Slashdot Mirror

Massive fluctuations in the butterfly population are perfectly normal.

The link goes to a paper from 1974, and looks at data back into the 1950s. For example: "A population peak occurred in 1950 and 1951 followed by a marked reduction in numbers in 1952; by 1953 the populations had been reduced to such an extent that no over-night roosting colonies could be found in areas where they had previously occurred in thousands and only seven field specimens were collected throughout the entire summer period. "

"EU must not burn the world's forests for 'renewable' energy"

See also: Unintended consequences

As an aside, while there's a finality to the extinction of a species that needs to be considered solemnly and with care, the extinction of a species is by no means an unusual thing. Species go extinct on an everyday basis, though whether it's one every few days or hundreds every day is a subject of debate. I don't bring this up to repeat the (fallacious) argument that species extermination is justified because it happens all the time. Rather, I bring it up to highlight our collective hypocrisy: we care about the extinction of familiar species because they are familiar, even if we are incapable of pointing to anything that makes their extinction more significant than that of any other species.

In the case of mosquitoes, we're so familiar with them that we've excused them as being mere nuisances. I can't help but think that if we treated them as something unfamiliar by looking at them with fresh eyes, that we'd collectively do a much better job at assessing the situation. They aren't a mere nuisance, and their extinction—so far as we know—would not have a significant impact on the ecosystem. As such, their loss is of no more nor less concern than that of any other species.

Not to mention that much of the lower half of the Atlantic seacoast is subsiding at a rate around 3-4mm per year.

Ahh no.
https://e360.yale.edu/features...

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/...

Recent research indicates that global mean sea level, or the average height of the world’s oceans, has been increasing by 3 millimeters (.1 inches) per year on average since 1993, when satellites first started measuring it. But along the U.S. East Coast north of Cape Hatteras, rates of sea level rise were found to be some three to four times higher than the global average over certain periods.

Ok, now you're starting to grasp at straws here to justify your racism (which wasn't as obvious until this last post).

Ah, yes. As soon as your arguments are exposed for the fraud that they are it's time to whip out the "you're a racist!" card. Nice one. Sure you don't want to call me a nazi, too? Then I can call you a pedophile and things should go swimingly from there.

So here's some context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t... this is the Confederate constitution. Notice how negros of the African race are considered property.

Duh. They were property at the time.

Notice negro is used as an adjective to slave, as to point out that other races of slave weren't to allowed but the black man is OK.

Now that's just stupid. The fact that the law at that point in time only allowed for the enslavement of blacks in no way means that "n*gger" is synonymous with slave. Nor does it change the fact that there were free blacks. Nor does it change the fact that free blacks were themselves often slaveholders. Nor does it change the fact that at an earlier time there were white slaves, some of whom were owned by blacks. All of which you just conveniently ignored in you oh-so-honest search for "context".

Now, let's jump over to the term cracker. https://www.npr.org/sections/c... This word as it turns out is of European (i.e. white) decent. It's not a term black people made up, it's a term you called yourselves centuries before African slaves hit the Americas.

That's right, it's OUR word, and you're not allowed to use it. You racist bastard.

You wanting to call people racists terms is nothing more than you attempting to exert superiority over others.

I have absolutely no interest in calling anyone "racist terms". I've never called anyone a n*gger, a kike, a spic, a chink, a dune-coon, or a wop. I did jokingly call friends fags, but that's about it. I also had a good friend who insisted on referring to me as "my nigga"; even in that context I never responded in kind because I think it's a stupid word which should be retired from the lexicon. But IF I wanted to use it I should be able to do so. Forbidding speech because you think it's "hateful" is not just retarded, it's fucking evil.

I could at least give white people credit for confusion with n*gger and nigga where that hard "er" crosses that line between cute and racial slur, but that's not even the case you're trying to make. They have an argument to make as when you're not using the term everyday, they're the same to you and at least they're trying to beore culturally inclusive, but you're just being a dick.

You're the cunt arguing for speech codes, so yeah, I will definitely be a dick towards you. If you weren't creating arbitrary categories of forbidden speech and trying to force them on others we wouldn't have this problem.

Ok, now you're starting to grasp at straws here to justify your racism (which wasn't as obvious until this last post). So here's some context: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t... this is the Confederate constitution. Notice how negros of the African race are considered property. Notice negro is used as an adjective to slave, as to point out that other races of slave weren't to allowed but the black man is OK. Now, let's jump over to the term cracker. https://www.npr.org/sections/c... This word as it turns out is of European (i.e. white) decent. It's not a term black people made up, it's a term you called yourselves centuries before African slaves hit the Americas. Now as for the middle East and other parts of Africa, these terms aren't used to describe black or white people at all. The closest you're going to get are Nigerians, but even there it's not the hard n*gger that whites use in anger to describe Africans here in the States and parts of the UK. You wanting to call people racists terms is nothing more than you attempting to exert superiority over others. I could at least give white people credit for confusion with n*gger and nigga where that hard "er" crosses that line between cute and racial slur, but that's not even the case you're trying to make. They have an argument to make as when you're not using the term everyday, they're the same to you and at least they're trying to beore culturally inclusive, but you're just being a dick.

Well, okay, depending upon which idiots we're talking about. In reading Madison's Notes it's important to keep in mind that the "minority" whom the founders spoke of protecting was their own class, the moneyed elite. Which made everyone else the idiots.

+1. So worth reading all of Madison's notes, I am in awe of this historical record, but sadly have looked at only a fraction of it so far. Personally, I don't feel in a position to make a judgment about where the balance between self interest and desire to carve out a position in history as having laid the foundation of thousand year republic lies. My sense is, in those days people cared a lot more about how history would judge them, thus the primary motivation was to establish a stable democratic system. And they did a damn good job obviously, but failed to prepare sufficiently for the demented cocktail of domestic kleptocracy, gullibility and foreign adventurism that put Trump in power. Of course the framers do not bear the entire blame for that, far from it.

That would kind of work as a lame-ass excuse if you weren't posting blatant bullshit as facts.

Claim: Social science departments at universities like Yale have explicitly defined themselves as institutions for political change, not institutions concerned with seeking truth.

LInk: About SBS The Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) Department aims to understand and improve health equity and social justice, both domestically and globally.

Link: The Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program empowers students to transform the world. Students acquire the knowledge and skills to prepare them as innovators, scholars and activists; to cultivate them as leaders in feminist and social justice projects, in journalism and digital media, in law and public policy, and in community organizing and corporate enterprise.

Claim: Hillary laughed about killing people.

Link: We came, we saw, he died

By being unfamiliar with such basic facts and denying them as "blatant bullshit", you just keep demonstrating that you are completely unfamiliar with modern US society.

That would kind of work as a lame-ass excuse if you weren't posting blatant bullshit as facts.

Claim: Social science departments at universities like Yale have explicitly defined themselves as institutions for political change, not institutions concerned with seeking truth.

LInk: About SBS The Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) Department aims to understand and improve health equity and social justice, both domestically and globally.

Link: The Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program empowers students to transform the world. Students acquire the knowledge and skills to prepare them as innovators, scholars and activists; to cultivate them as leaders in feminist and social justice projects, in journalism and digital media, in law and public policy, and in community organizing and corporate enterprise.

Claim: Hillary laughed about killing people.

Link: We came, we saw, he died

By being unfamiliar with such basic facts and denying them as "blatant bullshit", you just keep demonstrating that you are completely unfamiliar with modern US society.

Most plants for ethanol use in the USA are grown locally. Except in markets where it has to be imported like Florida. But the reason cattle farms are in the Amazon is because they got displaced from other regions by biofuel production for the Brazilian market... https://globalforestatlas.yale...

At least they are using sugar cane which is more efficient than corn.

Because Alexander Hamilton explicitly says so in the Federalist Papers? The process and arguments that resulted in the Constitution isnâ(TM)t lost to the mists of time.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

Read it yourself, it isnâ(TM)t long:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t...

The right to believe in whatever god you want.
The right to think whatever you like.
The right to feel however you feel.
The right to retain your own vital organs, even if harvesting them could save the lives of two or more other people.
The right to be a retired Liberal Arts professor on slashdot that pretends he understands politics, law, technology, and science.

"Natural rights" is a specific term of art. It's not a list of things you pull out of your ass (although you have the natural right to pull them out of your ass, within limits).

As I said, all natural rights come with common sense controls.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t...

What’s Causing the Sharp Decline in Insects, and Why It Matters

Where have all the insects gone?

Sea turtles under threat as majority being born are female....

THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST NEWS WE'VE HEARD ABOUT SEA TURTLES IN YEARS!!!!

Why?

Okay, let's just use our brains. And for a moment, in order to simplify, I am going to use humans in order to reduce the variable set (as sea turtles lay batches of eggs).

Lets say there are a 100 people. What is the maximum number of new babies that can be born?

Let's say, it was a 50/50 population of male/female. The maximum with typical births is 50 babies born.

The maximum births would be achieved by a population of 99 females, and 1 male. Yes, a single fertile male human being could fertilize 99 human females (and likely enjoy it too). Giving 99 new babies, though the human race would suffer from genetic diversity issues.

The nightmare scenario is not more females being born, but more males. If we had 99 males, and only 1 female...the birth rate is 1.

What this report really points too, is a potential rebound for sea turtles. If we have 10 to 90 ration, we are looking at potentially seeing a lot lot more sea turtles. Why might this be? Okay, they blame the warmer sea temps. And they may in fact be a factor, but lets look at the standard life equation. Population increases occur when there is habitat and food. Presently, there is talk about a increase in jellyfish populations, with some regions seeing a 40%-60% increase.
http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...

This means more availability of sea turtles prime food. Okay, so now consider the correlation. More food, turtles not having to range as far, so they're staying in the warmer regions. Big glut of jellyfish, saw one article exclaim that global warming was going to cause jellyfish to take over the ocean. So now, one of the prime predators of jellyfish is setting the stage to take advantage of this jellyfish bloom.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!

***
As for the coral reef die offs/bleaching. Yes, that gets blamed on global warming. However, there are a number of scientists who have said that is a mere secondary issue. The primary cause is extremely high levels of agricultural pesticides, (designed to kill arthropods and invertebrates), that are affecting the reefs - particularly off the coast of Australia.

Similar to the bee die offs, which were repeatedly blamed on global warming, until strong evidence began showing that pesticides, such as nicotides and others were largely responsible. And with both colonies (bees and coral) what we see is a conjunction of issues. Pesticides weaken the species, which become more susceptible to illnesses (parasites particularly with bees, and a herpes virus with coral reefs).

http://e360.yale.edu/features/...

https://www.realnatural.org/dy...

***
IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, you need to STFU about global warming. Because whether it is occurring or not is irrelevant. (Trust me, the earth has been much warmer, life thrived, vegetation increased, deserts shrunk, granted human coastal villages and cities may be under water...but humans adapt.) However, global warming is being used to mask the multitude of real and threatening environmental problems.

> Deforestation used to be a topic. We've not stopped cutting down rainforests, nor looked at using rapid renewables such as hemp for paper or bamboo to replace our 2x4's.

> Pesticides and herbicides used to be a topic. Now, all the die off of species are blamed on global warming. Some of these chemicals are genetically destructive and can persist for decades, centuries, perhaps even milleniums.

> We used to talk about waste, landfills, etc. But we don't...we only talk about global warming.

Global warmin

Your personal anecdote is not data. For example, the fraction of people in rural areas are using solar and geothermal power is very small. Moreover, a major part of the difference is car travel v. public transit (in fact this alone accounts for one of the major reasons that NYC is more efficient than even other cities). If you want, I can easily give you other sources detailing the same thing (such as http://e360.yale.edu/features/greenest_place_in_the_us_its_not_where_you_think). Calling actual data "nonsense" and responding with personal anecdote is not productive.

Sure, see http://e360.yale.edu/features/greenest_place_in_the_us_its_not_where_you_think. Also, see https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/ for the state-level data. That said, I think that considering this to be something that would constitute a conflict of interest enough to doubt the source is pretty silly.

Some doctors told me that while the initial evacuation was necessary, the failure to plan a swift return as radiation levels fell had been disastrous. Apart from a few high-dose areas in the mountains, the psychological risks of staying away exceed the radiological risks of coming back. But the confusion has contributed to a serious loss of trust among the public for medical, as well as nuclear, authorities. “When we try to explain the situation,” says Nollet, “we are seen as complicit in nuclear power.”

http://e360.yale.edu/features/...

The real and honest question here is why no one remembers the reasons for why we have an electoral system.

It was explicitly done to take the power out of the hands of the people, because the people who built the government thought that had to be done for their own good. It was specifically designed to protect the status quo. The people who were running the country (a subgroup of wealthy white men with the "proper" background) wanted to continue running the country. It has so far worked brilliantly.

The system was set up as a checks and balances system to keep the US policy from being dictated by people in large cities.

That is precisely what you are meant to believe. In fact, it is set up to reduce the value of the individual vote, because nobody in power gives a fuck what you think, or what I think. And that's essentially what they said at the time; that we were too dumb to choose the president. We're still using that same system, which is still based upon the same premise. Surely if we don't let the rich white fucks who own everything continue to run the nation, everything will go wrong! Except everything is going wrong specifically because we are letting them run things, straight into the ground. We spend through our year's share of natural capital by August or September and there's no one to borrow the rest from. We're spending our future.

So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

So, Climate scientists think El Nino reduces hurricane probability and intensity. Some predict AGW will double El Nino frequency. Some predict Hurricane frequency and intensity will increase due to AGW.

Nice to see its all figured out.

So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

The absence of counterclaims is because we don't attack very often. The command chain authority for a cyber offensive (OCO) is similar to that for a nuclear strike. Further, US legal definitions of cyber attacks require physical loss or human disability or death. This is a much higher bar than other countries.

Look up:
https://law.yale.edu/system/fi...

If you have access to Joint Knowledge Online (DoD), find the class on Cyber legal framework (unclass) which will lay all this out in gory detail.

Last things first, I think it's hilarious that you have made only a single citation in your last couple of posts while making many claims and then you demand I cite sources. To keep you from throwing a tantrum though I'll spend my own time citing sources even though you cant be bothered.

Working from the end, the Southern realignment of the 60's and 70's which happened around the civil rights movement is a well known event so I certainly didn't think I would even need to even cite sources (much like I wouldn't think I would need to site a source for saying that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln). Major party realignments don't just happen spontaneously for no reason and this was the big event effecting the South during this period. Here's some links so you can brush up on your history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://economics.yale.edu/site...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHi... (Yes, I know it's reddit but the post is accurate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's certainly more easily found resources but I was trying to find some that might be up to your demands and perceptions and didn't want to spend a lot of time on it.

Finally to your first part, I certainly never said "conservatives are racist", that's you putting words into my mouth and playing the victim. A simple look at what you literally quote me on should spell out to you that what I was saying is that racial hate groups tend to be conservative, not that conservatives tend to be racist. Most of the groups on this list are known for favoring modern American conservative politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course there are some liberal groups on the list and I would never say the Left in this country has clean hands in this regard. What I am saying is that the vast majority of groups on this list identify with our country's conservative politics.

A Google search turned up this: https://e360.yale.edu/features...

It mentions lithium for batteries and tellurium for solar cells. I recall also that child slave labor is one of the main problems with sourcing lithium for batteries: http://www.reuters.com/article...

Nothing is absolute, however, and I think for example it's still somewhat open exactly what kind of batteries should be used alongside solar power. I remember seeing something about a test plant in China testing all sorts of batteries to rate their efficiency and monetary costs with solar power. So it's not certain that lithium inherently poses a problem for solar power, but for now it at least makes one particular setup--lithium batteries--more complicated.

Nuclear power probably is not without its esoteric requirements when you consider everything needed to build a plant and connect it to the grid. The main benefit in regard to mining, however, is that is uses so little fuel (fissible material).

The US and the Soviet Union and now Russia have worked together on a few things.
Moscow–Washington hotline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Washington_hotline
Environmental Modification Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apollo–Soyuz Test Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Soyuz_Test_Project
Treaty on Open Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Chemical Weapons Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Kennedy-Khruschev Exchanges http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20t...
RD-180 engine imports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As for cyber security? Why not? Might stop some spam and other evil-doers.

If we cannot listen to advice, what hope is there?

Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.

Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.

Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...:

  Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.

That is a different technology than the panels made in China, which are all silicon panels.

(Also, tellurium is not a rare earth element, not that this matters, since it's not used in the panels made in China.)

You are excused.

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Yeah, it has far more to do with the laptop or smartphone that you posted your incorrect assessment from than it does anything to do with solar panels. Hint: solar panels don't use rare earths,

You guys are really sure of things that are wrong.

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.

Google Baotou Lake. It is a direct consequence of buying Chinese solar panels and wind turbines. Green energy isn't so green when you see this.

Waste from rare earth mineral refineries. Nothing to do with solar panels, which don't use any rare earth elements.

Excuse me?
https://e360.yale.edu/features...

Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold.

Show any data demonstrating that Independents are one way or the other on climate change.

Nearly 70% of registered voters believe the US should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement

While only 53% of Independents believe the Earth is getting warmer primarily because of human activity, they overwhelmingly believe we should at least be working with other world leaders to do what we can about climate change.

Ah yes. Because the countryside is free of pollution

Perhaps you were subjected to too much manure as a child to be able to tell when someone is feeding you more of it.

especially arguing that making everybody equally poor doesn't make for a better society

Devil's Advocate: how do you explain the overall high level of happiness in deeply impoverished countries such as Bhutan ( http://www.ibtimes.com/worlds-... )? Also consider books such as: ( http://isps.yale.edu/research/... ), which argue that the material progress in modern market democracies has not led to a commensurate rise, or even stable level, of happiness.

They're DEMANDING that "Major English Poets" not be taught at all - by the university English Literature department - because they're white Europeans.

Are you unaware that "Major English Poets" is the name of a series of classes? And that those classes are a requirement for all students? (Citation)

So they're not demanding the removal of all major English poets as crybaby snowflakes like you seem to think, they just seem to want that series of classes replaced with something more diverse. Something which could include Shakespeare but _also_ non-Europeans. (Or maybe they'd be okay with just eliminating "Major English Poets" as a singular requirement and allowing students to pick from a diverse set of literature classes to fulfill their requirement instead.)

Whether you believe globalization is good or bad, the free movement of capital and work, wages will stagnate or go down (at least in the near to mid term).

In Bill Clinton's Global Challenges speech at Yale is, perhaps, one of the clearest articulations of the goal of achieving an integrated global community characterized by "shared responsibilities, shared benefits, and shared values." If the goal is to "bring economic opportunity to the 50 per cent of the globe's population which lives on $2 a day or less" then that will involve capital flowing from wealthy countries to less-developed countries.

I think the vision is that the money supply would grow fast enough to minimize or eliminate the impact of the capital outflow. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the bet did not pay off.

The "all scientists believe global warming" bullshit came from a cherry picked poll with no scientific methodology and therefore no accuracy and they are following the Nazi path that a lie told long enough and loud enough will be believed.

Says the guy who cherry picks the exception to the norm as proof that the premise is faulty, and Godwins on top of it. Likewise, perhaps you believe that heaping up a steaming pile of logical fallacies and declaring it 'truth!' that you can convince anybody you're right if you keep at it long enough.

Here are a few facts: Every fossil fuel that is burned today was once living matter, either plant or animal (undisputed fact). Thus it was once part of the natural CO2 planetary cycle and at a time when life was flourishing. But somehow, re-adding that carbon to the planetary system after being trapped in coal or oil or natural gas deposits will throw the world out of balance and make the world too hot to be habitable? Completely irrational on the face of it.

Here is a fun experiment you should try: start at the top of a 10 story building, and walk down to the ground floor via the stairwell. Now, from the top of the same building, jump over the side. You start with the same potential energy and are traveling the same vertical distance, but there is a difference in the rate of change in energy levels that may be of interest to you.

Meanwhile, on the west coast, enjoy eating oysters while you still can as the oceans absorbing atmospheric CO2 has already altered the ph of the water to the point their shells dissolve. So it's not just about the potential for disrupting human civilization as we know it by the alteration of habitable areas and crop viability, or making it 'too hot to live' as you put it, but also the massive die off of species for which they are not able to adapt fast enough to the changing conditions that is a problem.

Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue. -Proverbs 17:28

But do go on trying to convince anyone that releasing billions of tons of CO2 every year for more than a century couldn't possibly have an accumulative effect, that the numbers are all wrong and that the majority of scientists are all lying merely for their own benefit.

Great, so we can just grab anyone off the streets and they can be President, right? Is the Electoral College really meant to be a rubber-stamp? Why bother to have it then? Let's see what Hamilton said in Federalist 68
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."
Disqualifing qualities:
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity"

It's a wonderful look at how the Founders thought to avoid corruption in the highest political office. So are the Founders wrong and the EC should be a rubber-stamp, or are they actually supposed to evaluate the character and suitability of the person in question? Because the Constitution is written to support the latter idea. In point of fact, as Federalist 68 wholly supports, the Electoral College was explicitly designed to avoid people like Trump being elected President.

This is a race to the bottom where stopping it is in the interest of everyone involved.

Imagine if you will, the coming brain drain. As there are less and less opportunies for the best and brightest, many will leave. Considering the present hatred towards science, there will be a short time of wild applause for the loss.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/con... is very interesting, as it speaks to a coming brain drain, as foreign born students in the US opt out of staying here and go back to their own countries to work their careers. Interesting in that these are not regular Americans! So where are the smart Americans going?

Here: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/05/... The finance sector.

Well, that's kinda nice now isn't it? Smart kid. Goes and gets get holed up in a cubicle at Goldman Sachs, and creates and innovates. ..... nothing.

I forsee the day where a bright young US student interested in science or technology relocates to China or India, while the US tries to make money selling our hats to each other. Meanwhile an increasingly poor and uneducated public cheers the loss of the liberal egghead with his bible and common sense defying ideas. https://newrepublic.com/articl... Yeah, I know - it's New Republic. Bigthink has an article as well http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-u... . Its a little older but still good food for thought.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the tons of scientists around the world trying to get people to listen:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/t...

There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.

Yeah, but certain regions have certain mentalities, so that invalidates your argument and people live in those areas probably because they agree with the lifestyle and mentality, or if not take it on. The south tends to be more conservative while the west more liberal. Also, there are places where the dead are on record as voting as well as illegals. Take that into account and Trump would have won both. Would you have written the same thing if California, Illinois and NY were red? THE EC is hardly "arbitrary," as it has been around since the Constitution and ensures that all parts of the country have a voice.

There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.

PS - its purpose was never abandoned.

You want to know what the original purpose was? Read Federalist Paper 68. That's not the whole story; the EC was also set up to allow slave states more influence in who becomes President, but that is also no longer relevant.

The EC was set up to be a group of educated and well-informed men who would consider the candidates carefully, eliminate all the unqualified ones seeking office, and vote for the best of a potentially large slate of candidates. If they didn't give anyone a majority, they'd at least provide a short list for the House to decide from. Less than fifteen years later, the original intent was abandoned and the electors were then intended to be rubber stamps for the party that won in each individual state.

If the EC were functioning as designed, Trump would get no votes. Clinton and Sanders, and likely other Democrats, would be considered. Assorted Republicans, not including Trump, would also be considered. They might well agree on someone who wasn't even running a campaign.

Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.

Run-on sentence much? Anyway, for about the bazillionth time, climate != weather.

The AGW people are not zealots, they're scientists, and those who understand how science works. What you seem to interpret as zealotry is actually a genuine concern for the future of the human race.

All models are a compromise, because they attempt to express in mathematics and algorithms the essential parts of a complex real world. They can make wrong predictions in both directions. But the practice of science works to correct this by observing discrepancies and producing better models. And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.ucsusa.org/publicat...
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/c...
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-g...

Whether you accept what the models say or not, the essential take-away is that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, and humanity is responsible for adding a significant amount of them to the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Enough to cause a problem that we must face and solve, or risk significant global hardship. Temperature is trending upwards. Polar ice is melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.

And maybe, in fact perhaps quite likely, efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will be a net benefit for economies, rather than a hardship.

But, if you want to discuss the electoral college and the popular vote we can. There's nothing wrong with people in cities having a lot of votes if there are people there. It is in only because those people don't vote the way you like that you have the opinion you do. Moreover, the actual cause for an electoral college was primarily two things: First, to prevent populist demagogues by having another layer between the population and the electorate. Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 68 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp. In that context, having an electoral college that just votes the way the state popular vote directs it to is exactly counter to that goal. Second, the electoral college preserved the power of the slave states http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar. It should be clear why the second reason is not acceptable.

And if you really want to look at the "popular vote" numbers, you have to take into account the number of votes the Dems should not have gotten due to fraud such as illegal immigrants voting. The D's cheated and STILL lost. Their policies are obviously so popular that they're now trying to implement them by force.

Thank you for giving an excellent further example of the complete disregard for facts that some on the right are demonstrating. There is essentially zero evidence of any substantial immigration voting. See for example here http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html. Facts matter. And if you want to play that game then it is worth noting that massive numbers of legitimate votes in swing states were disenfranchised due to voter ID restrictions, and even federal judges agree that many of those restrictions were designed to deliberately target minorities. Look for example at North Carolina http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/. Again, facts matter. There's a good argument for not using the popular vote in this *specific election* because we have a system right now, and we don't know if it would have ended up this way if Hillary and Trump had focused on turning out the maximum number of voters rather than voters in swing states, but that's a distinct issue that's completely removed from the basic facts.

Since 2014 I've been reading about hardware-based detection. I'm starting to think this is just panacea... like those cloud-based antivirus engines that never picked up anything. Here's a bunch of research on the topic: http://www.ieee-security.org/T... http://caslab.eng.yale.edu/wor... http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~... http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~...

Someone said that Alice in Wonderland is the best book on programming. "The Idea Factory" is about technology in the last century, and touches on computers, and is also quite readable. "The Art of Unix Programming" is worth a read, along with the jargon dictionary, and they're free. "Zero Bugs and Program Faster" has code examples from across half a century. This series was really great, but might be hard to find.

The Continental Army was disbanded after the Revolution, and when the next major threat came up (Shay's Rebellion), Washington raised the militia. The standing Army was not small. It did not exist. It was not supposed to exist, which is why there's a two-year limit for military appropriations.

http://teachinghistory.org/his...
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/S...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t...

Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Webster, and Hamilton all argued that standing armies were a threat to liberty. Even Franklin got in on the act. Whatever the Founders disagreed about, they were all pretty much behind this idea.

âoeThat a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.â â" Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776

You can have your own principles, but not your own facts, and the facts are against you: the Founders were entirely against having a standing army.

You might find the following interesting: (And it's not by a Reagan apologist - not by a long shot)

http://digitalcommons.law.yale...

" the committees' misunderstanding of both the precedent and the problem inevitably
led them to the wrong prescription. For if, as the committees concluded,
the Iran-Contra Affair sprang mainly from the wayward acts of a
few colorful personalities, then the proper policy prescription would indeed
be to enforce the laws currently on the books. But if the Affair
stemmed from a more fundamental failure of legal structure, then a legislative
revamping of the statutory framework that governs our foreign affairs
is now in order"

This case should have been left as a he-said/she-said between Legislative and Executive Branches. We need clear-cut delineation describing where the Executive's branch prerogatives end the Legislative branch begins. We do not have that.

Did Reagan overstep the bounds as enacted by Congress. Of course. But were the laws Constitutional? Ah. That's something the New Yorker, Salon, Atlantic and others gloss over. That is the central concern. Not did Reagan go out of his way to circumvent a law.

I wrote up a long reply, but then slashdot ate it.

I'm writing this in an external text editor to aleviate this risk. I would also point out that most mail clients have automatic draft save these days.....

First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.

Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.

I lost you. You concede that Hamas is not only deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved, but using Palestinian non-involved as, literally, cannon fodder, and yet you say:

it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.

Except Hamas core charter is reprehensible. From your claim to another poster that Hamas is against Israel, and not against Jews, I deduct you have not read it. Statements specifically againt Israel are, in fact, quite scarce there. Statements against Jews, not so much. Choice quote for emphasis (but it is far from being the only example):

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."

So a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter is doing reprehensible things. You claim it is because Israel has the means to destroy it. Sadly, I think you are wrong. Either way, I think your "context" is a little narrow.

Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:

Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand

So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?

I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank.

I disagree with the first. I think Netanyahu's handling of Arafat antics in 1995 were completely justified, and indeed brought down the level of terror in Israel's streets. I also disagree with the second, in that I think the words "a bit" in it should be striken. Israel needs to get the settlers' behavior under control, and do it soon. There are some encouraging developments on that front, but they definitely started too late.

With that said, we seem to agree that Israel's behavior, while very far from ideal, is very close to optimal (i.e. - the best one can hope to achieve under a very complex situation where "the right thing to do" is only known in hindsight).

The human shields thing, you're always going to have a few assholes in any military. It's not like it was a policy advocated for by the top brass. But either way, these are small potatoes.

Again, a correction. By "human shield" I'm assuming you mean sending relatives of militants to negogiate surrender (strangely, the only documentation I found about it is in Hebrew). Things there are both better and worse than you describe.

On the worse part, it was done as policy. While it might have started as some field initiative, it was a systematic thing. On the better part, it seems there was only one person killed as a result, and it has been outlawed in Israel over a decade ago. I definitely mark it down as one of "we're trying to figure out things as we go along, and

I'm sure someone in the Army has read the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III which prohibits "the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body".

Unless these things have a built in kill switch which causes them not to explode upon entering a human body, I'd think these things would be illegal for normal warfare.

Freeman Dyson doesn't believe human activity is causing global climate change...

This is incorrect. Here's Wikipedia summary, but here are some choice quotes

'One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.' (Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society, by Freeman Dyson)

'In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.' (from the above linked Wikipedia article)

If Freeman Dyson says your maths are rubbish -- They are.

He doesn't appear to be making any claims about the math.

My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me. (Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment)