The American retaliation on the resistance was 'brutal'.
Destroying whole villages of women and children for every American soldier killed.
One of the generals called it 'a nigger killing business'. If that isn't brutal, what is?
You also neglect the fact that it is profits that motivate the innovation required to bring these energy sources to market in the first place. The people coming up with these ideas aren't doing it for charity, and if they weren't allowed to make any profits, there would be NO incentive to take the risks necessary to invest in these new and unproven technologies, whether it be a novel and more efficient oil-sands extraction technique, a biomass technology, or deep sea drilling. Remove the profits and you remove any incentive for innovation and invention. In your ideal world, companies would do it for charity. I would LOVE to see the government do these things so efficiently!!! HAHA Now that is a laughable concept. Sure, government labs may tinker with these things as experiments and may even provide some investment, but when it comes to delpoying them on a large scale, don't under-estimate the power of the "profit motive" to provide for our needs. Hmmm why doesn't my government take that huge tax and invest it in alternative energy sources if centrallized government planning is the way to go, somehow I don't think that is going to happen;)
P.S. "I could care less." was a TYPO!:) I'm new to posting on slashdot but from reading I already knew people were anal-retentive about TYPO errors, hey I type fast, yeah, mistakes can be made! Sheesh!!! lol
As I posted elsewhere "On average, 40 to 50% of the total price of gas at the pump is tax", here in Canada ( I don't know what it is in the U.S.) Even with that in mind, oil is still cheaper than the alternatives. I am aware of the situation, but I can honestly say it doesn't bother me when oil is that much cheaper than any alternative we could come up with and we have had how long to come up with one? 100 year? More? The profits of the oil executive do not anger me when the government is taking more than they are getting and they are STILL providing a fairly cheap energy source. Let them keep their profits, and allow them to provide capital to ensure our future energy needs are met, wake me up when they start making the same profits as the government!
I agree with you on all those points, but does it bother me? Not really at this point, wake me up when oil actually becomes an expensive commodity and not the cheapest, most convenient energy source mankind has ever had access to, even with the mark-ups and taxes. I must note, but you probably already know, that taxes still encompass very significant percentage of the cost of gasoline. In Canada, where I live, on average, 40 to 50% of the total price of gas at the pump is tax. The cost of gas doesn't exactly take up a significant portion of our household income. So while you are correct about their enviable position, we aren't exactly *dying* here. I'll be concerned when and IF that ever becomes an issue.
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923-). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.
could care less, couldn't care less
"Although many have tried, no one has yet satisfactorily explained how the negative fell out of the older and accepted couldn't care less, although logic of course says that could care less makes no sense. Both forms are clichés, and both are certainly best restricted to the lower Conversational levels and the most Informal of writing. But could care less could also earn you the scorn of logic lovers and cliché haters alike. Avoid it as Nonstandard."
this debate is over! lol;)
"You shouldn't have brought up other carbon containing material"
Coal as the main source, well as other things possible in the future, WHAT on earth is wrong with that statement??? I need to work on my critical thinking because of that? Maybe you're a bit too focused on these irrelevant points, I could care less. My point is correct for both, Coal is economic at todays prices, others, at tomorrows prices. SO? Your point is? You sure are into nitpicking tiny details rather than debating the main concept. I was looking for someone to have a debate with, not someone to nitpick tiny issues like that which have nothing to do with the global concept. Ahh, only on Slashdot!;) Forget debating, let's nitpick!
Honestly, I didn't care that much about your post to read it that carefully, but the attitude reflected in it indicated a pro-socialist attitude, an idealist belief that stirs up passionate feelings due to my personal belief in the freedom of the individual to shape his/her own destiny without excessive government interference. Other than that, it wasn't important enough to me to read every word carefully, my problem was with the whole ideology behind your post.
Well, I don't have much time to reply right now, but your comment on coal to oil not being technologically mature, it is being done right now and has no technological hurdles to overcome. They are building a very large plant in China, and South Africa has done it for decades now.;) Glad that you agree with me that they can't set ANY price they want, that was what you suggested with the water analogy.
I agree that there is something wrong with that scenario, and that is why we have anti-trust laws, but the circumstances in which that can actually happen are probably more rare than you think. Oil was one example where their monopoly power is much less than it would appear. They are under constant threat from the alternatives if they could not keep prices below a certain point.
If people are dying of water and you want to make a profit, you're probably going charge low enough to keep them alive if you have your own best interests in mind! That's not even a question of ethics. If that goes on long enough, someone may find an alternate source of water. That's how I see the oil situation. Now, the ethics and fairnessquestion could be answered by how you gained control of that resource in the first place, did you invent water? If so, then you might deserve that power;)
They have a right to those profits until someone can come up with an economically viable alternative. If oil is cheaper than the alternatives, is it their fault? Do they have any obligation to invest in those alternatives? I wish people would quit whining about the power of oil companies when essentially they are providing a commodity that is cheaper than any currently available alternative, they are not the ones forcing it down our throats, why do we not have electric cars (which would run on a cheaper fuel source)? Is it the oil companies fault?? I think not!!
BZZZZZZZZT WRONG!!! If oil companies artificially inflated the price of oil, it is fairly old technology to turn coal or any other carbon containing material into oil. Biodiesel would be cheaper than oil at that point, so your argument that they have no potential competition and can set any price they want is false and shows your lack of background information on the resource base. Yes, the oil companies are powerful, but they are not THAT powerful that they can set oil prices at $100 per barrel for very long!!! Ditto for pharma companies, competition could come just as easily, someone could develop a different but competing drug for the same illness. *sigh*, this is why I hate conspiracy theories about corporations.
No, I wouldn't say that you are capable enough of gaining a large crowd of sheep to join in on your ideas and follow them, but you certainly do share Stalin's political views, not Hitlers, he was a facist, you don't know the difference?
It's also amusing that you use the "slavery" and racism concepts (which I do not have a problem with by themselves), as a rally to your cause. It's a sneaky disguise that you are using, a champion of freedom when you are quite the contrary. Your ideology is a threat to anyone who has any aspirations to better themselves and take the necessary risks to invent new products, provide new services.
*You* would deny them any rewards if things were *your* envious, jealous way. I find it despicable. You come across as offended and threatened, but *I* am the one who should be offended by your attack on my right to own my own a business, and reap my own profits. Any aspiring business owner/inventor would have a major problem with your ideology. You are against all of us who seek to be anything othe than mediocre. If there were anything I would fight for it would be those most basic of freedoms. It is a human RIGHT to pursue an entrepreneurial venture, which you seem to have no concept of what is involved or what it contributes to society. You are a sad character indeed, for you take for granted these most basic of freedoms. You wish for us all to be slaves. I am extremely offended by that point of view to no end.
Evil rich people (i.e. people who have accumulated wealth over time through legitimate means), EVIL *corporations*, whoah, CORPORATIONS!!! If someone were to "incorporate" a restaurant, a car wash, or a day-care, and be lucky enough and savvy enough to make a success about it, and become "rich", they are evil by *YOUR* definition. Hardly a brilliant ideology. I read your blog, what a bunch of deluded garbage. Rich people and businesses are evil in general = Communist enough for most people!
Ok, fair enough, that works for you. You are self employed, which by all means is a business of your own, but there is a difference between being self employed and being a full-fledged *entrepreneur*. You are mainly focused on providing a service, as a "technician" so to speak, you take pride in the technical work that you do, which you could also do working for someone else.
The aspirations of a full-fledged entrepreneur most certainly do involve some sort of risk. They put their neck on the line so that society can benefit! The computer you are typing on, yeah, you're typing on it thanks to an entrepreneur who was crazy enough to think he could get compensated for that effort! An effort and risk which you are downplaying with your own example, which is not what most true entrepreneurs must endure.
Who are the rich people I am defending? I am defending your average millionaire, the ones who own small businesses, worked their ASSES off all their lives, lived sensibly, saved their money, INVESTED it, and helped to deliver to us all the creature comforts that we can now enjoy, and even the *poor* in north america enjoy many of these things which would not exist without their efforts.
To say that they do not deserve compensation in-line with the amount of work that *on average* goes into these sorts of endeavors, not to mention off-the wall inventions that nobody would have faith in until they succeeded in developing and getting them to market, is, quite frankly, an unrealistic expectation. In a true entrepreneurial venture, where someone builds a company that requires INVESTMENT, and has a PAYROLL, there is a risk and a lot of headaches that you underestimate. These rich millionaires who are supposedly so *evil* deserve no less than those millions, and I am not jealous of them one bit.
Yes, it would be nice if they ENJOYED that kind of enormous task, but when you put ALL OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS into something that is almost as risky as a gamble at the casino or lottery, and they SUCCEED, I'd say a little compensation is in order! I know you don't agree but damn, I will never understand WHY!?!?!
I am an idiot? Is that your defense of your ideology? A personal attack? If that's an example of your intelligence and wisdom, I think many would consider you to be an idiot. Communism is dying my friend, I am thankful that you are in the minority and the rest of us can prosper because of it.
I couldn't agree more. Wealth isn't a zero sum game. They did not "take" wealth from anyone. What they made for themselves in profits has *already* been distributed many times over to society in the form of increased wealth, wages, etc. They did not "rape and pillage". They created something of value to society, and were rewarded accordingly. Someone sweeping the floors for $7 an hour is rewarded based on the value of their work, their work just happened to be worth Billions. The people who discredit them are purely envious whether conciously or unconciously, such as commie boy there.
A communist entrepreneur?? Now THAT is something new to me. I'm sure you have lots of incentive to strive for success when you believe that none of the fruits of your labour are yours to keep, and that you aren't worth the compensation you are awarded by taking the extra risk of starting a business and working those long hours building your vision. Please, englithen me.
So essentially what you are saying is that you are against people aspiring to become rich by creating wealth, inventing new products, building companies that provide employment, and you are against any incentives for entrepreneurship. Why don't we move back into the agrarian age and all become farming peasants again. Ahhhhhhhh. Leftism at it's finest.
I've seen a few posts on here criticizing Buffet and/or Bills accumulation of wealth. As a member of the free world, I am absolutely SICKENED! Do you not know the meaning of freedom? Do you not know the fundamentals of a free and prosperous society? What sort of society do you want to build exactly? Well, you better build it somewhere other than North America, move to Cuba or something PLEASE.
GROW UP! So essentially you are saying that nobody should have any incentive to start up any company or pursue any entrepreneurial venture at all whatsoever except for charity. Why don't you leave the U.S. and go start your own socialist country or better yet move to a socialist country and see how happy you are! I find jealous attitudes such as yours utterly disgusting.
Just because you're not competent to start your own wildly successful billion dollar company doesn't mean you have the right to that kind of attitude. Grow up and lose the guilt trip on the entrepreneurs. HECK, it's not like he was in the Mafia or something. Though some of you anti-microsoft zealots might squeal otherwise. They were both competent entrepreneurs and investors plain and simple. If you aren't competent, your motivation for bringing them down is simply JEALOUSY, nothing more. Like I said, go move to a facist/communist country or found your own and spout your garbage there!! It will be more than welcome! However you have the right to your own opinion here, sorry but I can't say that much for there, whichever country you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
The American retaliation on the resistance was 'brutal'. Destroying whole villages of women and children for every American soldier killed. One of the generals called it 'a nigger killing business'. If that isn't brutal, what is?
Kookoo! Kokoo! Kookoo! Kookoo! Kokoo! Kokoo! Kokoo! Kookoo!
We should have done this 20 years ago, and, I hope they aren't bluffing.. i'll believe it when I see it.
Didn't you hear? That's what VISTA will be for ;)
Ohh yeahh, true, true, I knew that ;)
You also neglect the fact that it is profits that motivate the innovation required to bring these energy sources to market in the first place. The people coming up with these ideas aren't doing it for charity, and if they weren't allowed to make any profits, there would be NO incentive to take the risks necessary to invest in these new and unproven technologies, whether it be a novel and more efficient oil-sands extraction technique, a biomass technology, or deep sea drilling. Remove the profits and you remove any incentive for innovation and invention. In your ideal world, companies would do it for charity. I would LOVE to see the government do these things so efficiently!!! HAHA Now that is a laughable concept. Sure, government labs may tinker with these things as experiments and may even provide some investment, but when it comes to delpoying them on a large scale, don't under-estimate the power of the "profit motive" to provide for our needs. Hmmm why doesn't my government take that huge tax and invest it in alternative energy sources if centrallized government planning is the way to go, somehow I don't think that is going to happen ;)
P.S. "I could care less." was a TYPO! :) I'm new to posting on slashdot but from reading I already knew people were anal-retentive about TYPO errors, hey I type fast, yeah, mistakes can be made! Sheesh!!! lol
As I posted elsewhere "On average, 40 to 50% of the total price of gas at the pump is tax", here in Canada ( I don't know what it is in the U.S.) Even with that in mind, oil is still cheaper than the alternatives. I am aware of the situation, but I can honestly say it doesn't bother me when oil is that much cheaper than any alternative we could come up with and we have had how long to come up with one? 100 year? More? The profits of the oil executive do not anger me when the government is taking more than they are getting and they are STILL providing a fairly cheap energy source. Let them keep their profits, and allow them to provide capital to ensure our future energy needs are met, wake me up when they start making the same profits as the government!
I agree with you on all those points, but does it bother me? Not really at this point, wake me up when oil actually becomes an expensive commodity and not the cheapest, most convenient energy source mankind has ever had access to, even with the mark-ups and taxes. I must note, but you probably already know, that taxes still encompass very significant percentage of the cost of gasoline. In Canada, where I live, on average, 40 to 50% of the total price of gas at the pump is tax. The cost of gas doesn't exactly take up a significant portion of our household income. So while you are correct about their enviable position, we aren't exactly *dying* here. I'll be concerned when and IF that ever becomes an issue.
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923-). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. could care less, couldn't care less "Although many have tried, no one has yet satisfactorily explained how the negative fell out of the older and accepted couldn't care less, although logic of course says that could care less makes no sense. Both forms are clichés, and both are certainly best restricted to the lower Conversational levels and the most Informal of writing. But could care less could also earn you the scorn of logic lovers and cliché haters alike. Avoid it as Nonstandard." this debate is over! lol ;)
"You shouldn't have brought up other carbon containing material" Coal as the main source, well as other things possible in the future, WHAT on earth is wrong with that statement??? I need to work on my critical thinking because of that? Maybe you're a bit too focused on these irrelevant points, I could care less. My point is correct for both, Coal is economic at todays prices, others, at tomorrows prices. SO? Your point is? You sure are into nitpicking tiny details rather than debating the main concept. I was looking for someone to have a debate with, not someone to nitpick tiny issues like that which have nothing to do with the global concept. Ahh, only on Slashdot! ;) Forget debating, let's nitpick!
Honestly, I didn't care that much about your post to read it that carefully, but the attitude reflected in it indicated a pro-socialist attitude, an idealist belief that stirs up passionate feelings due to my personal belief in the freedom of the individual to shape his/her own destiny without excessive government interference. Other than that, it wasn't important enough to me to read every word carefully, my problem was with the whole ideology behind your post.
Well, I don't have much time to reply right now, but your comment on coal to oil not being technologically mature, it is being done right now and has no technological hurdles to overcome. They are building a very large plant in China, and South Africa has done it for decades now. ;) Glad that you agree with me that they can't set ANY price they want, that was what you suggested with the water analogy.
I agree that there is something wrong with that scenario, and that is why we have anti-trust laws, but the circumstances in which that can actually happen are probably more rare than you think. Oil was one example where their monopoly power is much less than it would appear. They are under constant threat from the alternatives if they could not keep prices below a certain point. If people are dying of water and you want to make a profit, you're probably going charge low enough to keep them alive if you have your own best interests in mind! That's not even a question of ethics. If that goes on long enough, someone may find an alternate source of water. That's how I see the oil situation. Now, the ethics and fairnessquestion could be answered by how you gained control of that resource in the first place, did you invent water? If so, then you might deserve that power ;)
They have a right to those profits until someone can come up with an economically viable alternative. If oil is cheaper than the alternatives, is it their fault? Do they have any obligation to invest in those alternatives? I wish people would quit whining about the power of oil companies when essentially they are providing a commodity that is cheaper than any currently available alternative, they are not the ones forcing it down our throats, why do we not have electric cars (which would run on a cheaper fuel source)? Is it the oil companies fault?? I think not!!
BZZZZZZZZT WRONG!!! If oil companies artificially inflated the price of oil, it is fairly old technology to turn coal or any other carbon containing material into oil. Biodiesel would be cheaper than oil at that point, so your argument that they have no potential competition and can set any price they want is false and shows your lack of background information on the resource base. Yes, the oil companies are powerful, but they are not THAT powerful that they can set oil prices at $100 per barrel for very long!!! Ditto for pharma companies, competition could come just as easily, someone could develop a different but competing drug for the same illness. *sigh*, this is why I hate conspiracy theories about corporations.
No, I wouldn't say that you are capable enough of gaining a large crowd of sheep to join in on your ideas and follow them, but you certainly do share Stalin's political views, not Hitlers, he was a facist, you don't know the difference?
It's also amusing that you use the "slavery" and racism concepts (which I do not have a problem with by themselves), as a rally to your cause. It's a sneaky disguise that you are using, a champion of freedom when you are quite the contrary. Your ideology is a threat to anyone who has any aspirations to better themselves and take the necessary risks to invent new products, provide new services. *You* would deny them any rewards if things were *your* envious, jealous way. I find it despicable. You come across as offended and threatened, but *I* am the one who should be offended by your attack on my right to own my own a business, and reap my own profits. Any aspiring business owner/inventor would have a major problem with your ideology. You are against all of us who seek to be anything othe than mediocre. If there were anything I would fight for it would be those most basic of freedoms. It is a human RIGHT to pursue an entrepreneurial venture, which you seem to have no concept of what is involved or what it contributes to society. You are a sad character indeed, for you take for granted these most basic of freedoms. You wish for us all to be slaves. I am extremely offended by that point of view to no end.
Evil rich people (i.e. people who have accumulated wealth over time through legitimate means), EVIL *corporations*, whoah, CORPORATIONS!!! If someone were to "incorporate" a restaurant, a car wash, or a day-care, and be lucky enough and savvy enough to make a success about it, and become "rich", they are evil by *YOUR* definition. Hardly a brilliant ideology. I read your blog, what a bunch of deluded garbage. Rich people and businesses are evil in general = Communist enough for most people!
Ok, fair enough, that works for you. You are self employed, which by all means is a business of your own, but there is a difference between being self employed and being a full-fledged *entrepreneur*. You are mainly focused on providing a service, as a "technician" so to speak, you take pride in the technical work that you do, which you could also do working for someone else. The aspirations of a full-fledged entrepreneur most certainly do involve some sort of risk. They put their neck on the line so that society can benefit! The computer you are typing on, yeah, you're typing on it thanks to an entrepreneur who was crazy enough to think he could get compensated for that effort! An effort and risk which you are downplaying with your own example, which is not what most true entrepreneurs must endure. Who are the rich people I am defending? I am defending your average millionaire, the ones who own small businesses, worked their ASSES off all their lives, lived sensibly, saved their money, INVESTED it, and helped to deliver to us all the creature comforts that we can now enjoy, and even the *poor* in north america enjoy many of these things which would not exist without their efforts. To say that they do not deserve compensation in-line with the amount of work that *on average* goes into these sorts of endeavors, not to mention off-the wall inventions that nobody would have faith in until they succeeded in developing and getting them to market, is, quite frankly, an unrealistic expectation. In a true entrepreneurial venture, where someone builds a company that requires INVESTMENT, and has a PAYROLL, there is a risk and a lot of headaches that you underestimate. These rich millionaires who are supposedly so *evil* deserve no less than those millions, and I am not jealous of them one bit. Yes, it would be nice if they ENJOYED that kind of enormous task, but when you put ALL OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS into something that is almost as risky as a gamble at the casino or lottery, and they SUCCEED, I'd say a little compensation is in order! I know you don't agree but damn, I will never understand WHY!?!?!
I am an idiot? Is that your defense of your ideology? A personal attack? If that's an example of your intelligence and wisdom, I think many would consider you to be an idiot. Communism is dying my friend, I am thankful that you are in the minority and the rest of us can prosper because of it.
I couldn't agree more. Wealth isn't a zero sum game. They did not "take" wealth from anyone. What they made for themselves in profits has *already* been distributed many times over to society in the form of increased wealth, wages, etc. They did not "rape and pillage". They created something of value to society, and were rewarded accordingly. Someone sweeping the floors for $7 an hour is rewarded based on the value of their work, their work just happened to be worth Billions. The people who discredit them are purely envious whether conciously or unconciously, such as commie boy there.
A communist entrepreneur?? Now THAT is something new to me. I'm sure you have lots of incentive to strive for success when you believe that none of the fruits of your labour are yours to keep, and that you aren't worth the compensation you are awarded by taking the extra risk of starting a business and working those long hours building your vision. Please, englithen me.
So essentially what you are saying is that you are against people aspiring to become rich by creating wealth, inventing new products, building companies that provide employment, and you are against any incentives for entrepreneurship. Why don't we move back into the agrarian age and all become farming peasants again. Ahhhhhhhh. Leftism at it's finest.
I've seen a few posts on here criticizing Buffet and/or Bills accumulation of wealth. As a member of the free world, I am absolutely SICKENED! Do you not know the meaning of freedom? Do you not know the fundamentals of a free and prosperous society? What sort of society do you want to build exactly? Well, you better build it somewhere other than North America, move to Cuba or something PLEASE.
GROW UP! So essentially you are saying that nobody should have any incentive to start up any company or pursue any entrepreneurial venture at all whatsoever except for charity. Why don't you leave the U.S. and go start your own socialist country or better yet move to a socialist country and see how happy you are! I find jealous attitudes such as yours utterly disgusting.
Just because you're not competent to start your own wildly successful billion dollar company doesn't mean you have the right to that kind of attitude. Grow up and lose the guilt trip on the entrepreneurs. HECK, it's not like he was in the Mafia or something. Though some of you anti-microsoft zealots might squeal otherwise. They were both competent entrepreneurs and investors plain and simple. If you aren't competent, your motivation for bringing them down is simply JEALOUSY, nothing more. Like I said, go move to a facist/communist country or found your own and spout your garbage there!! It will be more than welcome! However you have the right to your own opinion here, sorry but I can't say that much for there, whichever country you choose.