Ntq€310

Originally posted by: schm0 Your statement alone assumes that the a cap and trade plan on carbon emissions, specifically regarding coal, will actually lead to those things. The reality is there is lots of evidence going either way on the impacts of such legislation, let alone what watered-down version makes it to the President's desk. quote> Hopefully no version lands on his desk. Because any version that passes will be nothing but a job killing, pollution causing, expensive bill. Even more incentive to invest in renewables rather than fossil fuels. The very discussion of the environment itself is what spurred these companies to make the small investments they already have. quote> Actually, your wrong. These companies are moving there investments to other places because the industry there based in is going to be killed, not because of 'talk on the environment'. Six coal plants were scuttled recently because of the fact that the Industry's future is being called into question so much. That cost jobs. There is no such thing as clean coal. It's not even close to being technologically feasible, let along economically so. The DOE has actually pulled funding from the FutureGen project altogether, citing higher than expected costs.quote> Incase you have not heard, the DOE restarted the project, and recently it's even closer to being a reality. But you are right, Coal can never truly be 'clean' but there are ways to make it, and other gases, less polluting. Furthering developing better use of Fuels we Have in the United States can do nothing but help the environment, and economy. If there were actually such a thing as clean coal, it's benefits would be echoed across universities, think tanks, and the environmental and scientific communities. The truth is quite the opposite. Even if it were a reality, the energy industry would scrambling to make it work; coal is our most abundant natural fossil fuel resource. The phrase "clean coal" was invented by the coal industry itself. It may even do more harm than good: http://www.awwa.org/publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?itemnumber=39815 ( Link don't work ) Renewables and/or nuclear are the best case scenarios for energy production in the modern era. quote> It would be horrible of us to not use fuels and resources that we can produce domestically within our own lands, instead of further importing more and causing more pollution elsewhere. This seems to be the biggest difference in this discussion, you want to destroy the coal industry, I don't. You think coal should not be used as a fuel, i do. Besides, clean energy production is no where near the level where it can support the United States, other forms such as Nuclear are still very stalled. So, unless we want to create a full blown energy crisis as well sky rocketing prices on all energy use which hurt the economy and the average American family, I would not kill coal. The only thing I can say in response is that we can not rely on green jobs alone to replace those that may be lost, and I never purported that we should. I just don't think that the idea of green job is "a lie." quote> I would call them a Lie since it takes the government pushing for them and killing other jobs in order to create them. The Green market should be left to develop on it's own. Thats another 100 years worth of pollution, too. So, your plan is to wait until the last minute, until the last drop of oil is sold, to start working on an alternative solution?quote> I do think we should use the fuels that are available to use, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Who says we have to wait until those dry up that we have to look for a solution? we can look for solutions to carry us on once those are done and use those fuels until there done at the same time.

Originally posted by: chris0101 Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo or libertarianism is dangerous. Sometimes change is necessary. Change for the sake of change itself is not good, but change for the sake of trying to improve society is good. quote> well then maybe you don't know American politics very good because Everyone agrees something needs to be done, Both conservatives in this country, and liberals in this country think something needs to be done on the Education system. Using the book definition of things for the sake of blaming one side is just stupid. I did indeed mention that spending more will not assure high quality. Let us consider why state a or state b does better with a given amount per head. Accountability here is the solution. Test what works and implement it on a large scale.quote> I agree. Trainguy gave a major reason, poorer schools and areas don't receive enough funding, so obviously looking at how much is already being spent, we need to start accounting, and moving the money safely to the needed areas. Why do they refuse to learn? Political, social, and cultural attitude/values are the answer. That is another reason why I consider ideology to be a problem and blame people who refuse to embrace a change. quote> Could you please mention what type of change, and which side refuses to change? Encouraging students to learn requires changes in our social values, something that will be met by great resistance by such people. If you want to encourage students to learn, emulate the cultures that foster such behavior. For this reason, I disagree with people who attempt to resist efforts to change and make society a better place. quote> Easier said than done, though we may be able to start once we know where we want to go. So again, what type of change? Change for the sake of change is bad, just like you've said, which it seems your just mentioning change for the sake of changing the system and politics. Of course there will always be those who don't care about education. The objective is to change their perception. Why don't they care? Do they feel that they are always going to be entrapped? Analyze and address. What "other priorities" do they have? (For example low income family students will be needed to earn money and will have troubles paying for tution - make it more accessible) We need to bring down the percentage of the people who don't care. Although true that not everyone was meant for tertiary or higher level education, generally speaking, in a post-industrial economy, more is better, especially at this point. With manufacturing uncompetitive, something else needs to replace it. It's either going to be low skilled and low wage service jobs or the very high skilled (which require facilities and training that developing nations cannot provide to their own citizenry in large quantities). Like it or not the high skilled jobs all require a burden, but the long term returns on investment justify the costs. quote> If you want to get a high skilled job, or high income job, you get the education, and you work your butt off. Even those who don't want to go to the sky still get the basic education for a well paying job that can support themselves. In the case of many students, they don't care, they probably won't care even if the teacher and system try's to de everything to make themcare. In the case of some of the minority students at my school, they didn't care, even when the teachers tried everything possible to make them try, they still didn't. Just saying we need to change there perception, isn't going to do it, we can analyze all we want, we can try this, and that, it still probably won't work. Because the value, the culture, and the home life of those students defines them, there parent's values are moved onto them. It's a cycle of cultural undervaluing. It's going to take a lot in order to change that culture to value education, and it will take multiple generations in order to improve. The question is still how we start the change.

So forcing people to buy healthcare is the same as forcing people to pay taxes? I think not. Tax money goes to the security, the education, and the running of our daily lives, atleast most of it. So if people want to live in any country, or expect a certain amount of service from said country, then they should pay taxes. However, healthcare, is not like that.

Obama states that the idea of an energy system with no coal is "an illusion" and that the bankruptcy would be caused over time by the "ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year." This money would then be used to fund alternative energy sources, dictated by the market as to what direction to go for alternative energy. He then states that the notion to take coal "off the table" is an "ideological"' one. He compares coal power to nuclear, saying that if there were a technology that "allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."quote> So a slow painful bankruptcy of job layoffs, increasing energy prices, and at one point or another closing will be better than it just closing? Energy developers aren’t watching for the price of carbon to pass the magical point at which clean coal or solar or whatever becomes cost-competitive. Rather, they’re looking ahead many years, performing scenario analysis, comparing cash flows, and making investments accordingly, they are not going to invest in a industry that is going to face a end at one point or another. While at the same time this isn't waiting until we have a easy way to make Coal more friendly to use. Futuregen # a clean coal power plant that puts what little it produces into the ground #, a project very close to me, is no where near starting, and it's years upon years if not a decade away from fully starting. The massive changes in the market that are expected are just not there. So it's expected that coal areas will be hit very hard. Some things to note is that the study extracts it's data from state projects. The study does not factor in the investments of the private sector #of Spain.# Finding positive information about green jobs is easy, such as the 2009 Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report, that have some interesting facts as well, such as the finding that "investment in the sustainable energy market has in some ways defied the global recession growing by around five per cent—from $148 billion in 2007 to around $155 billion in 2008." (http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Executive_Summary_2009_EN.pdf) Even simple investments by private companies can have a large impact, such as replacing their corporate fleet with electric hybrids, saving money on fuel (and less carbon produced) while supporting the auto industry. quote> Most of the 155 Billion came from a government, and with all western government's so interested in green energy, it's expected. Which thats good, it's good that government's are trying to become cleaner, and that companies are trying to become cleaner, that in itself creates demand for Green jobs. However, like everything, it all comes back to the economy, and employment. That report did not mention much about green jobs. Having such heavy investment and movement of capital on the government's part is not good for the job market at large, and in a cascade effect of cap and trade as well other forces you could expect more job loss than job creation because of this. We could go back and forth all day, citing contradictory reports, but the fact is that green jobs make more sense than the job creation itself; they invest in a clean, environmentally friendly infrastructure, one that is more energy efficient and saves money in the long run.quote> It does, and we should be going towards a better environment, and more energy efficient buildings and things. How we get there is the 1 Million dollar question.

lol. fishyguy52: oh my god fishyguy52: lol thatmonkeysim joined the room. metroton says join etown.com or die deathtopumpkins bends the bars right open and climbs out. username30425 left the room. (Logged out) imdawon77: dtp! dtp! deathtopumpkins: tms! imdawon77: hey tms pagenotfound tms! ntq$310 tms sounds way to close to pms >> thatmonkeysim: deathtopumpkins: lol fishyguy52: what is pms pagenotfound: pagenotfound: lol duke of york Is a communist and illegally commercial fishes fishyguy deathtopumpkins: ntq$310 fishyguy52: LOLOLOL pagenotfound facepaw thatmonkeysim wow... edj439: fishyguy52: ask a girl. ntq$310 that makes this so much funnier fishyguy52: nver mind then lol pagenotfound: that was an odd greeting pagenotfound: lol imdawon77 deguts fishy imdawon77: :$ thatmonkeysim: very odd metroton: B) fishyguy52: argh edj439 throws fishguy into 404's mouth. fishyguy52: i feel alotta love here quote>

Just to say. The 50 Million number of people who are uninsured is somewhat a lie when you look deeper into said numbers. The number of the uninsured who aren’t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, so it's cut to 40+ Million, 17 million people who don't have it make more than the median household income of $46,000. So cutting non-citizens, and those who should be able to afford it, it goes down to 7% of the population, and about 20 Million people. Then the question becomes whether or not those 20 Million themselves can be covered by existing medical services or one of those free-clinics. I mean, no doubt there are those who can't afford it, but i wonder how many people truly can't afford it and are not served by medicare or any other existing service.

wow, is all I can say. Your city, and metro area just look so realistic and awesome please, give me your plugins. I also really love how your commercial areas are all along your main roads, it's very nice, and gives a busy feeling. Keep up the good work

Originally posted by: schm0 Do you have a link to that quote? And yes, unfortunately people who work at jobs where they dig out the most carbon-producing fuel will have to find other work. The good news is, new green technology comes with new green jobs. Instead of working in a coal mine, they could be getting a tan and installing solar panels on office buildings, for example.quote> The exact quote is this. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."quote> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1174672/Barack_Obama_to_bankrupt_coal_plants.html So not only would our Coal industry, one of the most important industries in our country, and our lifelines in many communities, would take a very deadly and hard hit. The effects of this could be disastourous for many areas. On Green Jobs, just look below. I didn't say there was already global consensus. That was what Kyoto was all about, building towards a gradual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. You can have growth and environmental progress at the same time, but India and China merely want to be bigger players on the international stage for political and regional reasons. Exponential growth such as has been seen in both of those countries in the last 50 years may not be as prevalent as it once was in those countries. In a perfect world, changes to the way we think about pollution would have no adverse affects. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It's about cost/benefit, when you get down to it. I agree, exporting our manufacturing jobs overseas has destroyed the American worker. Trust me, I live in Detroit, so I know all about layoffs and job migration. We need to revitalize our economy and get more manufacturing jobs back, and green technology is a good way to do that. They have been talking for a couple years now about installing wind turbines in Michigan, and building several factories here to make the parts and assemble them. Such opportunities could revive the industrial sector in a way that helps the economy and the environment.quote> Green Jobs unfortunately, are a lie. Thats not to say we need them, we need people to put solar panels, make the wind turbines, etc, and we already do have people doing that in many places. That can even be expanded to cover more areas that they are needed, solar can do very good. But such green jobs won't cover a large part of our job losses from the death of our industrial sector. While it is to be expected that once the wind farm is done, there will be nothing left for the factory to do. So in order to keep employment sustainable, we won't see 100 factories popping up. But the main study I'm looking at, http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf , involves Spain and there Green jobs projects, which our President has praised, is possible losing 2.2 jobs were every 1 green job they make. Or they lose 9 for every 4 jobs. 1/10 of such jobs are considered 'sustainable' in that they run or maintain the power plant or something as such. While at the same time it took Spain and huge amount of money to make such jobs, and subsidies for the wind industry, as well other industries are a lot. Now that is not to say we will be exactly like Europe, or Spain, But we could expect a similar effect. The end result would be less jobs, less sustainable jobs, and higher energy and gas prices. Seeing as America is bigger than Spain ( and me having no idea on Spanish mining and energy industry's.) we could expect a huge loss of employment in our surviving industries, such as coal. Many areas will be hit hard, and energy prices will increase.

Originally posted by: schm0 Some of the most dirty industries that produce carbon emissions are energy companys, namely coal-fire power plants. Fortunately, there are no electric lines running from China to the U.S., so these sorts of industries will have an incentive to clean up their stacks and invest in technology that can capture and/or filter out the carbon dioxide from their emissions.quote> Most of them would just close down, in which the effect would be a spike in energy prices. Since the average coal mine or town won't be that big company that can afford to suddenly put billions into something other than what it's doing. Obama said it himself, his policy will lead to closings of the plants and a spike in prices. That's why international consensus is key to any legislation or treaties signed regarding carbon emissions and/or the carbon tax. And the U.S. could do more to curb the exodus of manufacturing by taxing the imports of American companies that choose to produce their goods elsewhere only to sell them here in the U.S. There are plenty of other incentives such as tax breaks to those who stay and federally subsidized investments in green technology, to name a few. quote> However, most of the developing world, and powers like India and China have said there is no way in hell that they would get on board something like the U.S. is doing. They want economic growth, so letting there dirty industry go rampant is there best option. Tax breaks so far have not worked, and Green technology takes time to develop and implement. And even with that, it's easier to just pay the sweatshop worker in china rather than stay in the United States, tax breaks or not. It's a global economy now, and the United States has failed to compete. We've left are industrial sector to die, and now were left with a service economy. It's going to take both time, and a lot of diffrent changes to help our industrial sector.

It's great to see Franklin have a ney key friend and partner in the region.

wow Greekman, your cities are looking better and better every teaser

It's already destroying itself lol, once they reach the real world all things go down the drain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901817.html?hpid=topnews Sorry, had trouble finding it.

First of all. Great pictures, your editing is more than awesome. Second of all, your story is as sad as ever  which for you is good I guess  Can't wait for the next chapter

Hmm, looking at a report. It appears that new chemicals that we put into our gases in order to repair the hole in the Ozone may be the cause of Global Warming. Since such chemicals are like super green house gases or something. Though I don't know any of the real data behind this.

There is always some Abuse...

EA is ripping people off? This is a sudden and unexpected surprise.

From what im hearing these people in someway were connected, possible by house renovations or something. But having so many people involved, and for such a target, It leaves a lot of questions....

Originally posted by: chris0101 Do I think that the way American politics is run is responsible for this situation? Yes I do. Clauswitz once wrote that war is an extension of politics. Education is merely an extension of politics as well. How you teach your children is intensely controversial, and the ciriculum is set by political organizations, save in private schools, where the private schools set their own cirriculum (which is problematic, as there is often a lack of consistency, making it harder to standardize and measure quality). When any reforms are hostile opposed for political and ideological reasons, along with a dislike of intellectualism altogether, quality of education inevitably suffers. How much the US spends on education does not dictate quality of education. Do I think that increasing the education budget will radically improve quality of education? The answer is mixed. On one hand, many schools are in a state of disrepair, increasing salaries of teachers will attract better talent (in Finland for example, the top 25% of university students compete to be teachers, in the US, I am afraid that you'll find quite a few people from the bottom 25%), and will provide greater funding for things like scientific equipment, textbooks, etc. Competing with this is that there are widespread cost overruns in the system. Why does the US spend so much? Where does the money go? Compared to other nations, what is spent so much on per capita? Where does it get so few returns? Cuts should be made in those areas. If education budgets are raised, more money will end up being wasted as well per capita per year. Spending does not always work as you say. Why does it not work? Where did it fail? Where did it succeed? Nobody asks these questions. It is true that spending more is always a matter of diminishing returns at some point, but like it or not, you have to spend. Public spending mean that the rich will pay a bigger share, which helps the poor get better educated and may help them become from poor to something wealthier than before. The net result is good for the nation as a whole. True there will be people that will have to fill in those gaps, however, I would imagine that liberalizing the immigration policies and eventually replacing such undesired jobs with automation #when technology allows) will put an end to that. Recall what I said when politics is a problem. All reforms need money and time. In states like California, I would not be surprised, despite the budget problems, if there were more propositions calling for even more cuts to budgets that passed with clear majorities. Nobody likes taxes, but Americans in particular seem to resent paying such taxes, and raises, especially now could prove politically impossible. Add into the fact that to be conservative means that you wish to preserve the status quo no matter how flawed, and you have very serious barriers. quote> Why not answer some of your own questions before blaming the situation on unwillingness to take a tax increase, or on conservatives? I mean, I don't know exactly where the money goes. Though most of it goes to K-12 schools, etc. But there are something to look at. -Between 1950, and 1994 Education spending went up 212%. -The United States spends around 11K per Student, tied for first with Switzerland. -Education spending is expected to hit 1.2 Trillion by sometime between 2014-2015. -Washington D.C. spends 12.5K on students, and there test scores are one of the worst in the country. -Public School Teachers make 50% more than Private ones. -Teaching Jobs account for less than half of the jobs in the U.S. education system. -Education Spending accounts for +6% of GDP so, I think we need more spending, I want that number to be 10% of GDP, only then will our suddenly uncaring and failing students realize that they can go far and wide with a good education. [/sarcasm] But really, we do need to cut the administrative positions, and hire more teachers. While those teachers need to take a paycut, nothing to big, but bring them down to a level were it's viable for both district and teacher is good. Just look at California, they on average payed there teachers 63K, along with other things, and now there deep in the red. There could also be more in school discipline, as well the big need to watch were are money goes, and better use the money we are spending, not spending more money. But then. People keep forgetting you can't teach someone who refuses to learn. Systems which put a lot less money into there schools still manage to have amazingly high success rate, such as Japan. Thats because of there culture's high importance on learning. Even in a crappy system, or a rundown shack kids can still learn amazingly a lot if they try at some level, or go above and beyond. Thats not something I would like to happen, but it could still happen. However, many in America do not put that importance on Education, especially in Minorities. I went through a sub-urban school, and it's sad for me to say that most of the African American children there did not give a crap about there education, or really learning. And really, the fail rate would be even higher if it was not for rampant lowering of standers in many schools. I see the same in many others as well. There is only so much money can do, even if, in many places, that money is needed. The will to learn, and ability to learn still rest on the kids that go through the system. Which the school system's can't change how a kid grew up, or what he learned, it's not the teachers job to turn him into a leaner. That rest on the Parents, and no doubt, a lot of Parents have failed. No amount of money could make up for that.

Originally posted by: mayor_brando Do you know anything about fossil fuels? Emmisions from gas and other fossil fuels have chemicals that absorb the sun's heat and trap it, blanketing the earth in what is called "The Greenhouse Effect". And we are not just burning fuel. We are also spewing dozens of chemicals into the air, not just from fuel, but also from everyday things (e.g. hairspray, household cleaners, pesticides#. Add the amount of chemicals we use every day, and muiltiply that by five years. And we've been doing this a lot longer than five years. I can safely say that we've had an impact on the environment. If it isn't bad, it will be. Some people will die if we don't do something. quote> Well no one is saying that pumping all that crap in the air won't have some effect, However, I still believe that any effect on temperature would be very little of our own doing. Most of what pumping that stuff in the air does in just make our air toxic to breath. Yeah, they've been publishing studies. That's what they do. What do you think they base their studies on? Hmm... science. Science can be proven; it is real. Anyway, I sugggest you actually read some of these studies. Whether humans contributed or not, none of them deny that there has been a (slight) shift in climate. quote> True, very true, there has been a climate shift. You also apparently know nothing about the cap and trade plan. It does put taxes on energy companies, and the benefits won't come immediately. But the plan is that we'll be more energy-independent by the year 2020, and more of our energy will be produced through renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar, hydroelectricity, etc.). I would like to hear why you think the plan is a load of bunk. It will help the environment, and the economy in the long-run, and I think the Obama Administration is doing a pretty good job. quote> And apparently you don't know about the cap and trade plan. Since it really just makes it more expensive to use energy, not actual helping the environment. The middle class will probably be hurt the most, as energy prices, fuel prices, and then in effect the cost of food and most basic things sky rocket because of this, and whats worse is that most companies who can't afford to do what they do will, or who want to save cost will just move to china or India, and cause more pollution, and more dirtier pollution over there. This bill really does not do very much in terms of actually helping the U.S. turn into a cleaner more efficient nation like we have to turn into. So, it won't help the economy, it won't even help the economy in the long run. If you really want to see the effect of all this cap and trade, and overly green-centric stuff, look at Spain, there doing wonderful aren't they? What do you think scientists are doing right now, just sitting around? quote> Some scientists may be doing that, but thats not what the government is doing, we have not build a new nuclear plant in ages. Actually, there is a problem *gasp* with effectively disposing of radioactive material. You can't just dump somewhere and expect it to go away. There is also a problem of transporting it to be disposed of. Often times it'll have to be carried by truck or train, sometimes through developed areas. And if there is a contamination of it, it'll be a damn mess. I do like nuclear energy, as it's cleaner than gas or oil, but I don't like it's waste. quote> And your point is? everyone knows how tough it is to get rid of waste, but thats better than continuing to put toxic gases into the air that we breath. Telling people that there will be consequences is not telling them they will die, and it is not a way to make money. It is, however, a way to get people to be more environmental friendly. quote> It does lead to money actually. Since Al Gore could become the first Climate Billion Aire for how much he's put into some of there climate exchange, and all those companies, Like GE which are going to profit massively from all this. There is massive, just massive amounts of money involved in all this, just like with everything else. I mean, can you think of a proper reasons why the big oil giants are for this? They get to profit from it! Then theres fear. You can't tell me that the Green movement has not been using the fear of climate change, or global warming to help itself. All those " it may already be to late " speeches don't really help either. I'm not saying that most people use fear, but ive heard enough that do.

I still think everything it timing, and Google has picked a really bad timing when coming out with a OS, as well other disadvantages against Google.

But here's the thing, Microsoft is in the Browser market, and the ECC is expecting microsoft to put rival browsers onto it's system? Which, Opera is really only doing this because, for how good there browser is, they can't get any market share, so making Microsoft give you a list of browsers at setup would probably help them. Though Microsoft undercut both the ECC and Opera with Windows 7E, then there is no browser, and if anyone get's angry at Microsoft about it, they move the blame to the ECC.

A global capital in a city like NYC, London, or Toyko would be, in my thinking, a bad choice. Considering that they already are the top for something, and it would be better to have a important, yet at the same time lesser city be the capital. -Athens, or Thessaloniki might be good choices. Athens having a strong democratic tradition as well. Thessaloniki is also more connected to the European Network rather than Athens, so it could also be a nice choice. But really, I find the Greek democratic history the biggest plus of any world democratic order But going down for regions. North America: Boston, Chicago, Toronto, Halifax Europe: Amsterdam, Geneva Asia: Singapore, Hong Kong South America: Bras

I do find the ECC's case aganist microsoft to be... lets just say.. well.. stupid, lets put it like that But Windows 7 looks like a great OS, seems fast, reliable, has a lot of nice features/upgrades, and in general seems better than vista. I might upgrade my laptop to it... if I had the money... wait.. I do have the money...

Originally posted by: Aviator333 I disagree. If we don't play the fear card, nobody will do any of the good things like recycling. Also, even if we have only a small effect on global warming, we still need to stop. It's like saying, "I only had a small part in robbing that bank."quote> Fear is what gave Us the Patriot act, Fear is what has lead to many wars. And really, if it takes using fear in order to scare people into believing what you believe, then honestly, it's nothing more than a special agenda. So, use the fear card, but honestly, it just makes what you believe all the more false if you can't ship it without scaring people have to death. Which really, putting a carbon tax, cap and trade, or making oil more expensive does not help anything, it just hurts the economy. You can't bring major changes over night, and you can't scare your way into getting them done, and if your not going to even make those changes economically viable, good luck.