Estimated deaths for various future scenarios:

- Accidentally inducing an ice age (which can happen in as little as a year or two) from amelioration efforts: billions

-Successful amelioration efforts backing off GW, with attendant damage to economic dynamism, leaving us with 2050 tech in 2100: hundreds of millions to billions

-GW with slow sea rise but continued powerful economy: Baseline against the ungodly losses of the other two scenarios, but level 2100 tech with its marvels (consider vs. 1900vs today)

I recall this conversation:

Environmentalist: CO2 bad, mmmm'kay?

Me: Ya know, if CO2 is bad, we should get rid of bans of yard waste in landfills, and requirements labdfills biodegrade. Lawnmowing was a great sequestration method already in-place, before leftover 1970s innumeracy about running out of landfill space illogically gained sway.

Environmentalist: (has mental conflicts like Nomad after Kirk is done with it). No because CO2 isn't a very important greenhouse gas anyway.

50 years ago (much less 100) tech was way behind where it is now.

If we care about the future, we should maintain a strong economy, which drives technology forward fastest, through direct investment and smaller government investment, which relies on a strong economy for sufficient tax base.

A planet with slowly rising seas will leave a better legacy for great grand children with more advanced tech.

Would our forebearers in 1900 have done us any favors grinding industry to a near halt and leaving us with a mildly nicer environment (prolly not noticeable) and, say, 1960-level tech today?

Thanks fer nuthin'. I'll take year 2200 virtual reality, autodocs, robots, and so on on a floating city over any freaking alternative, and as fast as possible. Disagree? Thou mass murderer slowing things down.

Everything interacts with everything if you look hard enouh. To use that as justification for government interference ignores why massive restrictions are on government in the first place -- because it is misused by people in power to stay in power and enrich themselves.

Yes, this means you, them playing you like a fiddle to jump to their power grab tune. The more things they can legislate, the more idiots they can promise things to.

My Aldiko eBook app came with a free Jack London book. FUCK YOU ALDIKO EWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

"Harcourt Fenton Mudd!"

"Meesa run from meesa wives!"

> capture the softest sound ever made

Scientist 1: "Data incoming...recording...recording...got it!"

Scientist 2: "Ok, now amplify it. What does it sound like?!?!?"

Computer speaker: "Hssssss ssss sssI'm popular on Slashdot. Will you go out with me?"

Apparently you and I lived through completely diffent 1970s.

The only thing superior about analog TV was figiting with the horizontal hold to un-twist scrambled naughty broadcast signals at 1 in the morning.

Also poutine is superior to fries with ketchup on them. It also edges out mayonnaise, popular in Europe and also vastly superior to kerchup.

I've had "content blocked in your country" on YouTube here in the US. I assume it's blocking copyrighted stuff where they can sue and not in countries where they can't.

And what if some content doesn't exist for purchase by them? Throw together some shit on the cheap with Canadians in it? Woo hoo, thanks government!

User clicks on a movie. "We're sorry, your government has decreed you must first watch this first hour episode of Canadian Trashbinpickers" before we are permitted to show you evil American cultural imperialist dog movie.

I do not see these other people as having a right to have their stuff shoved in front of my face to the exclusion of Google.

They can pay for ad space, maybe Google puts Google ads up there, too. Otherwise fight for page rankings like everyone else.

If Google is claiming fair rankings and bitchslapping competitors down in the normal (not paid) search results, that's fraud.

"Intellectual property" is called property for a reason -- it is protected by legislation from copying, which is akin to stealing. You are stealing potential wealth from people who may chose to sell copies.

That's why it is called property: because taking it (via copy) is stealing, thabks to legislation. Do not devolve into semantics. because it "works around" the word "stealing".

There is no point there you are trying to make.

Most US prisoners are for drug crimes. We have a vigorous debate going on about legalization.

Many (most?) Soviet prisoners were political prisoners. Criticism of that got you added to it.

Your parallel is silly and an obvious nod towards what issues in the US you consider paramount at the moment. At least normal blame America firsters (nice cold war reference there!) tie something the US did as, normally ludicrously, heavily controlling over some other nation. You simply skip that part.

All three of your citation neededs are asinine. Anyone who has been remotely paying attention to these things over the years and decades knows them the same way they know New York is on the east coast. Repeated references to same.

Go do your own homework, see that he is right, and come back and apologize.