While your arguments hold for abrahamic religions, and in general history centric religions, it does not apply to religions in general. I.e. religions need not contradict each other beyond reconciliation.
See how most Japanese are Shintoists and Buddhists at the same time, China is full of Buddhists cum Confuciunists, and Indians follow different mixtures of hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism - at times together. Hinduism itself doesn't mean anything - it is a mixture of 20-30 philosophies, including atheist philosophies.
Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors
Ok, maybe it is unfair. But people who love cars, typically love to drive long-long distances without filling-up-the-tank interruptions. If the guy is a car reviewer, he is likely such a car lover, and is surrounded by mostly car lovers. EVs have left a bad taste in such people's mouths, and it is understandable.
Folly of a car geek, not dissimilar to the folly of many slashdotters regarding computers.
Seeing two people riding in a Hummer in the carpool lane while a single guy in a non-plugin hybrid can't be there
That still reduces congestion. Even if Hummer takes 4 times the road area when parked, relative to the smaller car, actual area occupied when the car is moving depends on the speed. A car "occupies" the area in front of it, in which area no one would feel safe to be.
I wouldn't like to be anywhere within 80 feet in front of a car doing 40 mph, in whichever enclosure I am cocooned. So even if Hummer is 40 feet long and the small car is 10 feet long, Hummer at 40 mph takes 120 feet space serving 2 people, and small car takes 90 feet serving 1 person. Hummer comes out way ahead per person.
While I agree this requirement should be common between cab cars and personal use cars, it is not a case of selective enforcement. In a way, it is a change of burden of proof, though not exactly that either.
E.g. theft is illegal, but everyone is not asked to get their homes inspected for stolen goods. When there is a suspicion, police gets a warrant and searches or investigate in other ways.
Car maintenance is probably less serious than theft, but similar distinction exists there too. Cab companies have to prove proactively, others can only be prosecuted if ill-maintenance is suspected , complained about, or investigation of an accident reveals prior ill-maintenance of the vehicle.
In the meantime I'm interested in your assertion that climate change won't lead to more food insecurity for people in the Least Developed Nations
You do come across as a guy interested in non-existent things, so I am not surprised.
This whole post of yours was purely repetitive that I was able to answer just with recent other posts. You can loop through the posts - make posts on my behalf by copying and pasting from my posts, and reply to them yourself. There is enough material for you to last a lifetime of such repetitive discussions. Good luck.
1. Suppose prices Visa charges are in any way related to costs Visa incurs. 2. A lot of costs you describe are software/hardware/network. 3. These have come down by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude over last 2 decades. 4. But the fees Visa charges its customers hasn't.
A contradiction. So our original assumption was wrong. QED.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support).
I would like you to point me to the statement from Elvis Presley where he talked about giraffes and mastiffs. I can ask for irrelevant citations too, see?
And you openly acknowledge that the statement "I support moving to green technologies" created just such an ambiguity.
Well, waitress is salesperson and labourer combined. Now sales - the emotional appeal part of it, just doesn't work with robots until they look, feel, sound uncannily like humans. Then they will be able to sell their way to glory. For evidence that robots can appeal to human emotions - check out the robot minesweepers that invoked so much pity on human soldiers practicing with them because of their working with broken legs, that the soldiers couldn't take it any more. Now humanoid robots may be far away, I admit, but once they come humans have serious competition even in sales.
Then, humans have weaknesses. Chocolate. A nice mixture of carbohydrate+fats. Yummm. Through data analysis, the robot knows what's your poison. It also knows exactly how much discount or free samples will make you slip while still keeping the restaurant in good profit, in how much intoxicated a state. You have resolved to not indulge, but the robot is ruthless where a human waitress would have taken pity on you. You lose. Robots can be good salesrobots without humanoidness.
Which is tacit admission that his remarks are contradictory. Do you acknowledge this contradiction?
I was interested in a thread, I was reading it, you made a misinterpretation, I corrected you, you have been arguing since then.
2 points :
1. Your misinterpretation cannot be pardoned by anything that happens since - any other posts that can be made by any other poster any where. Nothing will change the fact that it is stupid to hold someone as unwilling of mitigation when he clearly supports mitigation in imprecise words.
2. Note that the sequence of events related above, does not involve me reading all the posts in this story, especially those that are not addressed to me.
Funny - because you just spent the last week or so arguing about his/her motivation. I remind you of what you said earlier
"Saying the opposite" does not include the motivation for saying the opposite!!!!!
He is saying the opposite. I don't know or care about the irrelevant fact of his motivation for saying the opposite.
Your posts are getting seriously retarded. I am not sure I can keep pointing to obvious things in my own post just so that you notice, it is the last time.
My post that you quote simply does not involve the motivation of the other poster, AT ALL. Just an observation that he supported something. Not why, nor any motivation for supporting it. Just the fact that he supported it.
In addition I see that you readily accept that his motivation for saying "I support a move to green technologies" is not for the purposes of mitigating the effects of climate change.
If you eat food to placate the gods instead of to placate your hunger, hunger still gets placated. If you use "green" energy sources for other reasons, CO2 effects are still mitigated.
No, I just made this post which you misinterpreted(1).
You said "The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.", which is stupid because it was in a context which was not opposing mitigation in any way or form. Instead it was advocating mitigation, though in imperfect words.
(1) Misinterpreted means twisted to mean any general agreement with the poster of the GP of that post that applies AFTER that post of mine. That is the real demonstration of strawman by you. I never said I agree with that poster in whatever he says in the future. I have had many disagreements with him in the past, which is an irrelevant fact but probably will help you given you misinterpret simple statements.
Also, you yourself talk about mitigation, so you yourself don't assume the miseries are certain. And both me and jbolden are NOT saying anything against mitigation.
So your position about the certainty of miseries is inconsistent with your own stand about mitigation.
Most important point I want to make is that the misery you predict may not NECESSARILY come to pass. You are talking in certainties, the other guy is not, at least until I replied.
Slashdot Mirror
While your arguments hold for abrahamic religions, and in general history centric religions, it does not apply to religions in general. I.e. religions need not contradict each other beyond reconciliation.
See how most Japanese are Shintoists and Buddhists at the same time, China is full of Buddhists cum Confuciunists, and Indians follow different mixtures of hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism - at times together. Hinduism itself doesn't mean anything - it is a mixture of 20-30 philosophies, including atheist philosophies.
Clarkson also has a long history of attacking electric cars, and when he is presented with argument, he responds with non sequitors
Ok, maybe it is unfair. But people who love cars, typically love to drive long-long distances without filling-up-the-tank interruptions. If the guy is a car reviewer, he is likely such a car lover, and is surrounded by mostly car lovers. EVs have left a bad taste in such people's mouths, and it is understandable.
Folly of a car geek, not dissimilar to the folly of many slashdotters regarding computers.
Seeing two people riding in a Hummer in the carpool lane while a single guy in a non-plugin hybrid can't be there
That still reduces congestion. Even if Hummer takes 4 times the road area when parked, relative to the smaller car, actual area occupied when the car is moving depends on the speed. A car "occupies" the area in front of it, in which area no one would feel safe to be.
I wouldn't like to be anywhere within 80 feet in front of a car doing 40 mph, in whichever enclosure I am cocooned. So even if Hummer is 40 feet long and the small car is 10 feet long, Hummer at 40 mph takes 120 feet space serving 2 people, and small car takes 90 feet serving 1 person. Hummer comes out way ahead per person.
While I agree this requirement should be common between cab cars and personal use cars, it is not a case of selective enforcement. In a way, it is a change of burden of proof, though not exactly that either.
E.g. theft is illegal, but everyone is not asked to get their homes inspected for stolen goods. When there is a suspicion, police gets a warrant and searches or investigate in other ways.
Car maintenance is probably less serious than theft, but similar distinction exists there too. Cab companies have to prove proactively, others can only be prosecuted if ill-maintenance is suspected , complained about, or investigation of an accident reveals prior ill-maintenance of the vehicle.
Then prove it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I'll be sure to bear that in mind in case I'm tempted to ever do that.
first paragraph here : http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
In the meantime I'm interested in your assertion that climate change won't lead to more food insecurity for people in the Least Developed Nations
You do come across as a guy interested in non-existent things, so I am not surprised.
This whole post of yours was purely repetitive that I was able to answer just with recent other posts. You can loop through the posts - make posts on my behalf by copying and pasting from my posts, and reply to them yourself. There is enough material for you to last a lifetime of such repetitive discussions. Good luck.
No you've not made any argument, just personal insults. Clearly everyone cannot do business with Visa, but you don't talk about it.
I see that you are senile enough to attack personally when proven wrong.
Proof by contradiction :
1. Suppose prices Visa charges are in any way related to costs Visa incurs.
2. A lot of costs you describe are software/hardware/network.
3. These have come down by orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude over last 2 decades.
4. But the fees Visa charges its customers hasn't.
A contradiction. So our original assumption was wrong. QED.
Visa is not a cartel, anybody can use their services
Wrong. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=visa+bloc...
He did support mitigation, but adding extra adjectives to the support just because you're stupid doesn't work.
I would like you to point me to the statement from the OP that states the opposite (i.e positively supports mitigation, not inadvertent support, not unconscious support, not neutral, positive support).
I would like you to point me to the statement from Elvis Presley where he talked about giraffes and mastiffs. I can ask for irrelevant citations too, see?
And you openly acknowledge that the statement "I support moving to green technologies" created just such an ambiguity.
No I don't. You are getting stupider by the day.
Already proved.
Context cannot come later.
Yup, my grandmother is a hundred-and-thirteen. A teenager if ever there was one.
Ok, and you didn't "win" the settlement. I don't see a problem.
Well, waitress is salesperson and labourer combined. Now sales - the emotional appeal part of it, just doesn't work with robots until they look, feel, sound uncannily like humans. Then they will be able to sell their way to glory. For evidence that robots can appeal to human emotions - check out the robot minesweepers that invoked so much pity on human soldiers practicing with them because of their working with broken legs, that the soldiers couldn't take it any more. Now humanoid robots may be far away, I admit, but once they come humans have serious competition even in sales.
Then, humans have weaknesses. Chocolate. A nice mixture of carbohydrate+fats. Yummm. Through data analysis, the robot knows what's your poison. It also knows exactly how much discount or free samples will make you slip while still keeping the restaurant in good profit, in how much intoxicated a state. You have resolved to not indulge, but the robot is ruthless where a human waitress would have taken pity on you. You lose. Robots can be good salesrobots without humanoidness.
Which is tacit admission that his remarks are contradictory. Do you acknowledge this contradiction?
I was interested in a thread, I was reading it, you made a misinterpretation, I corrected you, you have been arguing since then.
2 points :
1. Your misinterpretation cannot be pardoned by anything that happens since - any other posts that can be made by any other poster any where. Nothing will change the fact that it is stupid to hold someone as unwilling of mitigation when he clearly supports mitigation in imprecise words.
2. Note that the sequence of events related above, does not involve me reading all the posts in this story, especially those that are not addressed to me.
Funny - because you just spent the last week or so arguing about his/her motivation. I remind you of what you said earlier
"Saying the opposite" does not include the motivation for saying the opposite!!!!!
He is saying the opposite. I don't know or care about the irrelevant fact of his motivation for saying the opposite.
Your posts are getting seriously retarded. I am not sure I can keep pointing to obvious things in my own post just so that you notice, it is the last time.
My post that you quote simply does not involve the motivation of the other poster, AT ALL. Just an observation that he supported something. Not why, nor any motivation for supporting it. Just the fact that he supported it.
You don't deny that the OP said that mitigation is rendered unnecessary because adaptation is (supposedly) easy.
I do deny this. Especially the "because" part. At least for 2 of his posts that are ancestor to this post.
In addition I see that you readily accept that his motivation for saying "I support a move to green technologies" is not for the purposes of mitigating the effects of climate change.
Congratulations, your fallacy is false cause.
I say
1. he supports "green", and
2. "green" for any other purpose than mitigation, is also mitigation
But that does not mean I say anything about his motivation for saying he supports "green". Because I don't know, I don't care, it is irrelevant.
If you eat food to placate the gods instead of to placate your hunger, hunger still gets placated. If you use "green" energy sources for other reasons, CO2 effects are still mitigated.
Is to highlight to YOU that he had explicitly said that migration was easy (and mitigation therefore unnecessary)
Moving to "green" energy, while a stupid choice of words, IS mitigation. There can be no progress on this subject until you understand this.
No, I just made this post which you misinterpreted(1).
You said "The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.", which is stupid because it was in a context which was not opposing mitigation in any way or form. Instead it was advocating mitigation, though in imperfect words.
(1) Misinterpreted means twisted to mean any general agreement with the poster of the GP of that post that applies AFTER that post of mine. That is the real demonstration of strawman by you. I never said I agree with that poster in whatever he says in the future. I have had many disagreements with him in the past, which is an irrelevant fact but probably will help you given you misinterpret simple statements.
Not just me, YOU have hope. See http://slashdot.org/comments.p....
Also, you yourself talk about mitigation, so you yourself don't assume the miseries are certain. And both me and jbolden are NOT saying anything against mitigation.
So your position about the certainty of miseries is inconsistent with your own stand about mitigation.
Most important point I want to make is that the misery you predict may not NECESSARILY come to pass. You are talking in certainties, the other guy is not, at least until I replied.