Seems like it would be more fair to compare the costs and specs of Teslas and Leafs (etc.) that will be released in 2017--the Chevy is still 2 years out! The Volt's specs certainly changed while under development. Will be interesting to see if the same hold trues for the Bolt.
I said ignore so 4g/wireless ISPs, so let's just ignore them
In many places, you do have a choice of ISP even with the same connection. I have a choice of Time Warner Cable or, e.g., Earthlink for cable modem access. I leverage this every year for lower rates. I also have a different connection possibility--Frontier (Bleh) for DSL. AT&T is in the process of rolling out fiber that will be available 1Q 2015 (hopefully Google comes soon after). Look at the fiber maps (AT&T, FIOS, Google)--they're expanding incredibly rapidly.
I was responding to the GP who said "Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use." I disagree with that statement. If you are trying to read into my reply that I think the Internet situation in the US is flawless, you are stretching!
One thing that could immediately become mainstream in the future: nightly, off-site backups. Transferring 1 TB of data over a 10Gbps line takes just under 15 minutes [wolframalpha.com].
Forget the fiber connection, I want a terrabyte data store that reads at 10Gbps!
She can't get cable ?
Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use. they get one choice
I can't believe that is true. It may be that 80% of US citizens have a clear choice of superior ISP to use, but I would think the vast majority of people would have, at a minimum, a choice of DSL and cable. Many now have a choice between DSL/cable/fiber (sometimes same companies are involved in fiber). That also ignores choices like 4g ISPs and satellite.
Haha, thanks for posting. That was just pathetic!!!
is inclusive, not exclusive. Go troll elsewhere.
That's just the problem, though, it's really not inclusive. Ideologies and their adherents are not simple structures. Just to be clear--I'm not asking for your opinion of the following, just take it as an example--Hamas. Hamas builds hospitals. Hamas provides social services in many areas where there are no other social services. Hamas also targets civilians and kills children with suicide bombings. I have talked to many people who will condemn at least some of the suicide attacks on civilians, but refuse to condemn Hamas. The part is not the whole. Even if one was to say "I condemn the violent extremists in Hamas" you give the ideology and the belief a free pass. You ignore the elders who incite and rabble rouse while eschewing violence themselves--they act through proxies. You know the trite quote about evil triumphing when good people do nothing? Well, a lot of good people are willing to ignore an awful lot.
As an atheist, all religions have no basis. However, as long as the people following a religion behave civilly, where's the beef? And my blanket statement, that I condemn extremists who resort to violence, including muslims, christians, and political extremists, obviously includes condemning militant Islamism. Same as condemning militant christianity, etc.
No, there is a very large difference between condemning an individual (and that individual's actions) and condemning an ideology. Condemning an individual is not condemning the whole. Believe me, your perspective here is not unique to me. Over the years, I've discussed similar issues (most frequently the topic comes up with Palestine) with many people who say they condemn suicide bombers, killing of innocents, etc.--and rightfully so!--but who just can't quite bring themselves to condemn the organization/ideology behind it all. As I said earlier, it's stupid to try to be an armchair psychiatrist on Slashdot, and I have no particular interest in trying. I don't know what you believe, I can only read what you write.
Your purposefully and continuously ignoring the obvious is trolling.
I'm of the general opinion that calling an ideological opponent a troll is a cheap and easy cop out. Seems that way to me now. If you're not interested in discussing the topic in a respectful way, you can just stop replying. I don't really know that much is left unsaid at this point.
Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?
Just since you didn't reply to this part of my post, but I thought it was interesting, the culprit behind the creation of modern terrorism--
In all seriousness, Russian nihilist revolutionaries really developed the concepts behind modern terrorism. They wanted to bring about revolution by any means necessary, including spectacular assassinations and usage of explosives. They employed tactics like walking into a room full of people, walking right up to the target, putting a gun to the target's head and shooting point blank. They wanted their enemies to know that they could never be safe. Like Horatio and Lars Porsena--if you know your enemies will do literally anything to kill (including burning off a limb!) you, your decision making process is necessarily altered!
You can see how these tactics have echoed down over the last 150 years--does the method of assassination of Archduke Ferdinand show any similarities with this?
These tactics today have almost entirely been adopted by militant Islamists around the world.
What part of "I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists. " don't you understand?
There's a huge difference. You might condemn individuals (who you also excuse by nature of their "mental illness"--thus the genesis of this conversation), but you seem to be very consciously avoiding condemning the IDEOLOGY. That's what I'm curious about--how hard is it to say "I condemn militant Islamism"?
Troll away, but you just look stupider with each post.
Come on, this conversation has been perfectly cordial, there's no need to resort to that kind of nonsense.
Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression.
s to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand.
You said it better than I have. Humans by and by are a susceptible lot. That doesn't mean that militant Islamism should get a free pass!
You probably don't have any muslim friends. As an atheist, I treat all religions identically, which makes it easier to have friends of different religions, including christians, jews, and muslims. But I treat the individuals as individuals, not as stereotypes.
This is the same canard you've been relying on since the beginning of the thread! You're again playing armchair psychiatrist (I've tried before--it's awfully difficult to diagnose people through Slashdot comments) and you seem to believe that since I disagree with you, it must not be an honest difference of opinion, but rather due to some deficiency in my character and experience. You don't need to make any excuses for me and my beliefs--I'm comfortable with myself!
For what it's worth, my undergraduate degree was in history with a focus on Islamic history. I speak Turkish, limited Persian (Farsi), and my Arabic has decayed to a point where I can just say I have a basic reading knowledge of the language. I also have a Master's degree in Middle Eastern studies. My primary areas of research were in the development of fiqh (Arabic for jurisprudence) in the 15th and 16th century Ottoman empire, and the interaction between colonial powers and Islamic nations/empires (again, primarily the Ottoman Empire) before 1900. I have many Muslim friends--some agree with me, some do not. I have--and would again--argue harder than anybody else that there is nothing inherent or unique in Islam that breeds violence and terrorism. Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?
Despite all this, I will condemn militant Islamism completely and without reservation. Why won't you?
I was responding to someone who said specifically that "fossil fuels only get more expensive," a statement that is demonstrably false. If you don't like oil as a specific, take natgas or coal. My statement is equally valid for either of them.
See the other discussion in this thread that I'm involved in. I see no evidence that either terrorist was ever diagnosed with a mental illness that would substantively change the facts. At least one was specifically cleared as competent. Merely being disaffected, unhappy, or down on your luck does not make you mentally ill. Likewise, neither does participating in unpopular behavior--in this case terrorism--necessitate mental illness.
Try this on for size [montrealgazette.com] (there's more).
It appears that at least some of the information in this article is factually incorrect and has been superseded--notably regarding Bibeau-Zihaf's conversion. Beyond that, you have some theorists who never met--and have no firsthand knowledge of--the two terrorists (viz. "This is my hypothesis, as I am not saying with certainty that these two young men were seized by this pathology, but the theory that emerges the most strongly is that these two young men — the both of them — were suffering from a severe lack of identify"). They're engaging in pure speculation that doesn't really change any of the facts.
... you can switch Islam with anti-abortionists bombing clinics, the Branch Davidians at Waco, Timothy McVeigh against "the gubbermint" over Waco, Hindu Inderjit Singh Reyat bombing Air India flight 182, Protestants vs Catholics in Northern Ireland, and pretty much some members of any disaffected group will be attracted to violence. The recent violence in the US over police shooting blacks does not have its' roots in religion.
This is the best thing you've written! You're absolutely correct. I wholeheartedly and without any reservations condemn violent anti-abortion activists and ideology. I condemn the Branch Davidians and their ideology. I condemn Timothy McVeigh and his ideology. And so on. Why do you find it so hard to condemn militant Islam and instead pretend that it is merely an aberration bought into by a few mentally unwell individuals?
It's an extremely easy cop out to explain away unpopular behavior as merely being the result of mental illness. Most of the time it's also incorrect.