Why, because I actually read the news papers, and note that VERY few cases occur of police injustice? When it does it makes BIG headlines not because it's common, but because it is so rare.
Consider the rare occurence of police brutality. Now think of the thousands of times police action is taken. Does this mean there's a systematic problem? I think not... Just go look at the reports, at the claims even of the "Pigs are teh SUCK!" advocates, and you'll see a few dozen justified issues a year. While that is a shame that we even have that, look at the literally hundreds of thousands of arrests and police interventions.
No, of the times I've seen cries of police brutality (I was working downtown in Seattle during the WTO riots, I saw what happened, and how restrained the police really were), it's a very rare occurence, vigorously pursued, and by no means represents the VAST majority of police.
Yep - to my knowledge, exactly 1 US citizen was at Guantanamo, and he was freed. All others aren't US citizens, were taken from foreign lands, and aren't afforded the rights of the US Constitution.
Nope. My grandparents got it too, being from Germany. Of course, I don't hold the police of today - 60 years later - to account for those actions. Much like I don't hold Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party to the fire for that abuse by FDR, a fellow Democrat...
OK, and that refutes the 99.5% of the times that police action is proper AND correct? You condemn the entire system because of that?
Got news for you, my friend - you'll never find ANYTHING that's always perfect. Condemning the police because of the rare rogue cop action is terrible.
You use Linux? Then you must be a hacker/script-kiddie/slacker/anarchist, because I read once that Linux was used by someone who was one of those. So by association, ANYONE who uses Linux must be the same.../sarc
Why yes I am! I suppose you're going to say I haven't had a problem because I'm white? In Seattle, the police department is actually over-represented with minorities, wouldn't that skew things the other way?
Never had a problem in pretty much anywhere I've been, around the world. Maybe it's just attitude? Maybe it's not freaking out if an officer wants to talk to me? Maybe...
I agree. And I've never been afraid of law enforcement unless I knew I was doing something wrong. Seriously. I know it sounds trite, but it's the truth - at least in the US, the only ones who really need to fear the authorities are those with something that's punishable by the authorities.
I've been stopped for "drunk driving" when in fact I was sober as I've ever been. A courteous answer to the police, a quick execution of 2 minutes of tests, and I was on my way. Yes, I only had my running lights on at night (highway 99 around here is REALLY well lit at night, it's not appreciably brighter with your lights on).
And I usually get extra security screening at airports (I travel a lot, many times on one-way tickets because I do not know when I will return, and I've had secret clearance with the US government in the past), but a courteous answer to the TSA guards, obey their commands, and I'm through in a few minutes.
Seriously, at least in the US if you are afraid of the police, stop and ask why? Chances are it's either irrational, or you know you're doing something that you should not. In my experience, the VAST majority (like more than 99%) of enforcement personnel are great people, doing their job with pride. Are there bad ones? You bet. But there's bad PEOPLE out there too, and I don't walk down the supermarket isle in fear that the person looking at the different tortilla chips is actually a serial killer stalking me...
Of course, Wal-Mart only has data on what you do with Wal-Mart, not what you do with Costco, Best Buy, your mortgage lender, etc.
the only time I've really felt scared of the authorities was when I visited the US.
Then I'd say our authorities have done their job. You should be afraid of our ICE, our police, our enforcement arms.
And before someone whips out the quote "Governments should be afraid of their people!" that applies to the elected, legislative body. In this case, enforcement arms - police, ICE, and the like - should instill a little fear... Often times the threat of action by the authorities will halt criminal activities.
Not saying you PERSONALLY were doing anything illegal. But if you're a bit afraid of our enforcement/police agencies, then I'd say good for them...
Communications into and out of a country - contact with foreign destinations - has ALWAYS been a target of governments, and rightly so. It's always been the stance of the courts as well that international communications is fair game - you do not need a warrant.
In fact, US law specifically ALLOWS intercepts of international communications, handwringing notwithstanding. Title 18, part I, chapter 2511, section 2 (specifically subsections f and g) state it is legal to intercept such transmissions. No need for a FISA - or any court - warrant.
Up here in Washington State, especially King county, 51% against and 53% for seems to be the norm... On just about anything. It's rather commonplace now to have more votes cast than voters, and we don't even use electronic ballots.
Yeah, those are political to a degree, I must concur with you on that. I guess what I meant is that political agendas are often (or always) pushed in front of the common good. Which is sad, because governments exist for nothing if not for the common good.
I realize I am spouting off mere idealism here. Nobody cares, and things will continue as they are.
I absolutely agree with you... Too many of these issues are highly politicized. If man IS a significant driver of climate change, then let's see the facts and decide - as a whole - what to do. However, I am skeptical, and too many times here the "well it MAY be true or not, but we should be better safe than sorry so comrade - er, citizen - how about giving up most of what you have to Save The World and equalize ourselves with everyone else?" type mantra to accept it as anything BUT political.
I believe that most of those shouting the loudest about "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE!!!" aren't really interested in the climate, but really in changing society. The GW thing is just a way to force societal changes without the general public being any wiser...
I suggest going to Chile... to see examples of very non-capitalist places where the people are on the whole quite happy with life.
Oh, and about Chile not being capitalistic? I'm positive you've never been there NOR talked to anyone who's lived there. It's EXTREMELY capitalistic - in fact, I wish doing business in the US was as easy as it is in Chile. Open government, open banking, ease-of-business, and a population who craves the capitalistic method of living. EVERYONE wants to run their own businesses, and many get just that chance.
Contrary to what you've heard somewhere else, Chile is HIGHLY capitalistic. The entire ECONOMY was designed by Milton Friedman. I'm sure you've heard of him, and he was no socialist or communist - capitalist, market-driven guy all the way.
I find it interesting that you consider capitalism and democracy to be even remotely linked. Have you traveled much?
Why yes I have, and suggest you try getting out and seeing it for yourself!
I suggest going to Chile, Thailand, Venezuela or Bhutan for your next holiday to see examples of very non-capitalist places where the people are on the whole quite happy with life.
Been to Chile (actually ran a company there for a few years, in Placilla de Puenelas, outside of Valparaiso. Pretty little place.
Been to Thailand, too, many time for work - consulting in manufacturing now.
Never been to Bhutan, but was in Venezuela before Chavez. From what I hear from my acquaintances still there it's gone significantly down hill...
Relative to GDP per capita, the US, being the world's shining example of capitalism at work, has the highest rate of homelessness and citizens living in poverty in the world (~12% of US citizens live in poverty, yet it is currently the wealthiest nation on Earth in absolute terms).
Umm, I seriously question that statistic. Where'd it come from? Oh, I and I have seen poverty in the US (I was poor once, too). And I've seen extreme poverty in China, Haiti, Lagos, Ethiopia, and a few other places. Poverty in the US would be equivalent to middle-class in 2/3rds of the world. Really.
While you may believe that capitalism = happy people, all the evidence I am able to see indicates otherwise.
Quick - what non-capitalistic country has a standard of living close to that of any country in the EU, Canada, the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwain, Australia, New Zealand, etc?
Capitalism breeds democracy. Democracy allows for better living standards. Happens every time. In fact, your chosen country of Chile is a prime example! Chile's a thriving, growing, rapidly developing country SPECIFICALLY because it turned to capitalism and democracy. General Pinochet revamped the entire economy - everything - as suggested by Milton Friedman. And it's turned out AMAZINGLY well...
So, wha exactly is your evidence? Ever lived outside your country? Ever spent a few months living in a standard, 2500 RMB/month apartment in Shanghai or Shenzhen, China? Ever lived for 6 months in Placilla or Santiago, Chile? Ever spent a month in Dessalines, Haiti? Because everywhere I see any capitalism allowed to flourish, I see rising standards of living for everyone. Everywhere I've seen capitalism crushed - the State runs everything - I see a stagnant or declining economy and depressed standards of living.
Chile or Zimbabwe? Which would you rather live in? In 1970 they were about equal in tems of standards of living. One is now a modern, thriving country with a free and open economy and a democratic government. One's fallen back into a dictator-for-life nationalizing everything, handing it out to whom he sees deserving favor, and with a standard of living that's plunged in the last 10 years...
No, I read the article and it nicely sidesteps the whole issue of Mars' warming. And when they DO acknowledge that the glaciers on Mars are changing (to make that tie-in to the Earth), they conveniently ignore what may be causing Mars to warm, and that it may be the SAME THING causing warming here...
1. Where did I say man wouldn't do anything to adapt? I said ancient man was able to adapt and survive to much more rapid changes in sea level, why can't we expect to do the same?
2. Along those lines, how have cities like Venice and New Orleans been able to survive for so long? They're sinking at rates equivalent to what the IPCC says will happen. And they've been sinking for a few centuries so far.
3. What points to a collapsing ecosystem? I see a changing ecosystem, but that's normal - ecosystems ALWAYS change.
Unprecedented rate? Since the last ice age, the rate of sea-level change has been 7.2mm per year, and experienced a HUGE jump between 14,000 and 8,000 years ago where it jumped 16+mm per year for 6,000 years.
The IPCC report talks about a range of 2mm to 6mm per year over the next century.
Looks to me we're running around the historical average since the end of the last ice age (which we're still pulling out of) and nowhere near the historical peak since the last ice age. Somehow ancient man was able to deal with the change in sea levels, I think modern man may fare a bit better...
The punchline from the latter article is, "There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth..."
Of course, the BIGGER punchline is that the "MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!" scream from RealClimate.org neatly overlooks the fact that planetary warming is happening on planets where man isn't present...
The real issue isn't whether or not climate change is happening. The real issue is what portion of climate change is due to man? If we're seeing similar climate change on other planets, then we need to look at a source common to all planets - the Sun. Perhaps man isn't the primary driver of climate change? If so, the demanded solutions (Kyoto and all) really aren't worth pursuing, since they will not significantly affect climate change (even Kyoto acknowledges that it'll maybe reduce global warming by a few percent, at best).
I'd rather figure out what the source of the problem is before we figure out the solution. Seems a bit more logical and "engineering-like", don't you think?
But but but... We'll destroy the desert environment! We can't ruin that! Solar power plants over the deserts will irrepairably harm that ecosystem. Must be avoided at all costs! Even using just 1% of the land of the Nevada desert would be irresponsible and damaging to the ecosystem...
Tell ya what - you can use 1% of the Nevada desert for solar power plants if I can use 1% of ANWR for oil exploration. Deal?:)
Never mind that a scant 15,000 years ago WHOLE LANDSCAPES CHANGED as the ice age started ending and glaciers which covered all of Canada and the entire northern US started to retreat... Left those new landscape features called the Great Lakes, even!
Landscapes CONSTANTLY change. Permafront regions advance and retreat. Rivers flow, flood plains change, mountains explode (May 18, 1980 - a day I'll never forget). Cities sink (witness New Orleans and Venice), coastlines move (Brugge was once an ocean port).
Russia, China, and Canada were all MUCH warmer at one point, as well as a LOT colder. Expecting it to stay as it is now is a bit extreme...
The other issues you brought up - extinction of species and clean water - are inherently POLITICAL issues in nature. In the US and Europe, we do quite a bit to protect species and maintain clean water (some would argue too much; living in the NW and seeing the effects of the spotted owl controversy was eye-opening).
Clean water for all is much more of a political issue, than a technological issue. We can create clean water out of seawater, even from sewage! The issue is to get the governments of those without clean water to actuall SPEND their money and efforts on basic sanitation and water delivery.
Inherently, the issues you're talking about require political currency, and from my experiences around the world the more capitalistic and democratic the society, the better the general welfare of the populace. Improve the political situation from the side of totalitarianism to democracy and you'll go a long way towards eliminating suffering in the 3rd world.
Tidal is definitely a better way to go... MUCH more consistent, happens like clockwork...:)
I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the total tidal and inflow (riverine) energy of Puget Sound, where I live. Came up with something like enough power for 5,000,000 homes, about all the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).
Doing the same thing to a few of our larger bays would allow powering a VERY significant portion of the West coast of the US.
Oh well, I guess I still have room to lower my opinion of Christians a bit further. Hiding behind scripture, ignoring valid points, unwillingness to think and self-satisfaction are among the reasons I rejected Christianity.
Assuming you are a programmer or scientist or engineer or someone in general familiar with logic, I would highly recommend considering Pascal's Wager, at the very least...
...which inherently conflicts with the entire patent concept. A patent is a government-backed monopoly of your invention (software OR hardware). You get a fixed amount of time to decide to do with as you wish. Costs, if you even allow others to license it, even if you will license to person A but not person B, or even the same pricing.
Basically saying "you have patents - our backed monopoly statement of your invention - that we issued, but because you are monopoly you have to share it" really strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
Because in the US at least, a patent is a government-supported monopoly of your invention for a specified length of time. You don't even have to share it, nor do you have to have common pricing for people. You can choose to license to some, and not to others. It's yours for the duration of the patent.
After that expires, though, it's free for everyone to use... Until that time, though, it's yours to do with whatever you want.
OK, so if we accept that God flooded the entire world in a matter of days, why the heck can't you accept that He would just provide food as needed, or make all the sea animals survive because He wanted too? Essentially, if you accept one miracle, what's one more?
Slashdot Mirror
Consider the rare occurence of police brutality. Now think of the thousands of times police action is taken. Does this mean there's a systematic problem? I think not... Just go look at the reports, at the claims even of the "Pigs are teh SUCK!" advocates, and you'll see a few dozen justified issues a year. While that is a shame that we even have that, look at the literally hundreds of thousands of arrests and police interventions.
No, of the times I've seen cries of police brutality (I was working downtown in Seattle during the WTO riots, I saw what happened, and how restrained the police really were), it's a very rare occurence, vigorously pursued, and by no means represents the VAST majority of police.
A bit different than the internment camps, eh?
Maybe things have changed in 60 years?
Got news for you, my friend - you'll never find ANYTHING that's always perfect. Condemning the police because of the rare rogue cop action is terrible.
You use Linux? Then you must be a hacker/script-kiddie/slacker/anarchist, because I read once that Linux was used by someone who was one of those. So by association, ANYONE who uses Linux must be the same... /sarc
Never had a problem in pretty much anywhere I've been, around the world. Maybe it's just attitude? Maybe it's not freaking out if an officer wants to talk to me? Maybe...
I know, which is why he pulled me over... I thought I had them all the way on, but was one click off...
I've been stopped for "drunk driving" when in fact I was sober as I've ever been. A courteous answer to the police, a quick execution of 2 minutes of tests, and I was on my way. Yes, I only had my running lights on at night (highway 99 around here is REALLY well lit at night, it's not appreciably brighter with your lights on).
And I usually get extra security screening at airports (I travel a lot, many times on one-way tickets because I do not know when I will return, and I've had secret clearance with the US government in the past), but a courteous answer to the TSA guards, obey their commands, and I'm through in a few minutes.
Seriously, at least in the US if you are afraid of the police, stop and ask why? Chances are it's either irrational, or you know you're doing something that you should not. In my experience, the VAST majority (like more than 99%) of enforcement personnel are great people, doing their job with pride. Are there bad ones? You bet. But there's bad PEOPLE out there too, and I don't walk down the supermarket isle in fear that the person looking at the different tortilla chips is actually a serial killer stalking me...
the only time I've really felt scared of the authorities was when I visited the US.
Then I'd say our authorities have done their job. You should be afraid of our ICE, our police, our enforcement arms.
And before someone whips out the quote "Governments should be afraid of their people!" that applies to the elected, legislative body. In this case, enforcement arms - police, ICE, and the like - should instill a little fear... Often times the threat of action by the authorities will halt criminal activities.
Not saying you PERSONALLY were doing anything illegal. But if you're a bit afraid of our enforcement/police agencies, then I'd say good for them...
Communications into and out of a country - contact with foreign destinations - has ALWAYS been a target of governments, and rightly so. It's always been the stance of the courts as well that international communications is fair game - you do not need a warrant.
In fact, US law specifically ALLOWS intercepts of international communications, handwringing notwithstanding. Title 18, part I, chapter 2511, section 2 (specifically subsections f and g) state it is legal to intercept such transmissions. No need for a FISA - or any court - warrant.
Up here in Washington State, especially King county, 51% against and 53% for seems to be the norm... On just about anything. It's rather commonplace now to have more votes cast than voters, and we don't even use electronic ballots.
I absolutely agree with you... Too many of these issues are highly politicized. If man IS a significant driver of climate change, then let's see the facts and decide - as a whole - what to do. However, I am skeptical, and too many times here the "well it MAY be true or not, but we should be better safe than sorry so comrade - er, citizen - how about giving up most of what you have to Save The World and equalize ourselves with everyone else?" type mantra to accept it as anything BUT political.
I believe that most of those shouting the loudest about "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE!!!" aren't really interested in the climate, but really in changing society. The GW thing is just a way to force societal changes without the general public being any wiser...
Oh, and about Chile not being capitalistic? I'm positive you've never been there NOR talked to anyone who's lived there. It's EXTREMELY capitalistic - in fact, I wish doing business in the US was as easy as it is in Chile. Open government, open banking, ease-of-business, and a population who craves the capitalistic method of living. EVERYONE wants to run their own businesses, and many get just that chance.
Contrary to what you've heard somewhere else, Chile is HIGHLY capitalistic. The entire ECONOMY was designed by Milton Friedman. I'm sure you've heard of him, and he was no socialist or communist - capitalist, market-driven guy all the way.
Why yes I have, and suggest you try getting out and seeing it for yourself!
I suggest going to Chile, Thailand, Venezuela or Bhutan for your next holiday to see examples of very non-capitalist places where the people are on the whole quite happy with life.
Been to Chile (actually ran a company there for a few years, in Placilla de Puenelas, outside of Valparaiso. Pretty little place.
Been to Thailand, too, many time for work - consulting in manufacturing now.
Never been to Bhutan, but was in Venezuela before Chavez. From what I hear from my acquaintances still there it's gone significantly down hill...
Relative to GDP per capita, the US, being the world's shining example of capitalism at work, has the highest rate of homelessness and citizens living in poverty in the world (~12% of US citizens live in poverty, yet it is currently the wealthiest nation on Earth in absolute terms).
Umm, I seriously question that statistic. Where'd it come from? Oh, I and I have seen poverty in the US (I was poor once, too). And I've seen extreme poverty in China, Haiti, Lagos, Ethiopia, and a few other places. Poverty in the US would be equivalent to middle-class in 2/3rds of the world. Really.
While you may believe that capitalism = happy people, all the evidence I am able to see indicates otherwise.
Quick - what non-capitalistic country has a standard of living close to that of any country in the EU, Canada, the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwain, Australia, New Zealand, etc?
Capitalism breeds democracy. Democracy allows for better living standards. Happens every time. In fact, your chosen country of Chile is a prime example! Chile's a thriving, growing, rapidly developing country SPECIFICALLY because it turned to capitalism and democracy. General Pinochet revamped the entire economy - everything - as suggested by Milton Friedman. And it's turned out AMAZINGLY well...
So, wha exactly is your evidence? Ever lived outside your country? Ever spent a few months living in a standard, 2500 RMB/month apartment in Shanghai or Shenzhen, China? Ever lived for 6 months in Placilla or Santiago, Chile? Ever spent a month in Dessalines, Haiti? Because everywhere I see any capitalism allowed to flourish, I see rising standards of living for everyone. Everywhere I've seen capitalism crushed - the State runs everything - I see a stagnant or declining economy and depressed standards of living.
Chile or Zimbabwe? Which would you rather live in? In 1970 they were about equal in tems of standards of living. One is now a modern, thriving country with a free and open economy and a democratic government. One's fallen back into a dictator-for-life nationalizing everything, handing it out to whom he sees deserving favor, and with a standard of living that's plunged in the last 10 years...
No, I read the article and it nicely sidesteps the whole issue of Mars' warming. And when they DO acknowledge that the glaciers on Mars are changing (to make that tie-in to the Earth), they conveniently ignore what may be causing Mars to warm, and that it may be the SAME THING causing warming here...
1. Where did I say man wouldn't do anything to adapt? I said ancient man was able to adapt and survive to much more rapid changes in sea level, why can't we expect to do the same?
2. Along those lines, how have cities like Venice and New Orleans been able to survive for so long? They're sinking at rates equivalent to what the IPCC says will happen. And they've been sinking for a few centuries so far.
3. What points to a collapsing ecosystem? I see a changing ecosystem, but that's normal - ecosystems ALWAYS change.
The IPCC report talks about a range of 2mm to 6mm per year over the next century.
Looks to me we're running around the historical average since the end of the last ice age (which we're still pulling out of) and nowhere near the historical peak since the last ice age. Somehow ancient man was able to deal with the change in sea levels, I think modern man may fare a bit better...
Of course, the BIGGER punchline is that the "MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!" scream from RealClimate.org neatly overlooks the fact that planetary warming is happening on planets where man isn't present...
The real issue isn't whether or not climate change is happening. The real issue is what portion of climate change is due to man? If we're seeing similar climate change on other planets, then we need to look at a source common to all planets - the Sun. Perhaps man isn't the primary driver of climate change? If so, the demanded solutions (Kyoto and all) really aren't worth pursuing, since they will not significantly affect climate change (even Kyoto acknowledges that it'll maybe reduce global warming by a few percent, at best).
I'd rather figure out what the source of the problem is before we figure out the solution. Seems a bit more logical and "engineering-like", don't you think?
Tell ya what - you can use 1% of the Nevada desert for solar power plants if I can use 1% of ANWR for oil exploration. Deal? :)
Landscapes CONSTANTLY change. Permafront regions advance and retreat. Rivers flow, flood plains change, mountains explode (May 18, 1980 - a day I'll never forget). Cities sink (witness New Orleans and Venice), coastlines move (Brugge was once an ocean port).
Russia, China, and Canada were all MUCH warmer at one point, as well as a LOT colder. Expecting it to stay as it is now is a bit extreme...
Clean water for all is much more of a political issue, than a technological issue. We can create clean water out of seawater, even from sewage! The issue is to get the governments of those without clean water to actuall SPEND their money and efforts on basic sanitation and water delivery.
Inherently, the issues you're talking about require political currency, and from my experiences around the world the more capitalistic and democratic the society, the better the general welfare of the populace. Improve the political situation from the side of totalitarianism to democracy and you'll go a long way towards eliminating suffering in the 3rd world.
I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the total tidal and inflow (riverine) energy of Puget Sound, where I live. Came up with something like enough power for 5,000,000 homes, about all the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).
Doing the same thing to a few of our larger bays would allow powering a VERY significant portion of the West coast of the US.
Assuming you are a programmer or scientist or engineer or someone in general familiar with logic, I would highly recommend considering Pascal's Wager, at the very least...
Basically saying "you have patents - our backed monopoly statement of your invention - that we issued, but because you are monopoly you have to share it" really strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
After that expires, though, it's free for everyone to use... Until that time, though, it's yours to do with whatever you want.
OK, so if we accept that God flooded the entire world in a matter of days, why the heck can't you accept that He would just provide food as needed, or make all the sea animals survive because He wanted too? Essentially, if you accept one miracle, what's one more?