, we'll all be VERY lucky if they manage to keep their per-capita emissions below US levels. And the most likely way to make that happen isn't by taxing the shit out of western business to pay for "emission control", but by putting more funding into researching alternative energy generation and storage methods. That way, by the time China's industry goes into full swing, we'll have alternatives to offer them instead of having them rely on coal and oil. Kyoto's pretty much useless. You want to reduce global emissions? Set realistic standards for countries to meet, and then impose penalty fees if they don't meet them. Then take those penalty fees and funnel them into alternate fuels research. Fund everything from solar cells and more efficient batteries to hydrogen engines, to nuclear plants and fusion research. Hell, since the UN is pretty good at administration (if nothing else) get them to set up a research facility and extend invitations to the leading scientists in those fields. With all western nations participating you could have nearly unlimited funding. The modern (and more productive) version of the Manhattan project. Kyoto right now is nothing more than a wealth-redistribution campaign to move funds from western nations to the third world, and help us feel like we're "doing something". If we really want to reduce emissions, let's get serious.
You know, I've been aware for quite a while now that BDS can cause all sorts of mental disorders in people such as yourself, but I'd never seen it demonstrated so clearly before.
For your sake, I'll take the time to explain this nice and slow-like, just in case it's not yet too late to de-program you.
I said:
After which you started accusing me of saying that Al Gore invented the internet.
Now, look at the quoted text carefully. See the lack of the word "invented"? Yes, that would be because I never SAID that. In fact, I was making fun of him for claiming that he "created" the internet.
Are we clear now? I'm not "changing the subject". I made a simple statement, and you, in your "MUSTKILLBUSHHITLERNAZINOW!" mindset decided to try and bite my head off, without even reading my post properly. Now, if you're that high strung, I would suggest you lay off the crack-pipe for a while, and maybe switch to weed. It's supposed to have a really mellowing effect. Ask your democrat buddies, I'm sure they can hook you up.
Have you considered Valium?
AND, even more amazingly, a Slashdot thread goes for more than 10 minutes without anyone making fun of Bush or complaining about the US.
Steele is known to be a Conspiracy nut, and is a few letters short of a full acronym if you know what I mean....
Pretty much anything that this man claims, I can guarantee that the opposite is true. Google may very well have partnered with the CIA in the past, but nothing to the extent to which Mr. Steele is alluding.
Buddy, you're hilarious! You link to a bill which deals with alien illegal combatants as proof that the US has lost the right to freedom of speech! Christ man, even my 12 year old sister has better comprehensive abilities than that!
Since you seem a little...."slow"....I'll explain why I suggested that you're living in an Orwellian universe. See, the US is one of the few western nations without hate-speech legislation. As such, the US provides a greater degree of freedom of speech than pretty much any other country on this planet. Yet, you seem to believe that the opposite is true.
"Freedom is Tyranny", right?
I had an excellent reply to this typed up...and I guess I forgot to hit the submit button or something because it seems to be gone. Suffice it to say that when you say:
Do you think that you should instead go "Oh fuck it, the [rest of the world] will again find ways to blame us so why bother" ?
The answer is "yes". Look at the Tsunami incident if you need an example. The world took turns between insisting that the US wasn't giving enough, and making fun of Bush for sending an aircraft carrier. I didn't see a single "thank you".
We are called the Europe, we are quite content with the degree of freedom we have, and we are tired of hearing how the USA is the best place in the world to live in.
If France is any indication right now, you better enjoy your freedom while it lasts. Just try not to piss off the US too much, or they may not come to your rescue this time.
Oh, and once again, I'm not American.
Heh. I might get offended if you hadn't just clearly demonstrated your own idiocy:
Please go back and show me where I used the word "invented".
Are you too stupid to understand your own link?
Or are you one of those imbeciles who insist that "taking the initiative in creating" is not basically the same thing as "creating"?
What are you, retarded? I understand that some people hate Bush so much that they start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of his name...but that's no excuse for building your own little Orwellian universe, and locking yourself away inside of it.
That press freedom thing has got to be the most arbitrary list I've seen in a while. What was their methodology exactly? How did they arrive at those conclusions? It seems to me that you could have an equally "scientific" list if you just sat 10 random people in a room and said "hare, rank these countries based on how much you like them". And the fact is that those idiots claim the US is carrying out "arbitrary arrests" of journalists in Iraq when, in fact, the only example they can give is a guy who provided photographs of terrorists posing with hostages, and corpses. Seems to me they're being a wee bit irrational.
Well, ofcourse there wouldn't be any anxiety about it. It's only logical that the guy who "created the internet" should be in charge of it.
Humanity should thank the US
Now THAT is funny. The world thanking the US. Heh. You've got quite an imagination.
Maybe if the world were more democratic and rational, that would happen. On the other hand, if the world were more rational, the US wouldn't have so much of a problem handing over control of the net.
Maybe I'm missing something here, since you seem to be an "insightful" guy, but what's that got to do with the legal system?
It's like Human rights, it should apply to anyone regardless of their citizenship.
Uhuh. And who's going to protect those rights?
Your statements display an utter inability to understand how the world works. Humans have always banded together in groups in order to protect eachother from other groups. Modern society makes the need for such tribalism unnecessary within civilized nations, however, the nations themselves are basically just larger and more complex tribes. The success and survival of the tribe has always hinged on treating outsiders differently, and that's not about to change any time soon.
"Poor non-native speaking" kids like me you mean? When I moved here I found the public school system ludicrously easy. The ONLY thing I had a problem with was English, and I managed to learn it adequately in about 5 months. Within 2 years I was spelling and writing better than my native-born classmates. Many immigrants are the same, simply because they have a better work ethic than the kids who grow up in first world countries. As long as they're motivated to adapt and become part of the new society, they'll do better than the native children.
Most immigrant children will only be a problem in schools and communities where integration isn't encouraged. If I were say, Mexican, and moved into an all Mexican community within the US, I'd have no motivation to learn English or to integrate in any way whatsoever. That's when you start seeing poor performance at school.
Thanks, you just about covered what my response would have been.
Being a citizen of any given country comes with certain rights and certain responsibilities. If EVERYONE has the same rights as a US citizen, then what's the point of having citizenship at all?
You know, if I could actually use my mod points, I wouldn't know whether to mod you as "funny" or "troll" :)
EWWWWWWWWW!
So his real first question must have been:
"Ok, so this will get me someone better than Martha, right?"
"Good question, but considering that he's already going to jail for what essentially amounts to thoughtcrime"
Conspiracy is not a thought crime. Conspiracy consists of planning and usualy preparation, most often involving several individuals. It's one thing for you to think "I want to kill George Bush", it's quite another if you go up to your friends and say "hey guys, I bought this here rifle...who wants to be my spotter when I go assassinate the president?".
At this point, the government can put you in jail for pretty much anything. And with the death of habeas corpus on October 18 2006, they don't even have to give you a trial.
I swear to god I'm going to take a claw hammer to the next person who repeats that myth.
For the thousandth fucking time, that bill only applies to non-citizens!
Ohhh, you don't say! Some people are going to take advantage of it. Wow. That's the most insightful thing I've ever read! I would have NEVER thought of that on my own.
On the other hand, how exactly that says anything either positive or negative about the law is beyond my ability to comprehend. Perhaps you're just entirely too clever for me, but I fail to see how a few criminals abusing their authority in any way, shape, or form either validates or invalidates any given law.
Your statement is equivalent to stating that some police are liable to use their government-issued sidearms to commit murder. It's a pointless statement of fact that does nothing to either validate or invalidate the issuing of weapons to police officers. Both your statement and my analogy are statements of facts which should be obvious to everyone, as well as being examples of an individual using a totally irrelevant comment to slyly imply that the issue being discussed is a bad idea. It's a dishonest way to cast aspersion on your opposition.
So according to you, the "realists view" is that the government has implemented a new policy to confiscate laptops so that a bunch of security guards will have something to play Quake on. ....
Ok, where's the camera?
The basic concept is so stupid I don't know whether to laugh at you or poke you with a stick. Not to mention the type of paranoia it takes to be willing to label an entire industry as nothing but a bunch of thieves. Especially an industry which is dedicated to PROTECTING private property.
In other words, you're way off base here buds.
Doesn't work that way. You should have been modded flamebait instead of interesting.
Who's made themselves a portable version already? :)
While I agree with the gyst of your argumentm, I would suggest that you not attempt using that line of reasoning after digging up a corpse in a cemetery in London, no matter how long it may have been buried.