Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

copestag · Nov 5, 2012

a very very small portion of asia perhaps............ its easy to have great infrastructure when an area is so small a single tower in the middle can be seen by all

as far as government picking between gsm or cdma...... hogwash....... these are exactly the things government shouldnt be regulating but always feel the need to do so

let the free market decide which is the better format...... in the end one will survive the other wont...... but the competition will force them both to reach their peaks

should the government step in and regulate which data format is best 7 bits or 8 bits making the decision between PCs and Apple?

the government shouldnt be picking winners and losers

Gmash · Nov 5, 2012

copestag said:
a very very small portion of asia perhaps............ its easy to have great infrastructure when an area is so small a single tower in the middle can be seen by all

as far as government picking between gsm or cdma...... hogwash....... these are exactly the things government shouldnt be regulating but always feel the need to do so

let the free market decide which is the better format...... in the end one will survive the other wont...... but the competition will force them both to reach their peaks

should the government step in and regulate which data format is best 7 bits or 8 bits making the decision between PCs and Apple?

the government shouldnt be picking winners and losers

If they tried to step in now and pick one or the other, that would be picking winners and losers, but that ship has sailed. This is something they should have done at the very beginning, because the way it is now makes no sense and is bad for the country. Imagine if your electricity voltage was different depending on which utility company you used, and part of the country used European style plugs while other parts of the country used the standard US style plugs we use now. That wouldn't make any sense, that's why we have one standard. Not all regulations are bad.

buzzcon · Nov 5, 2012

I laugh at the attacks on the rich. When the Liberals take all the money away from the rich and spend in on hugging trees and nurturing dandelions, then who is going to fund your lives?

I believe in the American dream, but not so it can be stripped away and used to give away condoms and give druggies methadone.

Take responsibility for your own life and quit making others do it.

We need to curb spending. China has us by the short hairs and it's getting worse at an alarming rate.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

buzzcon said:
I laugh at the attacks on the rich. When the Liberals take all the money away from the rich and spend in on hugging trees and nurturing dandelions, then who is going to fund your lives?

I believe in the American dream, but not so it can be stripped away and used to give away condoms and give druggies methadone.

Take responsibility for your own life and quit making others do it.

We need to curb spending. China has us by the short hairs and it's getting worse at an alarming rate.

Theres enough rhetoric here to even out do Obama himself.

'Hugging tree and nurturing dandelions' are exactly the kind of things government should do. Its essential to protect our environment.

buzzcon · Nov 5, 2012

Let me guess, you believe global warming is just from man made green house gases and has absolutely nothing to do with increased solar activity. We may have a small part in it but I feel there are much larger natural events that are at work. But as in my previous post, this is just my opinion. I have a hard time ingesting what I am being force fed by the media in the US.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

buzzcon said:
Let me guess, you believe global warming is just from man made green house gases and has absolutely nothing to do with increased solar activity.

Oh I am sure the climate has plenty to do with changing solar activity. Thing is, the vast majority of the change is man made, caused by the burning of hydrocarbons!

Nice little graph there for ya! Anyway, in Europe, and in the rest of the developed world, the effect of man on our climate is not really questioned. But we still argue over how to reduce our impact.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

buzzcon said:
We may have a small part in it but I feel there are much larger natural events that are at work.

We have an absolutely massive and fundamental part in it! Are your 'feels' worth more than the opinions of tens of thousands of scientists?

buzzcon said:
But as in my previous post, this is just my opinion. I have a hard time ingesting what I am being force fed by the media in the US.

But the problem is, because many other Americans share your opinion, EVERYBODY'S Earth is being ruined. Sure, the mainstream US media is biased with regards to climate change, giving lobbyists equal time with respected, educated scientists who have a body of work. The US public still thinks there is a debate on the issue due to this!

May I ask, what qualifies you better than those who actually research and investigate this? What qualifies the emitters lobby, who have all to lose, more than scientists? Why would you take a biased coal companies word over a team of scientists who have been peer reviewed and could actually make much more money by denying the science? Why?

A.Nonymous · Nov 5, 2012

Saving the environment is all fine and good. The problem is that many proposals to do so involve crippling the economy. The economy is bad enough as it is and we're proposing to completely cripple it in a way that will take decades to recover from? Not practical.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
Saving the environment is all fine and good. The problem is that many proposals to do so involve crippling the economy. The economy is bad enough as it is and we're proposing to completely cripple it in a way that will take decades to recover from? Not practical.

As Hurricane Sandy has showed us, the cost of not doing anything will be higher. That storm alone has caused damage equal to maybe 0.3-0.5% of US GDP.
To replace every coal and oil plant would nuclear in one year would cost a couple of percentage points of GDP. Do it over 20 years and its negligible. Replace every natural gas station with renewables, same story.

Making vehicles more efficient will have a positive effect on GDP as Europe and Asia have shown. Increasing public transport will cost, but it has social benefits and will make cities nicer... or something.

You know, spending 5% of GDP on the military has not crippled the US economy. It has, for all its faults, promoted research and development, and made America stronger. Spend that on R&D and infrastructure to save the planet and we will see the same benefits, in a different way. And the planet > the military.

A.Nonymous · Nov 5, 2012

You can't build nuclear plants here in the US sadly. It would be nice if we could. Americans, in general, aren't fans of public transportation. Sure, it's widely used in large metro areas like NYC or Chicago, but generally no where else.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
You can't build nuclear plants here in the US sadly.

I'm sure you can in some places. This whole thing requires attitude change. Its all about a mix of renewables and nuclear anyway.

A.Nonymous said:
\Americans, in general, aren't fans of public transportation. Sure, it's widely used in large metro areas like NYC or Chicago, but generally no where else.

Well, the problem is that American urban areas are not conductive to public transport. Limit city sizes, pedestrianise more roads, more bus routes etc.

European cities with massive urban sprawl have become highly reliant on public transport. In theory, all one has to do is toll roads, and make them smaller. Not advocating that, but merely saying. Give pedestrians, cyclists and public transport priority over private transport.

Attitude change, thats half the battle. And stop saying its impossible. Countries which lynched gays a hundred years ago marry them now, and the environment is not such a hot button issue.

savethebees · Nov 5, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
You can't build nuclear plants here in the US sadly. It would be nice if we could. Americans, in general, aren't fans of public transportation. Sure, it's widely used in large metro areas like NYC or Chicago, but generally no where else.

Salt Lake City's public transit is always loaded. It is actually a very eco-conscious city. More cities are popping up with bike lanes and trains these days... I do think people are starting to get it. Big money saver.

A.Nonymous · Nov 5, 2012

ElasticNinja said:
I'm sure you can in some places. This whole thing requires attitude change. Its all about a mix of renewables and nuclear anyway.

A lot of it is regulations. It's virtually impossible to get through all the red tape just to build one. Then you have to deal with the fact that over here no one wants to live anywhere near one as they're convinced that if they do they'll end up glowing in the dark for the rest of their lives. The ignorance and the bureaucracy is ridiculous.

Well, the problem is that American urban areas are not conductive to public transport. Limit city sizes, pedestrianise more roads, more bus routes etc.

European cities with massive urban sprawl have become highly reliant on public transport. In theory, all one has to do is toll roads, and make them smaller. Not advocating that, but merely saying. Give pedestrians, cyclists and public transport priority over private transport.

Attitude change, thats half the battle. And stop saying its impossible. Countries which lynched gays a hundred years ago marry them now, and the environment is not such a hot button issue.

I have no idea how you limit city sizes. Americans tend to like their personal space more than Europeans do and that is reflected in our cities. I have not visited a great many cities in Europe, but do they really have the same kind of sprawl that you have in the US? Here if you hit a big city you can easily spend an hour or more on a highway driving from a suburb on one end to the suburb on the other end.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
A lot of it is regulations. It's virtually impossible to get through all the red tape just to build one. Then you have to deal with the fact that over here no one wants to live anywhere near one as they're convinced that if they do they'll end up glowing in the dark for the rest of their lives. The ignorance and the bureaucracy is ridiculous.

Ah there is a reason there is such more bureaucracy. I just wish fossil fuel plants required as much.

A.Nonymous said:
I have no idea how you limit city sizes. Americans tend to like their personal space more than Europeans do and that is reflected in our cities. I have not visited a great many cities in Europe, but do they really have the same kind of sprawl that you have in the US? Here if you hit a big city you can easily spend an hour or more on a highway driving from a suburb on one end to the suburb on the other end.

America used to be the home of urban planning. Of course one can limit the size of cities! In Ireland, our cities tend towards sprawl (Our capital is a quarter as dense as greater LA, go figure), but we still have decent public transport. But if our urban areas were denser we would have less problems. In the Netherlands they do density very well. Again, one just has to change attitudes. Or just force change anyway. Either way, has to be done.

cjr72 · Nov 5, 2012

A.Nonymous said:
A lot of it is regulations. It's virtually impossible to get through all the red tape just to build one. Then you have to deal with the fact that over here no one wants to live anywhere near one as they're convinced that if they do they'll end up glowing in the dark for the rest of their lives. The ignorance and the bureaucracy is ridiculous.

I grew up near a nuclear power power plant (Limerick, PA). It took forever for the plant to come online because of environmentalists kept tying things up in court. I read an article not long ago that many of the old guard greenies here in the US still won't accept nuclear power as a 'clean' energy source much to the consternation of environmentalists more concerned about CO2 emissions.

Gmash · Nov 5, 2012

Anybody heard about these quack scientists who say smoking cigarettes causes cancer? :eek:

What a bunch of liberal media BS. :rolleyes:

Must be the same crowd who believes in this climate change nonsense.

ElasticNinja · Nov 5, 2012

cjr72 said:
I grew up near a nuclear power power plant (Limerick, PA). It took forever for the plant to come online because of environmentalists kept tying things up in court. I read an article not long ago that many of the old guard greenies here in the US still won't accept nuclear power as a 'clean' energy source much to the consternation of environmentalists more concerned about CO2 emissions.

The Green party are in a lot of state governments in Germany. Few weeks back they supported the building of a coal plant to replace nuclear, because Germany was surpassing its emissions targets. Right bunch of spanners. Greens we had in Ireland were a lot more reasonable...

copestag · Nov 5, 2012

Gmash said:
If they tried to step in now and pick one or the other, that would be picking winners and losers, but that ship has sailed. This is something they should have done at the very beginning, because the way it is now makes no sense and is bad for the country. Imagine if your electricity voltage was different depending on which utility company you used, and part of the country used European style plugs while other parts of the country used the standard US style plugs we use now. That wouldn't make any sense, that's why we have one standard. Not all regulations are bad.

that would be a cool example except its totally incorrect for your point........ the government didnt set the standard for voltage or plugs..... it was set by private organizations which catered to the market

imagine if the govt had decided beta was better than VHS (which it was) and regulated that?

or perhaps they decided that chevy was better than ford......... oh wait they did that and still failed to the marketplace

government does have a role in regulating certain things.... picking winners and losers is not part of that role

A.Nonymous · Nov 5, 2012

cjr72 said:
I grew up near a nuclear power power plant (Limerick, PA). It took forever for the plant to come online because of environmentalists kept tying things up in court. I read an article not long ago that many of the old guard greenies here in the US still won't accept nuclear power as a 'clean' energy source much to the consternation of environmentalists more concerned about CO2 emissions.

There its a certain irony to it being environmentalists who are the biggest opponents of nuclear power. There is money to be made in said plants but the opposition is such that companies don't even try to build them.

Gmash · Nov 5, 2012

copestag said:
that would be a cool example except its totally incorrect for your point........ the government didnt set the standard for voltage or plugs..... it was set by private organizations which catered to the market

imagine if the govt had decided beta was better than VHS (which it was) and regulated that?

or perhaps they decided that chevy was better than ford......... oh wait they did that and still failed to the marketplace

government does have a role in regulating certain things.... picking winners and losers is not part of that role

None of those things are in the public interest. I'm not talking about favoring a particular brand or company. I agree the government has no role in things like that, which is rather obvious.

A.Nonymous · Nov 5, 2012

Gmash said:
None of those things are in the public interest. I'm not talking about favoring a particular brand or company. I agree the government has no role in things like that, which is rather obvious.

Define "public interest". I ask because fluoridation of the water supply is on the ballot here locally. The proponents argue that fluoridation is in the public interest. The opponents argue that it's not. Strangely enough, the most vocal supports are dentists. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Gmash · Nov 5, 2012

Things that effect or benefit the general public like roads and utilities I would consider in the public interest. Cell service is pretty much a necessary part of life these days. Fluoride in the water is a no brainer to all except the tin foil hat crowd, but I would still leave that up to the locals. You have to choose your battles.

buzzcon · Nov 6, 2012

ElasticNinja said:
Oh I am sure the climate has plenty to do with changing solar activity. Thing is, the vast majority of the change is man made, caused by the burning of hydrocarbons!

Nice little graph there for ya! Anyway, in Europe, and in the rest of the developed world, the effect of man on our climate is not really questioned. But we still argue over how to reduce our impact.

Nice graphs! Please explain why the separation in the top graph around 1980? This is around the same time the auto industry implemented catalytic converters to protect the environment. My guess is it coincides with the industrial development in China. I am sure they are concerned with the environment :rolleyes:

. I also think natural events like wildfires in the US releasing carbon (and there have been several in recent years) as well as other events around the world.

ElasticNinja said:
May I ask, what qualifies you better than those who actually research and investigate this? What qualifies the emitters lobby, who have all to lose, more than scientists? Why would you take a biased coal companies word over a team of scientists who have been peer reviewed and could actually make much more money by denying the science? Why?

I am just stating my opinion, right or wrong, I never claimed to know it all. Something else is at work, I don't know what it is, but blaming us (humans) can make guys like Al Gore tons of money and money is the root of all evil. My qualifications are I just a regular guy with two eye's and believe what I see, not what I hear or read from the media.

A.Nonymous · Nov 6, 2012

Gmash said:
Things that effect or benefit the general public like roads and utilities I would consider in the public interest. Cell service is pretty much a necessary part of life these days. Fluoride in the water is a no brainer to all except the tin foil hat crowd, but I would still leave that up to the locals. You have to choose your battles.

I'd bet good money fluoride gets voted down by like 60%. There are some really dumb arguments being circulated about it. There's a neighboring city that has naturally occurring fluoride in the water and has significantly less cavities. The anti-fluoride peeps say there is a difference between "natural" fluoride in the water and "man-made" fluoride in the water. So apparently fluoride ions are different. Who knew? The bad science being tossed around is appalling. The fact that the vast majority of the public here is buying into it is even more appalling.

Someone explain, how the Republican party is still alive...

Extreme Android User

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

Android Enthusiast

Android Expert

Android Enthusiast

Android Expert

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

Android Expert

Newbie

Extreme Android User

Android Expert

Android Enthusiast

Extreme Android User

Android Expert

Android Expert

Extreme Android User

Extreme Android User

Extreme Android User

Extreme Android User

Android Enthusiast

Extreme Android User

BEST TECH IN 2023

Smartphones

Best Android Phones

Upcoming

Best iPhones

Upcoming

Tablets

Best Tablets

Upcoming

Laptops

Best Laptops

Upcoming

Televisions

Best TVs

Upcoming

Game Consoles

Best Game Consoles

Upcoming

Wearables

Best Wearables

Upcoming

Smart Home

Smart Home Tech

Upcoming

Similar threads