He didn't say anything about "Teh Commies". He's talking about the vocal extremist environmentalists. (It's not his fault most of the vocal extremist environmentalists are liberals, and it's certainly not his fault that many liberals have socialist views - but nobody except you has mentioned communism.)
Climate science makes clear, evidence-backed statements, and allows for solutions to exist
And those thirty-one thousand climate scientists who openly put their name out there saying they disagree? Are you going to say the same thing as Obama's press secretary, that those thirty-one thousand scientists have "no scientific basis for their claims"?
Yes, solutions exist to some of these problems. Nobody is disputing that. OSC lists half a dozen of them. The problem is that many of the vocal extremist environmentalists won't let us use any of them, in the name of "protecting the environment".
And the recent exposure of some climate data as having been manipulated doesn't help your position. A single instance of manipulation gives reason to question the rest of the data. Why would they manipulate the data to support their thesis, if it were already provably true?
In other words, if AGW were already provably true, they would have had no need to manipulate the data to support AGW. Doesn't that raise the least bit of suspicion in your mind?
Actually he wouldn't. OSC has no problem with people's personal sexual preferences. He just gets irritated when they try to force acceptance of those preferences as "normal" on the rest of the country.
The first is the existence of anthropogenic global climate change. You are, quite simply, wrong in thinking that this must be proven to exist.
Oh great, you're another one of those crackpots who thinks it's stupid to want proof we're causing global warming.
You really think I should just take your word for it? Do you really not see the problem with that?
Here, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's totally legit - take my word for it.
Climate change has the ability to fuck up our grand kid's lives, and we need to do something about it, regardless if we (humans) caused this climate change or not.
Here's the thing - even if I were to concede that we are causing it, nobody has shown that we're capable of reversing it (which, according to Obama's press secretary, is the purpose of the Copenhagen conference).
And if we're not causing it, then obviously we're not capable of having a significant influence on the environment, and our attempts to reverse the process will be overwhelmed by whatever existing process is warming the atmosphere.
Anyway, my point was that there are plenty of other reasons we should be switching away from oil and coal power, none of which involve shouting "OMG THE WORLD IS GOING TO END" from the rooftops. That has never been a good way to get people interested.
If, instead, environmentalists started pointing out the endless list of health risks associated with oil and coal power (and the potential monetary savings we could get by switching to nuclear power), they'd get a lot more enthusiasm from the general populace.
Put another way, my point is that whether or not we're causing the earth to warm up, doomsday "global warming will end the earth" warnings are the wrong way to go about solving the problem.
You're right, we can't lump all pro-AGW people into a single category. But if you've ready anything else by OSC, you know he tends to focus on the vocal extremists (on both sides of the political divide).
Sorry for replying to myself, but I needed to clarify:
He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design [ornery.org] (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)
I should have said "He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design as a science."
His exact words were:
Real science does not in any way impinge on a belief that God (or some other Intelligent Designer) created the world and everything that dwells in it. At the same time, real science does not -- and never can -- prove or even support the hypothesis.
I thought I'd reply separately to your (non-"He's a Mormon") objections to OSC.
Strong supporter of George W. Bush, including the "War on Terror" and the PATRIOT act.
Actually he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Yes, he supported Bush. Actually let's read his own comments on the subject in 2007:
We keep being warned about the hideous consequences of electing Bush or of enacting the laws he proposes. But I remember all those threats and warnings.
Bush was going to bring back Jim Crow. Well, seven years into his presidency, he still hasn't done it.
The Patriot Act was going to turn America into a fascist nation. Well, it hasn't happened -- despite the weird fantasies of the insane Left who talk as if it had.
We've had, for seven years, a President who has thought carefully and sought a balance between compelling opposites. We had to find a way to effectively find terrorists before they acted, without wrecking the Constitution. So President Bush asked for the tools he needed in the Patriot Act, and used other tools that other Presidents had used, including Democrats, and it worked. So far, anyway.
Yet he has been savaged by the insane Left, who ignore the fact that the President has sought a fair balance every step of the way.
Alright, so he's bashing on the Democrats. But what's his very next sentence?
The insane Right is just as bad.
You know what "insane Right" he's talking about? The ones you accuse him of supporting - the "asshole conservative types", as you so eloquently put it.
Did you know that Card initially supported Obama, but changed his mind when Obama's positions started coming to light? Imagine that. Someone decided their political position based on political issues!
On to your next complaint:
Is skeptical of Darwinistic evolution.
He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)
Believes homosexuality is caused by abuse and molestation during childhood.
Actually he only said that a significant number of homosexuals end up in that way of life due to abuse. Do you deny that?
In other words, he only said that abuse is one cause of homosexuality.
But don't take my word for it - let's read what he said. You'll find he mentions a whole range of causes:
Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.
Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.
In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.
Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.
In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.
Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that da
Wow. "He's a Mormon" is not one, but three of your problems with him. Interesting.
Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument about Mormons with you right now (though you're welcome to e-mail me if you feel the desire to attempt to dissuade me of my crazy Mormon ways), so I'll just say this - even conservative Mormons might have a valid point once in a while.
As for why I quoted him rather than say it myself, well, it's faster to copy and paste, especially when his point is the same as mine (in this case). I don't always agree with OSC, I do happen to agree with but the portion I quoted.
[Conservatives claim] A call to stop building coal plants will 100% without fail lead to the complete collapse of the American economy.
Actually we're just saying that a call to stop using coal power will cause the American way of life to collapse if all the other viable solutions are prohibited. That's just common sense. It's a shame the environmentalists can't understand it.
The comment about bicycling is so intellectually dishonest that it makes me sick, so I'm not even going there.
It's intellectually dishonest to point out that the people who most vigorously support measures to (somehow) stop global warming generally aren't the people you see riding around on bicycles to save energy and reduce pollution?
It's intellectually dishonest to point out that Al Gore, who is one of the leading supporters of the "global warming" religion, has his own jet, which obviously is more damaging to the environment than just taking a regular plane like the rest of the population?
It's intellectually dishonest to point out that many of the "global warming" supporters want the problems they're talking about solved, as long as they're not the ones that have to implement or live with the solutions?
Are you really trying to claim that it's intellectually dishonest to point out hypocrisy?
Everyone knows that nuclear power is a much more eco-friendly solution [...] but it's primarily conservative NIMBY types that prevent new nukular plants from being built.
What "everyone" knows is that historically, the Democratic party has generally opposed nuclear power, while the Republican party has generally supported it. During his presidential campaign, McCain specifically mentioned a plan to ramp up nuclear power over the next few decades.
As for what you call the "NIMBY crowd", well, I wouldn't mind a nuclear power plant in my back yard. I also wouldn't mind a wind turbine in my back yard, nor would I mind a set of solar panels on my roof. The "NIMBY" crowd covers both conservatives and liberals; it has very little to do with politics and very much to do with the desire to have and control one's own personal space (home, backyard, whatever).
Show me a valid example and I'll eat my words.
People propose solar power schemes all the time, and they're virtually always opposed by environmental groups. It's not hard to find examples. (Or by "realistic proposal" did you mean you want an example of a cheap solar power generation scheme? You know full well that solar power is still on the expensive side.)
Again, the biggest opposition to something like this is the conservative "science is evil" crowd.
I dunno... as a conservative, my impression has always been that it's mostly the liberals that are the "science is evil" crowd.
But personally I haven't heard anything in particular from either political party about space-based power.
Also, it's kind of a bad idea to just go around damming up every river in sight
Nobody is suggesting damming up every river in sight - but to unilaterally reject all potential hydroelectric dams in the name of preserving the environment is silly
I don't have a problem with people who thing humans are causing "global warming". I have a problem with their intention to force everyone to do what they want in order to fix it. I was going to elaborate on this a bit, but I decided to just quote Orson Scott Card's commentary on the situation:
The correct solution to the oil problem, according to the ["global warming" religion], is to have fewer humans. Now, I haven't noticed them volunteering to lessen the population starting with themselves; nor have I seen their heroes bicycling everywhere (environmental ayatollah Al Gore's plane being a legendary instance).
But they do systematically resist every solution that doesn't involve wrecking the American economy and destroying the American way of life.
No insecticides! But also no genetically altered crops with enhanced resistance to insects and disease!
No coal-fired power plants! But also no clean nuclear plants! (Even though France has proven that standardized nuclear power is safe and relatively cheap.)
Yes, you can build windmill farms -- but you can't put them anywhere.
Solar collectors? Excellent -- but don't put them anywhere, either, because they interfere with the natural ecology -- even in the barest desert. (God forbid that lizards should have more shade.)
Collect solar power in space and beam it to Earth? Fine -- except that you are forbidden to actually receive the power anywhere because it's too dangerous.
Hydroelectric power? Great idea -- except that you can't build a dam anywhere because it transforms a surface environment to an underwater one, which, naturally, annoys the squirrels. Squirrels, being natural nonsinners, take precedence over evil, sinful humans, the only animal that is forbidden to act according to its nature.
Electric cars and public transportation? Great idea -- but not until after we've converted all power plants to non-carbon-emitting fuels. (Never mind that it can only ever happen the other way, converting to electric cars immediately, so they're already in place when the oil runs out or, as I hope, we stop buying it because we've met the need in other ways.)
The conference in Copenhagen is intended to find a way to "stop and reverse climate change". That's a direct quote from Obama's press secretary. Too bad the people in charge of this stuff won't let us actually do any of the things that could make progress toward their goal.
I agree with you, AlexLibman - the "global warming" believers need to show us some concrete evidence that A) we're changing the earth's climate, B) it's a bad thing, and C) we can undo the damage we've done.
So far all they've shown with any degree of certainty is that the climate is changing - they haven't shown that we're causing it. (I know, I know, science disproves, it doesn't prove, but at least they could explain how they know the temperature change isn't merely the earth's natural cycle - and we do know the earth has a natural temperature change cycle, and that we are in the "temperature slowly rising" portion of that cycle. I guess the "global warming" believers think we're speeding it up?)
So they've shown us half of part A, they've given us unsupported "educated" guesses about B, and they're holding conferences on the assumption that C is true. I don't know whether we're causing "global warming" - but honestly, I don't care. We have bigger, more immediate problems to worry about.
Why don't we focus on smaller, provably achievable goals first, like reducing pollution (which is an excellent goal quite apart from this "global warming" shenanigans) by switching to nuclear power? If we switch, and there's a measurable effect on the planet's temperature, then we'll have some evidence pointing at their larger claims, and then we can decide what to do about it.
Given the company owner's other behavior, and the fact that the lead programmer (and his brother, through whom I got the job) was a good friend, I'm much more inclined to believe the lead programmer's version of the meeting.
Yes, any company that was well-run would replace the dying desktop, but I never claimed they were well-run;)
I'd just point out that the study you cite examined the effects of pop music on performance. They should have also tested instrumental music. I find instrumental music is quite conducive to concentration in the workplace, while I also find that vocal music is not.
Right now there are fifty guys in line for your job.
That would depend on what "your job" is. In my case, I'm just an entry-level developer, right out of college - but there aren't fifty guys in line for my job. (If there were, we wouldn't be having a hard time filling the thirty empty developer positions just in our division.)
Of course, my employer goes to fairly great lengths to ensure developers are happy. They wouldn't do something silly like ban headphones. (As it turns out, some companies actually respect their employees.)
It's not about preferences, it's about being more productive. Surely companies want to encourage productivity in their employees?
The problem here is that management is making a blanket prohibition on headphones, presumably in the name of productivity - but this blanket prohibition will have the opposite effect. What's wrong with pointing that out?
A similar thing happened to me at a previous employer (around January 2007). The desktop he gave me to use was a Pentium 3-era beige box that had a tendency to bluescreen at inopportune moments. Rather than deal with that, I brought in my personal laptop. Even that was four years old at the time, but at least it was a much faster Pentium 4, had more RAM, a larger screen, more disk space to work with, and it was stable.
Out of the company's six employees, that made three of us bringing in a personal laptop - myself, the lead programmer, and the company owner.
A few months later, the owner sent out an e-mail saying that in a recent meeting, a client had expressed concern about security, and as a result, employees were no longer allowed to bring in personal laptops. Oh, except the owner and the lead programmer, because "we need them". (In other words, he was banning my laptop. The lead programmer, who had been present at the aforementioned meeting, later told me that no such concerns had been raised.) Never mind that there were plenty of other ways to get data off-site, including the external SSH access we all had.
So I did what I thought necessary - I e-mailed the owner and explained why I had been bringing in my laptop, and told him that banning my laptop would result in lower productivity from me, quite beyond my control. He didn't care. My productivity immediately dropped in a noticeable way. (And no, I wasn't deliberately working slower or anything; I just couldn't get as much done anymore. If the desktop took twice as long to process data files as the laptop took, there was not much I could do about that.)
My point is, it's only fair to warn your managers that some new policy will lower your productivity - whether that policy is a ban on laptops or a ban on headphones, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out to your employer. After all, if you warn them ahead of time, they can't get mad at you when their policy actually does lower productivity, because you can point to your warnings.
Music without vocals is a lot easier to concentrate to. It also needs to be non-novel, where you've listened to it enough that it is familiar to the brain.
Agreed. I tend to listen to video game soundtracks (usually C&C: Red Alert and Total Annihilation) or sometimes the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings movie soundtracks.
A jewelry salesman is convicted of stealing diamonds from his employer. He spends X years in prison, and behaves himself perfectly while there. So he's paid his debt, right? He shouldn't continue to be punished, right?
When he gets out of jail he applies for another job selling jewelry. As the jewelry store owner, would you hire him?
It's not about continuing to punish the person for their past mistakes. It's about not putting them in a position to make the same mistake again. You shouldn't hire a recovering alcoholic as a bartender. You shouldn't hire a child molester to run a day care. You don't hire an ex-diamond-thief to run your jewelry store. These people might not make the same mistakes again, true - but why take the chance?
Part of dealing with your past mistakes is dealing with having your past mistakes hanging over your head. If you can't deal with it, well, you should have thought about that before you stole the bag of diamonds.
Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 4, Funny
A single card with two heads is easy, yes. Multiple cards, though, can get tricky, especially if they're not from the same manufacturer (by which I mean Intel, ATI, or nVidia).
If I'm financing my own advertising for a product I have copyrighted (rather than having a company do it) then chances are my wife is putting as much work into it as I am; she would therefore expect to be able to benefit from the copyright, regardless of whether I'm killed the day before we start selling the copyrighted work.
If I'm merely working as an employee of some company, then my wife hasn't contributed to that company, and thus it's not unfair at all for the company to stop depositing my paycheck - because I no longer work there.
There is precedent for what I'm saying, though - inheritance laws. Even though you'll go to jail for killing your parents, and that's already established by laws against murders, there are separate laws ensuring that you can't inherit from someone you murdered. Copyright should be no different in that regard.
secondly because all his copyrighted stuff would be in the public domain and freely available to everyone.
Well that's sort of my point. It shouldn't go into the public domain just because the copyright holder was killed. Sure, murder is illegal and gets punished separately, but it's not just the guy who murdered the copyright holder that stands to benefit - it's any other potential competitor that stands to benefit as well.
Say I copyright some creative work, and intend to sell it. I spend tens of thousands of dollars advertising its imminent sale. I'm killed, either by murder or accident - it really doesn't matter which.
My wife should be able to continue to hold the copyright, and proceed with selling the work herself - nobody else should be able to make copies of my creative work and start selling it (taking advantage of my advertising!) just because I died. It's unfair to my wife - she'll suddenly have competition that didn't exist prior to my death, and on top of that, the competition won't have to make up all the money I spent on advertising.
Do you see the problem? It's not ludicrous at all.
Well, it's still a bad idea to end the copyright just because the creator was murdered. Other people (who are apparently uninvolved with the assassination) could the take advantage of it.
It gets trickier if you want to prohibit *companies* from holding copyrights, so that only individuals can hold copyrights... you start getting into situations where a company has invested money into advertising some copyrighted work, but the copyright holder is killed (perhaps accidentally), and suddenly all their competitors can sell the same work (cheaper, because they just freeride on the original company's advertising). I'm sure you can see how that would be troublesome.
Right, but just like inheritance, there would need to be laws dealing with the situation. (If you murder your parents, you don't legally inherit their fortune, and that's quite separate from getting put in jail for the murder.)
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't say anything about "Teh Commies". He's talking about the vocal extremist environmentalists. (It's not his fault most of the vocal extremist environmentalists are liberals, and it's certainly not his fault that many liberals have socialist views - but nobody except you has mentioned communism.)
Climate science makes clear, evidence-backed statements, and allows for solutions to exist
And those thirty-one thousand climate scientists who openly put their name out there saying they disagree? Are you going to say the same thing as Obama's press secretary, that those thirty-one thousand scientists have "no scientific basis for their claims"?
Yes, solutions exist to some of these problems. Nobody is disputing that. OSC lists half a dozen of them. The problem is that many of the vocal extremist environmentalists won't let us use any of them, in the name of "protecting the environment".
And the recent exposure of some climate data as having been manipulated doesn't help your position. A single instance of manipulation gives reason to question the rest of the data. Why would they manipulate the data to support their thesis, if it were already provably true?
In other words, if AGW were already provably true, they would have had no need to manipulate the data to support AGW. Doesn't that raise the least bit of suspicion in your mind?
Actually he wouldn't. OSC has no problem with people's personal sexual preferences. He just gets irritated when they try to force acceptance of those preferences as "normal" on the rest of the country.
The first is the existence of anthropogenic global climate change. You are, quite simply, wrong in thinking that this must be proven to exist.
Oh great, you're another one of those crackpots who thinks it's stupid to want proof we're causing global warming.
You really think I should just take your word for it? Do you really not see the problem with that?
Here, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's totally legit - take my word for it.
Climate change has the ability to fuck up our grand kid's lives, and we need to do something about it, regardless if we (humans) caused this climate change or not.
Here's the thing - even if I were to concede that we are causing it, nobody has shown that we're capable of reversing it (which, according to Obama's press secretary, is the purpose of the Copenhagen conference).
And if we're not causing it, then obviously we're not capable of having a significant influence on the environment, and our attempts to reverse the process will be overwhelmed by whatever existing process is warming the atmosphere.
Anyway, my point was that there are plenty of other reasons we should be switching away from oil and coal power, none of which involve shouting "OMG THE WORLD IS GOING TO END" from the rooftops. That has never been a good way to get people interested.
If, instead, environmentalists started pointing out the endless list of health risks associated with oil and coal power (and the potential monetary savings we could get by switching to nuclear power), they'd get a lot more enthusiasm from the general populace.
Put another way, my point is that whether or not we're causing the earth to warm up, doomsday "global warming will end the earth" warnings are the wrong way to go about solving the problem.
You're right, we can't lump all pro-AGW people into a single category. But if you've ready anything else by OSC, you know he tends to focus on the vocal extremists (on both sides of the political divide).
Sorry for replying to myself, but I needed to clarify:
He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design [ornery.org] (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)
I should have said "He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design as a science."
His exact words were:
Real science does not in any way impinge on a belief that God (or some other Intelligent Designer) created the world and everything that dwells in it. At the same time, real science does not -- and never can -- prove or even support the hypothesis.
I thought I'd reply separately to your (non-"He's a Mormon") objections to OSC.
Strong supporter of George W. Bush, including the "War on Terror" and the PATRIOT act.
Actually he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Yes, he supported Bush. Actually let's read his own comments on the subject in 2007:
We keep being warned about the hideous consequences of electing Bush or of enacting the laws he proposes. But I remember all those threats and warnings.
Bush was going to bring back Jim Crow. Well, seven years into his presidency, he still hasn't done it.
The Patriot Act was going to turn America into a fascist nation. Well, it hasn't happened -- despite the weird fantasies of the insane Left who talk as if it had.
We've had, for seven years, a President who has thought carefully and sought a balance between compelling opposites. We had to find a way to effectively find terrorists before they acted, without wrecking the Constitution. So President Bush asked for the tools he needed in the Patriot Act, and used other tools that other Presidents had used, including Democrats, and it worked. So far, anyway.
Yet he has been savaged by the insane Left, who ignore the fact that the President has sought a fair balance every step of the way.
Alright, so he's bashing on the Democrats. But what's his very next sentence?
The insane Right is just as bad.
You know what "insane Right" he's talking about? The ones you accuse him of supporting - the "asshole conservative types", as you so eloquently put it.
Did you know that Card initially supported Obama, but changed his mind when Obama's positions started coming to light? Imagine that. Someone decided their political position based on political issues!
On to your next complaint:
Is skeptical of Darwinistic evolution.
He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)
Believes homosexuality is caused by abuse and molestation during childhood.
Actually he only said that a significant number of homosexuals end up in that way of life due to abuse. Do you deny that?
In other words, he only said that abuse is one cause of homosexuality.
But don't take my word for it - let's read what he said. You'll find he mentions a whole range of causes:
Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.
Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.
In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.
Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.
In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.
Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that da
Wow. "He's a Mormon" is not one, but three of your problems with him. Interesting.
Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument about Mormons with you right now (though you're welcome to e-mail me if you feel the desire to attempt to dissuade me of my crazy Mormon ways), so I'll just say this - even conservative Mormons might have a valid point once in a while.
As for why I quoted him rather than say it myself, well, it's faster to copy and paste, especially when his point is the same as mine (in this case). I don't always agree with OSC, I do happen to agree with but the portion I quoted.
[Conservatives claim] A call to stop building coal plants will 100% without fail lead to the complete collapse of the American economy.
Actually we're just saying that a call to stop using coal power will cause the American way of life to collapse if all the other viable solutions are prohibited. That's just common sense. It's a shame the environmentalists can't understand it.
The comment about bicycling is so intellectually dishonest that it makes me sick, so I'm not even going there.
It's intellectually dishonest to point out that the people who most vigorously support measures to (somehow) stop global warming generally aren't the people you see riding around on bicycles to save energy and reduce pollution?
It's intellectually dishonest to point out that Al Gore, who is one of the leading supporters of the "global warming" religion, has his own jet, which obviously is more damaging to the environment than just taking a regular plane like the rest of the population?
It's intellectually dishonest to point out that many of the "global warming" supporters want the problems they're talking about solved, as long as they're not the ones that have to implement or live with the solutions?
Are you really trying to claim that it's intellectually dishonest to point out hypocrisy?
Everyone knows that nuclear power is a much more eco-friendly solution [...] but it's primarily conservative NIMBY types that prevent new nukular plants from being built.
What "everyone" knows is that historically, the Democratic party has generally opposed nuclear power, while the Republican party has generally supported it. During his presidential campaign, McCain specifically mentioned a plan to ramp up nuclear power over the next few decades.
As for what you call the "NIMBY crowd", well, I wouldn't mind a nuclear power plant in my back yard. I also wouldn't mind a wind turbine in my back yard, nor would I mind a set of solar panels on my roof. The "NIMBY" crowd covers both conservatives and liberals; it has very little to do with politics and very much to do with the desire to have and control one's own personal space (home, backyard, whatever).
Show me a valid example and I'll eat my words.
People propose solar power schemes all the time, and they're virtually always opposed by environmental groups. It's not hard to find examples. (Or by "realistic proposal" did you mean you want an example of a cheap solar power generation scheme? You know full well that solar power is still on the expensive side.)
Again, the biggest opposition to something like this is the conservative "science is evil" crowd.
I dunno... as a conservative, my impression has always been that it's mostly the liberals that are the "science is evil" crowd.
But personally I haven't heard anything in particular from either political party about space-based power.
Also, it's kind of a bad idea to just go around damming up every river in sight
Nobody is suggesting damming up every river in sight - but to unilaterally reject all potential hydroelectric dams in the name of preserving the environment is silly
I don't have a problem with people who thing humans are causing "global warming". I have a problem with their intention to force everyone to do what they want in order to fix it. I was going to elaborate on this a bit, but I decided to just quote Orson Scott Card's commentary on the situation:
The correct solution to the oil problem, according to the ["global warming" religion], is to have fewer humans. Now, I haven't noticed them volunteering to lessen the population starting with themselves; nor have I seen their heroes bicycling everywhere (environmental ayatollah Al Gore's plane being a legendary instance).
But they do systematically resist every solution that doesn't involve wrecking the American economy and destroying the American way of life.
No insecticides! But also no genetically altered crops with enhanced resistance to insects and disease!
No coal-fired power plants! But also no clean nuclear plants! (Even though France has proven that standardized nuclear power is safe and relatively cheap.)
Yes, you can build windmill farms -- but you can't put them anywhere.
Solar collectors? Excellent -- but don't put them anywhere, either, because they interfere with the natural ecology -- even in the barest desert. (God forbid that lizards should have more shade.)
Collect solar power in space and beam it to Earth? Fine -- except that you are forbidden to actually receive the power anywhere because it's too dangerous.
Hydroelectric power? Great idea -- except that you can't build a dam anywhere because it transforms a surface environment to an underwater one, which, naturally, annoys the squirrels. Squirrels, being natural nonsinners, take precedence over evil, sinful humans, the only animal that is forbidden to act according to its nature.
Electric cars and public transportation? Great idea -- but not until after we've converted all power plants to non-carbon-emitting fuels. (Never mind that it can only ever happen the other way, converting to electric cars immediately, so they're already in place when the oil runs out or, as I hope, we stop buying it because we've met the need in other ways.)
The conference in Copenhagen is intended to find a way to "stop and reverse climate change". That's a direct quote from Obama's press secretary. Too bad the people in charge of this stuff won't let us actually do any of the things that could make progress toward their goal.
I agree with you, AlexLibman - the "global warming" believers need to show us some concrete evidence that A) we're changing the earth's climate, B) it's a bad thing, and C) we can undo the damage we've done.
So far all they've shown with any degree of certainty is that the climate is changing - they haven't shown that we're causing it. (I know, I know, science disproves, it doesn't prove, but at least they could explain how they know the temperature change isn't merely the earth's natural cycle - and we do know the earth has a natural temperature change cycle, and that we are in the "temperature slowly rising" portion of that cycle. I guess the "global warming" believers think we're speeding it up?)
So they've shown us half of part A, they've given us unsupported "educated" guesses about B, and they're holding conferences on the assumption that C is true. I don't know whether we're causing "global warming" - but honestly, I don't care. We have bigger, more immediate problems to worry about.
Why don't we focus on smaller, provably achievable goals first, like reducing pollution (which is an excellent goal quite apart from this "global warming" shenanigans) by switching to nuclear power? If we switch, and there's a measurable effect on the planet's temperature, then we'll have some evidence pointing at their larger claims, and then we can decide what to do about it.
Given the company owner's other behavior, and the fact that the lead programmer (and his brother, through whom I got the job) was a good friend, I'm much more inclined to believe the lead programmer's version of the meeting.
Yes, any company that was well-run would replace the dying desktop, but I never claimed they were well-run ;)
I'd just point out that the study you cite examined the effects of pop music on performance. They should have also tested instrumental music. I find instrumental music is quite conducive to concentration in the workplace, while I also find that vocal music is not.
Right now there are fifty guys in line for your job.
That would depend on what "your job" is. In my case, I'm just an entry-level developer, right out of college - but there aren't fifty guys in line for my job. (If there were, we wouldn't be having a hard time filling the thirty empty developer positions just in our division.)
Of course, my employer goes to fairly great lengths to ensure developers are happy. They wouldn't do something silly like ban headphones. (As it turns out, some companies actually respect their employees.)
It's not about preferences, it's about being more productive. Surely companies want to encourage productivity in their employees?
The problem here is that management is making a blanket prohibition on headphones, presumably in the name of productivity - but this blanket prohibition will have the opposite effect. What's wrong with pointing that out?
A similar thing happened to me at a previous employer (around January 2007). The desktop he gave me to use was a Pentium 3-era beige box that had a tendency to bluescreen at inopportune moments. Rather than deal with that, I brought in my personal laptop. Even that was four years old at the time, but at least it was a much faster Pentium 4, had more RAM, a larger screen, more disk space to work with, and it was stable.
Out of the company's six employees, that made three of us bringing in a personal laptop - myself, the lead programmer, and the company owner.
A few months later, the owner sent out an e-mail saying that in a recent meeting, a client had expressed concern about security, and as a result, employees were no longer allowed to bring in personal laptops. Oh, except the owner and the lead programmer, because "we need them". (In other words, he was banning my laptop. The lead programmer, who had been present at the aforementioned meeting, later told me that no such concerns had been raised.) Never mind that there were plenty of other ways to get data off-site, including the external SSH access we all had.
So I did what I thought necessary - I e-mailed the owner and explained why I had been bringing in my laptop, and told him that banning my laptop would result in lower productivity from me, quite beyond my control. He didn't care. My productivity immediately dropped in a noticeable way. (And no, I wasn't deliberately working slower or anything; I just couldn't get as much done anymore. If the desktop took twice as long to process data files as the laptop took, there was not much I could do about that.)
My point is, it's only fair to warn your managers that some new policy will lower your productivity - whether that policy is a ban on laptops or a ban on headphones, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out to your employer. After all, if you warn them ahead of time, they can't get mad at you when their policy actually does lower productivity, because you can point to your warnings.
Music without vocals is a lot easier to concentrate to. It also needs to be non-novel, where you've listened to it enough that it is familiar to the brain.
Agreed. I tend to listen to video game soundtracks (usually C&C: Red Alert and Total Annihilation) or sometimes the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings movie soundtracks.
A jewelry salesman is convicted of stealing diamonds from his employer. He spends X years in prison, and behaves himself perfectly while there. So he's paid his debt, right? He shouldn't continue to be punished, right?
When he gets out of jail he applies for another job selling jewelry. As the jewelry store owner, would you hire him?
It's not about continuing to punish the person for their past mistakes. It's about not putting them in a position to make the same mistake again. You shouldn't hire a recovering alcoholic as a bartender. You shouldn't hire a child molester to run a day care. You don't hire an ex-diamond-thief to run your jewelry store. These people might not make the same mistakes again, true - but why take the chance?
Part of dealing with your past mistakes is dealing with having your past mistakes hanging over your head. If you can't deal with it, well, you should have thought about that before you stole the bag of diamonds.
Hey, that's my luggage combination!
Do they have rules against running a server in general? That could have been a factor.
A single card with two heads is easy, yes. Multiple cards, though, can get tricky, especially if they're not from the same manufacturer (by which I mean Intel, ATI, or nVidia).
Xinerama keeps things aware of monitor boundaries (at least, I'm using multiple monitors with Xinerama right now, and things work properly).
If I'm financing my own advertising for a product I have copyrighted (rather than having a company do it) then chances are my wife is putting as much work into it as I am; she would therefore expect to be able to benefit from the copyright, regardless of whether I'm killed the day before we start selling the copyrighted work.
If I'm merely working as an employee of some company, then my wife hasn't contributed to that company, and thus it's not unfair at all for the company to stop depositing my paycheck - because I no longer work there.
If I work a regular salaried job, and die, it's "unfair to my wife" not to continue receiving that benefit as well
No, because that's an entirely different situation.
There is precedent for what I'm saying, though - inheritance laws. Even though you'll go to jail for killing your parents, and that's already established by laws against murders, there are separate laws ensuring that you can't inherit from someone you murdered. Copyright should be no different in that regard.
Read this reply, where I show a situation where you're wrong.
secondly because all his copyrighted stuff would be in the public domain and freely available to everyone.
Well that's sort of my point. It shouldn't go into the public domain just because the copyright holder was killed. Sure, murder is illegal and gets punished separately, but it's not just the guy who murdered the copyright holder that stands to benefit - it's any other potential competitor that stands to benefit as well.
Say I copyright some creative work, and intend to sell it. I spend tens of thousands of dollars advertising its imminent sale. I'm killed, either by murder or accident - it really doesn't matter which.
My wife should be able to continue to hold the copyright, and proceed with selling the work herself - nobody else should be able to make copies of my creative work and start selling it (taking advantage of my advertising!) just because I died. It's unfair to my wife - she'll suddenly have competition that didn't exist prior to my death, and on top of that, the competition won't have to make up all the money I spent on advertising.
Do you see the problem? It's not ludicrous at all.
Well, it's still a bad idea to end the copyright just because the creator was murdered. Other people (who are apparently uninvolved with the assassination) could the take advantage of it.
It gets trickier if you want to prohibit *companies* from holding copyrights, so that only individuals can hold copyrights... you start getting into situations where a company has invested money into advertising some copyrighted work, but the copyright holder is killed (perhaps accidentally), and suddenly all their competitors can sell the same work (cheaper, because they just freeride on the original company's advertising). I'm sure you can see how that would be troublesome.
Right, but just like inheritance, there would need to be laws dealing with the situation. (If you murder your parents, you don't legally inherit their fortune, and that's quite separate from getting put in jail for the murder.)