Does this mean that we will need to find some other means of energy rather than burning dead dinosaurs? God forbid.
While this may impact the future economic situation to some degree and CA, it is not like the oil had been extracted and then taken away. The money was never there, it was only the assumption of future money.
I would also point out that the vast majority CA residents are strongly opposed to shale extraction off the coast of CA.
Are you suggesting that it is somehow OK for us to put money into our system for our entire life, while someone who has never worked a day in Germany can come here, collect money for them and their family to live on?
How is that sustainable??
Why on earth should that be allowed? I cannot go to Romania to collect social care.
The fact is, protecting Germany's economy and addressing the needs of poor Rumanians and Bulgarians, are two good intentions in conflict. Why should we always be the ones who do the heavy lifting? What, because of the war? Because of something our grandfathers did we need to pay for every poor country in Europe?
I would think that atomic level manipulation of base materials would be far more efficient than simply trying to convert energy into the desired state of matter.
Its not just human rights, the UK have strongly resisted joining Schengen migration laws.
Look, I am all for human rights and freedom of moment. But what Brussels is trying to force member states into accepting is simply insane.
Here in Germany, we enjoy some of the best social services in the EU. We also enjoy a low unemployment rate coupled with a rather high taxation rate. This is the reason we can afford our current social system.
What the asshats in Brussels are insisting that we do is allow Romanians to migrate to Germany (or the UK) with any job, any prospect of ever getting a job and immediately have access to our social system.
This means that the money they would get just from moving here would far exceed what ever they could have possibly gotten in Romanian and also any remedial job here in Germany.
Our system cannot afford this! We cannot afford to take care of every poor country out there! I wish we could, but we cannot. Our population is aging quickly and we do need immigration, but we need immigration that can contribute to the system rather than suck money out.
I here pundits claiming this will not happen, but it is bullshit. It will happen and it is happening already.
The ONLY way that free movement can work is when EVERY SINGLE EU member state is forced to have the same level of social services for all EU members.
Who's Going To Invent a New One? That's the rub.
I have to wonder. If the Americans came out today with a super-duper new internet, would the rest of the world use it? I do not think so. More and more companies and governments are trying to get their data out of the US for obvious reasons. Many years ago Europeans trusted American tech by default, but now the reverse it true.
Before you flame, I am not saying they do not use it, I am saying they do not trust it. And, they shouldn't. Just as the US does not trust Chinese tech.
I would be the first to agree... Thunderbolt is technically better than USB3.
However, that is not the point.
What is the advantage of USB? Simple. The connector.
I can plug a USB1 device into any USB3 port and it works. The reverse it also true, albeit at a pretty slow transfer rate.
The point it, the USB plug is ubiquitous while thunderbolt is already planning to change the connector again. That means buying adapters.
That also means that the next motherboard I buy most likely wont have thunderbolt on it. Which means I would not be buying any thunderbolt devices.
My impression is that thunderbolt is marketed specifically toward "Apple" people. Since I am not an apple person, I cannot say if this next part is true or not, but the impression that non-apple folks have is that "Apple" people will replace their gadgets every year or two with what ever new thing Apple has come out with.
If that is true, the connector thing is no big deal since you would be starting over every time.
The people that would be influenced by Google are the same ones influenced by People magazine and major TV networks.
I think that you have not understood.
Google is not directly influencing in the scenario I laid out as you would see from a newspaper article or so.
What Google could do is far more influential.
What do you when you want to learn about something? Chances are, like most folks, you do a Google search and read the related articles, right? Of course you do. How else would you find it?
Let's say you are climate change denier and you want to find articles which reinforce your view or to persuade others to think like you. What if when you searched for terms like "climate change is bullshit" or "climate change hoax" on Google, the only returns were from articles where former climate deniers admitted they were wrong and said climate change is real. Plus article after article explaining how your babies will die because of climate change.
That is real influence. Controlling the information that people can access. There is nothing more powerful than that.
It is a simple fact that they had a mind to, they could drastically impact the elections.
Nearly 90% of the people out there use Google to search for information about everything from the political to lolcatz.
All they would need to do is omit some results from the search and place others high in the list. They can even insert propaganda into seemingly unrelated searches.
Something perhaps designed to manufacture rage at one particular party or candidate.
Controlling all information to have complete power.
Imagine if google and bing decided that a certain candidate didn't exist and the name only returned some unrelated items. No news article links, no info sites, nothing.
I'd prefer we just leave beef alone, let the price increase as demand increases, and place artificial limits on production. Seems like everyone would be better off, and the environment would be as well.
That is all well and good in western countries, there is however a down side to the increased price of beef.
For example, the massive deforestation of Brazil due to illegal cattle farming which is sold to the West at a very tidy profit. If you double the price of beef there would be loads more people trying to illegally farm.
Not to say there is anything wrong with making a living, but unregulated cattle farms play hell with the local ecology.
and also....first post.
It is NOT climate change anymore. It is called climate disruption.
Cops cars have never been cheap.
Well, of course they are not cheap...
It's got a cop motor, a four hundred and forty cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks, it's a model made before catalytic converters, so it'll run good on regular gas.
I think you mean figuratively sucking the blood of the new generation. Since, you know, the heart pumps the blood out, so there is no sucking required.
I am really asking.
Class action suit admits that customers only want google for search and would not be willing to buy a phone that searched with Bing. How is following consumer demand anti-trust?
There is a reason that everyone uses google and only google. Yes I know there are a couple people out there who use something else, but you are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the user base.
Also, I am not sure these guys know it, but Android is free to install.
Should google be forced to let you use their product to make money without getting anything in return?
It is estimated that the LOC, including video and audio is about 3000 TB. So, you would need 17 of these tapes I guess.
http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpr...
Or was your question rhetorical?
With your bare hands?!?
