There is no step added. Existing "technologies" remain unconverted. Independently, CO2 is converted into something else - intentionally or as a good side effect of something else.
No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc. New machines do reverse conversion.
Idiot, it was in the context of "conversion to CO2 neutral technologies". The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies. The other industries then don't have to convert.
All this even while ignoring the other factors that can cause a non-necessity of conversion to CO2 neutral technologies.
No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.
For your limited brain, then, consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. But if a miniscule amount does come from carbon fossil fuels it would not make much of a difference.
Celebrities' fault is surely involved, no? Celebrities can't do anything about other "gasbags" , but if they truly wanted less people to find the pictures, and people to enjoy the pictures less if they did find the photos, they would not have complained like this. Calling it "sex crime" must have given an enormous arousal to the perpetrators.
Ok, I have no problem disagreeing. But don't you think in this particular case, whining like she's doing is likely to be feeling good for the worst of the offenders. I thought you will appreciate this argument at least, probably got missed in other disagreements.
How does the fact that she is complaining about it make it a stupid risk?
The fact that she is complaining about it DOES NOT make it a stupid risk. Because : 1. her complaining happened AFTER she took the risk 2. the risk was already stupid when she took it, from our point of view 3. risk was stupid from our point of view because to us the rewards don't seem worth the risk 4. it is entirely possible that the risk was worth the reward from her point of view
And so why can't Lawrence be mad that someone hacked her iCloud account and leaked obviously private photos of her to the public?
She can be. But it is counter-productive because : 1. The thieves will enjoy the photos all the more. 2. Takes her own (and of others who listen to her) attention away from avoiding such incidents in future 3. It will not make it stop happening.
IFF she took the risk knowingly, she reasonably cannot be mad that someone hacked because reasonable people who take risks don't blame others when they get unlucky. E.g. 1. bungee jumpers getting hurt 2. getting extra complications during heart surgery 3. people ordering new kind of exotic food in restaurants and finding it not to taste
If you're not prepared to tell me that I'm stupid for riding my bike, then why are you so quick to say that Lawrence is stupid for sexting with her boyfriend?
Riding a bike where I live is very safe - I do it 8 miles everyday and I don't tell myself that I am stupid. If someone does it where it is unsafe, I would tell everyone that he stupid for riding his bike.
Someone might be more to blame and less a victim than Lawrence - e.g. another similar celebrity who stored more intimate photos in less secure a fashion, and those photos did not get published. That doesn't mean Lawrence is not to blame.
Sometimes yes. Mostly no. In this case? Many more young female celebrities storing their nude photos with only a token security in publicly accessible places will attract more people into this "hobby" of trading them. Currently many perverts who are not into this "hobby" are so because of its difficulty, not nobility of heart.
Similarly, locking one's physical possessions well also serves to make professional crime infeasible - if an opportunity for physical object theft appears once in 5 years the thief better get a job. Once he got a job, he might not get time to even do that once in 5 year theft. Even in physical object theft, high caution increases security for everyone.
Because everyone who isn't a fully trained locksmith deserves to be robbed...
Look, the celebrities took a risk, and got unlucky. 2 possibilities :
1. False sense of security : Clearly the electronic device maker/service providers' fault for not making clear the risks.
2. Informed risk taking : No one's fault except the celebrities themselves. You bet on heads, it turns tails up, wipe your tears and move on.
The thieves, even while being scum, will only enjoy it more if the "victims" complain against them. Catch them if you can, but complain only works against people you trust in your life. Apple - yes. Your mobile phone service center - yes. Facebook - yes. Thieves? No.
If she thought the probability was low, and she took the risk, she has zero excuse to complain now. See all other areas where people take calculated risks - stock market, bungee jumping, undergoing heart surgery, ordering unknown food in restaurant and not finding to taste even though prepared fabulously.
When there is risk to life, the risker officially signs away the rights to complain BEFORE doing the activity. Even otherwise, the risker is always presumed to have taken a risk.
Only excuse to complain is when there is a false sense of security by the broker, doctor, waiter, even organizer. If so, complain needs to be of those people, primarily.
Existence of unethical, criminal people in the world is a known fact - someone betting their own nude photos about a known true fact being false is an idiot of the highest degree. If you sustain a major fungal infection during open heart surgery, you don't sue the fungi - you sue the doctor (if you sue anyone) while killing the fungi if you can. Getting angry at the fungi will prove your idiocy.
Or shouldn't they be?....
I'd rather that the photos not exist
It doesn't matter. Laws of nature, most of the known ones, do not care about what should happen, and what someone would rather. Kids may not listen to parents' advice - that is another known law of nature;)
Lawrence made that same calculation and came up on the losing end, but does that make her decision unwise, just because she was unlucky?
Many other celebrities might have taken worse photos and protected them worse than Lawrence. We can't blame them because we don't know they did it. If we knew them, we would blame them worse than we blame Lawrence, even if they didn't get unlucky.
We know Lawrence took a stupid risk - we are not blaming her for getting unlucky - we are blaming her for taking the risk which was not worth it from our point of view. And if it was worth it from her point of view, she shouldn't be complaining.
Misjudgement of being worth it could be because of a false sense of security - then she should be suing every technological device maker and service provider that lulled her into a false sense of security.
For one, I guess these companies should emphasize that "send to person X" means "send to any person who knows username and password of X". Unless there is 2-factor authentication enabled - in which case the risks of that should be highlighted well.
Just because someone is a victim, doesn't mean they cannot be blamed. Not does it mean they must be blamed.
In fact, there is no relation at all between being a victim and being blamable by a reasonable person - neither positive nor negative. Stop connecting the two.
First you hallucinated that I said "the RoI on warming prevention is horrible, compared with other things to spend money". Then you hallucinate I spoke about any perpetual motion machine.
Slashdot Mirror
You're now hallucinating that the two statements are the same.
There is no step added. Existing "technologies" remain unconverted. Independently, CO2 is converted into something else - intentionally or as a good side effect of something else.
Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.
More hallucinations from you.
No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc. New machines do reverse conversion.
Ignoring numerous other factors, of course.
Idiot, it was in the context of "conversion to CO2 neutral technologies". The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies. The other industries then don't have to convert.
All this even while ignoring the other factors that can cause a non-necessity of conversion to CO2 neutral technologies.
No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.
In this very case, there are multiple victims. I just pointed about the stupidity of one of them in my last post.
FYI the sets "victim" and "stupid(bad guy according to you)" are not disjoint.
Even if it is, not calling it a"sex crime " is not prohibited by law. Most other humans, even when discussing this event, managed to do it just fine.
If she couldn't speak about this event in a way that was non-enjoyable to the culprits, shutting the fuck up was an option.
For your limited brain, then, consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. But if a miniscule amount does come from carbon fossil fuels it would not make much of a difference.
Celebrities' fault is surely involved, no? Celebrities can't do anything about other "gasbags" , but if they truly wanted less people to find the pictures, and people to enjoy the pictures less if they did find the photos, they would not have complained like this. Calling it "sex crime" must have given an enormous arousal to the perpetrators.
Most likely no, but it doesn't matter.
Ok, I have no problem disagreeing. But don't you think in this particular case, whining like she's doing is likely to be feeling good for the worst of the offenders. I thought you will appreciate this argument at least, probably got missed in other disagreements.
How does the fact that she is complaining about it make it a stupid risk?
The fact that she is complaining about it DOES NOT make it a stupid risk. Because :
1. her complaining happened AFTER she took the risk
2. the risk was already stupid when she took it, from our point of view
3. risk was stupid from our point of view because to us the rewards don't seem worth the risk
4. it is entirely possible that the risk was worth the reward from her point of view
And so why can't Lawrence be mad that someone hacked her iCloud account and leaked obviously private photos of her to the public?
She can be. But it is counter-productive because :
1. The thieves will enjoy the photos all the more.
2. Takes her own (and of others who listen to her) attention away from avoiding such incidents in future
3. It will not make it stop happening.
IFF she took the risk knowingly, she reasonably cannot be mad that someone hacked because reasonable people who take risks don't blame others when they get unlucky. E.g.
1. bungee jumpers getting hurt
2. getting extra complications during heart surgery
3. people ordering new kind of exotic food in restaurants and finding it not to taste
If you're not prepared to tell me that I'm stupid for riding my bike, then why are you so quick to say that Lawrence is stupid for sexting with her boyfriend?
Riding a bike where I live is very safe - I do it 8 miles everyday and I don't tell myself that I am stupid. If someone does it where it is unsafe, I would tell everyone that he stupid for riding his bike.
Blamable and victim are not disjoint sets.
Someone might be more to blame and less a victim than Lawrence - e.g. another similar celebrity who stored more intimate photos in less secure a fashion, and those photos did not get published. That doesn't mean Lawrence is not to blame.
Some energy source that exists at that point in future.
Sometimes yes. Mostly no. In this case? Many more young female celebrities storing their nude photos with only a token security in publicly accessible places will attract more people into this "hobby" of trading them. Currently many perverts who are not into this "hobby" are so because of its difficulty, not nobility of heart.
Similarly, locking one's physical possessions well also serves to make professional crime infeasible - if an opportunity for physical object theft appears once in 5 years the thief better get a job. Once he got a job, he might not get time to even do that once in 5 year theft. Even in physical object theft, high caution increases security for everyone.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Doesn't matter. Energy can exist in the future, so it can be used to convert CO2 into something else.
Because everyone who isn't a fully trained locksmith deserves to be robbed...
Look, the celebrities took a risk, and got unlucky. 2 possibilities :
1. False sense of security : Clearly the electronic device maker/service providers' fault for not making clear the risks.
2. Informed risk taking : No one's fault except the celebrities themselves. You bet on heads, it turns tails up, wipe your tears and move on.
The thieves, even while being scum, will only enjoy it more if the "victims" complain against them. Catch them if you can, but complain only works against people you trust in your life. Apple - yes. Your mobile phone service center - yes. Facebook - yes. Thieves? No.
If she thought the probability was low, and she took the risk, she has zero excuse to complain now. See all other areas where people take calculated risks - stock market, bungee jumping, undergoing heart surgery, ordering unknown food in restaurant and not finding to taste even though prepared fabulously.
When there is risk to life, the risker officially signs away the rights to complain BEFORE doing the activity. Even otherwise, the risker is always presumed to have taken a risk.
Only excuse to complain is when there is a false sense of security by the broker, doctor, waiter, even organizer. If so, complain needs to be of those people, primarily.
Existence of unethical, criminal people in the world is a known fact - someone betting their own nude photos about a known true fact being false is an idiot of the highest degree. If you sustain a major fungal infection during open heart surgery, you don't sue the fungi - you sue the doctor (if you sue anyone) while killing the fungi if you can. Getting angry at the fungi will prove your idiocy.
Or shouldn't they be? ....
I'd rather that the photos not exist
It doesn't matter. Laws of nature, most of the known ones, do not care about what should happen, and what someone would rather. Kids may not listen to parents' advice - that is another known law of nature ;)
Lawrence made that same calculation and came up on the losing end, but does that make her decision unwise, just because she was unlucky?
Many other celebrities might have taken worse photos and protected them worse than Lawrence. We can't blame them because we don't know they did it. If we knew them, we would blame them worse than we blame Lawrence, even if they didn't get unlucky.
We know Lawrence took a stupid risk - we are not blaming her for getting unlucky - we are blaming her for taking the risk which was not worth it from our point of view. And if it was worth it from her point of view, she shouldn't be complaining.
Misjudgement of being worth it could be because of a false sense of security - then she should be suing every technological device maker and service provider that lulled her into a false sense of security.
For one, I guess these companies should emphasize that "send to person X" means "send to any person who knows username and password of X". Unless there is 2-factor authentication enabled - in which case the risks of that should be highlighted well.
Just because someone is a victim, doesn't mean they cannot be blamed. Not does it mean they must be blamed.
In fact, there is no relation at all between being a victim and being blamable by a reasonable person - neither positive nor negative. Stop connecting the two.
No, the "no energy be input " is your hallucination.
First you hallucinated that I said "the RoI on warming prevention is horrible, compared with other things to spend money". Then you hallucinate I spoke about any perpetual motion machine.
Seems to you wrong - both first and second.