w00pla

> Maybe they weren't so consumed about fighting with each other since they had a common enemy to focus on.

<rant>

And who would this “common enemy” be? The Spiel that white people considered black people their enemies during Apartheid is a bit incorrect (yet a popular sentiment in the west).

It is ironic that statistically, the plight of the majority of black people is now far worse in SA than during Apartheid (life expectancy, income inequality, unemployment, infancy mortality, matric pass rate, TIMSS score, etc…). Apartheid (i.e. separate development and rule for all ethnic and cultural groups) as an ideology is failed (mostly due to industrial development which caused South Africa to become a scrambled egg of people). Yet the ideology of full democracy (i.e. tyranny of the majority) is also spectacularly failing. Yet no one would acknowledge the latter failings.

<\rant>

> I'm somewhat convinced we're at the point in the US where the opposition party (either one) would sabotage the plan for short term political gain.

But in any case, I digress. You are right about this part. Everyone is NIMBY. The problem is also that using coal to make fuel would release CO2. And this is counter to the ideology of the far left (which only wants non-practical solutions to be implemented).

The USA landed people on the moon in less than a decade. I am sure that if they put their minds to it, they can expand nuclear power generation significantly (to reduce CO2) and start to make a significant part of their liquid fuel requirement from coal.

> People will die as a result of pretty much any peak oil scenario.

Not really. South Africa was a third world country under heavy sanctions.

Yet it created industries to produce petroleum from coal (and even today these companies produce 40%+ of SA's liquid fuel requirements).

If a crappy third world country can do it with 70ies technology (most of which they weren't even allowed to import legally), why can't first world country do this?

> but it's us stinky hippies that bang on the loudest and for the longest about sustainable transport solutions, renewable energy and sustainable population.

Nope. Wasn't the "stinky hippies" the groups that consistently protested against nuclear power? Being anti-nuclear power in the 70ies and 80ies was the bandwagon for the far left (now it is global warming).

It is not google news but sites which aggregate search terms. A good example is www.eudict.com which repeatedly puts up other peoples' search terms as real words.

(If you are searching for some words, you are flooded with EUDicks search spam)

> just blacklisting a few of the larger and more egregious content farms seems like a decent band-aid.

The real band aid would be to enable users to blacklist sites that they don't want to see. I often search for things and come across the same spam sites that I do not want, over and over.

After that a distributed trust model should be built so that users can share blacklists of spam sites.

It is not as simple as that. There are many countries in which the official work day is less than the real work day. As an example, in Japan no-one leaves before the boss leaves (so it can be longer than the official time).

Also, in some countries there are many people working for themselves (such as in small businesses). These people generally work more than the official time.

I had a family member work for 14 hours a week (10 hours saturday and sunday) while starting their own business (this went on for two years).

Small business owners break the law a lot and work more than the allotted time.

Yeah, my country has worse drivers than Greece (trust me).

Here is how I cross the road in Japan: I wait at a place that I want to cross, but I turn my body away from the road. That way they think I am just standing there and drive past (instead of awkwardly stopping, etc...).

A lot of Japanese people that I've talked to don't have driving licenses. One person specifically said that it was because she was afraid of hurting others. That is quite different from my country's SUV style entitlement.

I came year wanting to say exactly the same thing.

I walk each day past a primary school and all kids arrive unassisted. There are however teachers welcoming them at the gates and one police officer at the road crossing. But other than that they are on their own.

In Japan, motorcar drivers actually seem scared of pedestrians. I have difficulty crossing the road. In my country you usually stand still beside the road and wait for the cars to pass (for an opening). Here if you even look like you want to cross the road at some point in the future, the cars stop.

Making drugs legal (contrary to popular internet belief) does not make them less addictive or less harmful.

How many lives do you think one drug dealer ruin before they are caught?

Firstly, a lot of studies (esp. in the USA) shows that corporal punishment have negative outcomes. This is because they do not control for other variables (such as socio-economic circumstances). Poorer parents often hit their kids more (and many studies do make a distinction between parental abuse and responsible punishment).

This is the same as the “powerlines causes cancer” research (people living near powerlines tend to be poorer and more prone to cancer). And powerlines is not even an ideological viewpoint!

The problem is that I can give you a slew of papers saying that “corporal punishment has no detrimental effects” and you can give me another slew saying it has detrimental effects. Such internet discussions will not go anywhere (the same as with the death penalty or gun rights). Perhaps I was wrong to bring this up in YCNews (since this is not the forum for such debates).

In any case, in the country of Singapore they have less crime and fewer problems that 99% of Western countries. Yet they have very strict laws (including corporal and capital punishment for drug offences).

EDIT: The original point I wanted to make was this:

In the USA, tough punishment only comes after the criminal has firmly established his bad behaviour. Any pet owner knows that at that stage it is the most difficult to change set behaviour.

You have silly things such as three strikes laws. Why? The third time that behaviour is fixed.

If that same person were punished severely for his first crime (however minor) he would think twice about breaking the law.

That is how it works in Singapore - the first crime is punished hard, and the behaviour doesn't re-occur.

> which isn't free, and the other is that customers strongly prefer to shop where free parking is available.

It is not just that. The mere act of shopping at most stores requires a car.

In Japan for example all fairly big items (such as chairs, etc...) gets delivered. You do not buy 24 cans of coke and a liter of mayonnaise and take it on the train with you. You buy one ridiculously small can of coke at a small (and expensive) convenience store near you.

So, I wouldn't be as quick as to require all people shopping to not come with a car.

Living in the suburbs has its advantages - cheap storage space, etc... So you can actually buy in bulk.