I think you have a demonstrably wrong view of how people choose college degrees - however similar things have happened before on a small scale with education being FAR from free and what you said hasn't happened. I wish the "exceedingly high salaries" situation is what had happened because businesses could easily afford to pay people well instead of racking up high-score numbers in the 1%'ers bank accounts.
You can't express your anti-public-eduction views unless you want to face the consequences.
I can't express my post-capitalist views unless I want to face the consequences.
So we both have to limit ourselves. I deal with the existence of the consequences. What's so special about you?
And at some point people will look past the bad PR. A company may not want Eich as a CEO but they'd be fine having him do project management etc. There's no point in activists worrying about everyday people with everyday amounts of influence, lost among the noise. As an extreme example, even ex-cons can get bottom-tier jobs.
I've actually looked over most of that information and it isn't really auditable. Most of the raw data isn't actually raw for one thing. I've compared specific land site temperature data with their sources and they don't match perfectly. Which means the data has been filtered and modified to some extent. I have no information on how that was done and can't reproduce the filtration system.
Are you saying you've got data from one of those sensors and it doesn't match the data in that source from the same sensor? Or from another sensor in the same area?
Second, the methodology itself isn't fully stated to the extent that I can't take data, input into a system, and get the same output they're showing.
I'd expect the programs wouldn't be user-friendly. Which model did you compile? If you have it running I'll see if I can find out how to make it work.
Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I just want as many eyes on it as possible.
That is a lot of math to go through right now. But if he claims to have disproven something as fundamental as the greenhouse effect (or can even show that it somehow breaks down at large scales, since we can demonstrate it in a desktop experiment), he's either made a mistake or he's a future Nobel prize winner and deliverer of great news (since we could drop all efforts to reduce GHG emissions).
I found an article that claims to address his supposed disproof directly, and I'd say it makes a proof of the greenhouse effect that would require revisions to the laws of thermodynamics to disprove:
Where could the energy be going? If it's being teleported or stored somehow - again, Nobel prize material. Maybe cheap solar power if we can tap into this energy.
I ran across some other relevant articles on Venus' atmosphere:
There's nothing circular about my logic or philosophy. We all have the right to express our views, but also the right to choose not to support others if we don't like their views. So expressing your views may have consequences. I have certain opinions I don't tell employers about because of the consequences. If they found out through some other channel there may still be consequences.
In this case, we have people claiming that Eich's participation in society has an impact on other people whom he disagrees with on a philosophical level, and that such behavior which is inconvenient to others is wrong. This is followed by claims that we also have the right to behave in the same way, and can actively seek to harm Eich because our opinions diverge from his. It is as if we are saying that such behavior is not wrong when we do it to someone we don't like, but it is wrong when they do it.
What? This is completely wrong. First, Eich's behavior isn't just "philosophically disagreeable" or "inconvenient." He donated money to strip others of rights. More than an inconvenience. And how is a boycott "actively seeking to harm?" It's just choosing not to support him with money or labor. If I decide the service in a convenience store is shitty and I'm not going to shop there anymore, am I actively seeking to harm that store? Would it be different if I did it because the store owner donated to Prop 8? Would it be different if it were an employee strike?
We respond to Eich's actions not simply by shooting down Prop 8, or by placing the pressure of society's views upon him, but rather by placing the pressure of society's rejection upon him: we want to exclude him from society, so that he may live a less-fulfilling life and ultimately suffer. This action is not to defend ourselves, but to inflict harm and vengeance.
The action is defensive in the same way that a sanction against North Korea is. We make it harder for those who work to harm us to get the resources they need to do so, until they decide they no longer want to harm us. Any harm they suffer is just a side-effect.
I disagree but I understand your point. But where do you draw the line about what behaviors it's OK to oppose? For example if you oppose people's right to go nude in public that would seem reasonable, but if you try to oppose anyone's right to reproduce you'll be considered an abominable monster. Somewhere, there's a line to be drawn. And I think opposing people's right to enter consensual sexual relations is definitely in the "abominable monster" zone. And I'm always against denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. I don't even care if it's some tiny and relatively unimportant right in that case, I just abhor bigotry.
So in turn you support Evangelical Christian companies boycotting people and causes in favor of gay marriage, abortion, etc?
Yes, they have just as much right to boycott as the rest of us.
OK with CEOs limiting services to people who disagree with them in their company?
I'm pretty sure that would be illegal and for good reason. We have laws to reduce the abuse of power by individuals with power. Same with the Hobby Lobby case, they want to defy the law of the land for religious reasons. So I disagree with those, although it's because I prefer regulated capitalism over unregulated capitalism. It wouldn't be very far down the slippery slope from there to requiring employees to vote one way or another to stay employed.
I would prefer if it weren't possible for one non-politician to have more influence on government than another, but I am openly pro-tolerance and anti-oppression, and I do agree with what Tim Cook is doing. Nothing hypocritical about it.
If you're serious I will debate it with you but I think you're just being an ass and you know it. Do you want to debate why child rape and gay marriage are different and the comparison is hyper-moronic, or do you want to debate whether it's possible to deny rights to a specific group (not age, incarceration status, alive vs. dead or other groups chosen for asinine reasons...but ethnic/religious/gender/sex)?
I also have issues with people who are Pro-Choice calling people who are Pro-Life to be against Woman's rights. It is a case where their arguments of being for and against a particular idea are not opposites of each other but are at right angles to each other.
Well bad news, it's the very same problem. If you're pro-life, you're against at least *some* women's rights. To draw a Venn diagram, the object you're against is under both the Abortion and Women's Rights groups. It exists in both groups and would appear in the intersection. You can't move it about as is convenient.
If he's making normal people money I couldn't be bothered to care what he thinks. But if he's among the planet's top earners, he becomes a big easy target.
What if you could attach a line of giant shock absorbers across fault lines? The plates wouldn't be able to move fast enough to cause an earthquake right?
Totally impractical, especially considering the amount of anchoring that would be needed to get a meaningful structural attachment to a tectonic plate, but I wonder if it would work in theory.
Both you and the GP misunderstand tolerance. Tolerance is anti-discrimination. It's not about "not tolerating" Christians when they push their morality because it's annoying. It's about asking them to be tolerant by not being intolerant (discriminating against a group based on a trait they can't control). Likewise opposing the anti-gay crowd's intolerance is also tolerance.
No, from my knowledge hate speech laws tend to extend very little if at all beyond incitement of violence. Now that I look it up, Canada's laws include "incitement of hatred." Now as a person with enough knowledge of history to understand the dangers of speech inciting hatred against minority groups, and who has no desire to write such things himself, and cannot think of any potentially good reason to do so, tell my why this should upset me.
Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
You're talking about hate speech laws, right? The right to threaten violence against a group, specifically. Many countries already have them and they are simply expanded to include new minorities. I find it difficult to get upset at this.
This same argument came up with the Ender's Game boycott. And really I can't bother to care about what everyday employees do. It would indeed be madness. It would be a lot of effort for tracking a small amount of influence. But a CEO can afford a massive amount of influence, maybe more than all their employees combined, and there's only one per company.
It is just STUPID to boycott anything or anyone because of one aspect of who they are. It is the worst form of bigotry and I'll not condone. it. [...] They were and nothing happened, because boycotting is inaction and only action stopes people.
Boycotts have worked a number of times throughout history, are you denying this? Also am I to assume you were against the boycotts of apartheid South Africa?
He donated $1000 when he was making a mere mortal's salary. To me that's A LOT to donate to a political cause. Personally I don't see myself ever donating even a 3-digit amount even if it was something I really cared about. What do you think he'd do with a CEO's pay?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have a demonstrably wrong view of how people choose college degrees - however similar things have happened before on a small scale with education being FAR from free and what you said hasn't happened. I wish the "exceedingly high salaries" situation is what had happened because businesses could easily afford to pay people well instead of racking up high-score numbers in the 1%'ers bank accounts.
You can't express your anti-public-eduction views unless you want to face the consequences.
I can't express my post-capitalist views unless I want to face the consequences.
So we both have to limit ourselves. I deal with the existence of the consequences. What's so special about you?
And at some point people will look past the bad PR. A company may not want Eich as a CEO but they'd be fine having him do project management etc. There's no point in activists worrying about everyday people with everyday amounts of influence, lost among the noise. As an extreme example, even ex-cons can get bottom-tier jobs.
Har har.
And in Saudi Arabia, men also cannot drive with ovaries. Equality!
I've actually looked over most of that information and it isn't really auditable. Most of the raw data isn't actually raw for one thing. I've compared specific land site temperature data with their sources and they don't match perfectly. Which means the data has been filtered and modified to some extent. I have no information on how that was done and can't reproduce the filtration system.
Are you saying you've got data from one of those sensors and it doesn't match the data in that source from the same sensor? Or from another sensor in the same area?
Second, the methodology itself isn't fully stated to the extent that I can't take data, input into a system, and get the same output they're showing.
I'd expect the programs wouldn't be user-friendly. Which model did you compile? If you have it running I'll see if I can find out how to make it work.
On a side note, what do you think of this:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I just want as many eyes on it as possible.
That is a lot of math to go through right now. But if he claims to have disproven something as fundamental as the greenhouse effect (or can even show that it somehow breaks down at large scales, since we can demonstrate it in a desktop experiment), he's either made a mistake or he's a future Nobel prize winner and deliverer of great news (since we could drop all efforts to reduce GHG emissions).
I found an article that claims to address his supposed disproof directly, and I'd say it makes a proof of the greenhouse effect that would require revisions to the laws of thermodynamics to disprove:
https://agwobserver.wordpress....
Where could the energy be going? If it's being teleported or stored somehow - again, Nobel prize material. Maybe cheap solar power if we can tap into this energy.
I ran across some other relevant articles on Venus' atmosphere:
http://m.teachastronomy.com/as...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
There's nothing circular about my logic or philosophy. We all have the right to express our views, but also the right to choose not to support others if we don't like their views. So expressing your views may have consequences. I have certain opinions I don't tell employers about because of the consequences. If they found out through some other channel there may still be consequences.
In this case, we have people claiming that Eich's participation in society has an impact on other people whom he disagrees with on a philosophical level, and that such behavior which is inconvenient to others is wrong. This is followed by claims that we also have the right to behave in the same way, and can actively seek to harm Eich because our opinions diverge from his. It is as if we are saying that such behavior is not wrong when we do it to someone we don't like, but it is wrong when they do it.
What? This is completely wrong. First, Eich's behavior isn't just "philosophically disagreeable" or "inconvenient." He donated money to strip others of rights. More than an inconvenience. And how is a boycott "actively seeking to harm?" It's just choosing not to support him with money or labor. If I decide the service in a convenience store is shitty and I'm not going to shop there anymore, am I actively seeking to harm that store? Would it be different if I did it because the store owner donated to Prop 8? Would it be different if it were an employee strike?
We respond to Eich's actions not simply by shooting down Prop 8, or by placing the pressure of society's views upon him, but rather by placing the pressure of society's rejection upon him: we want to exclude him from society, so that he may live a less-fulfilling life and ultimately suffer. This action is not to defend ourselves, but to inflict harm and vengeance.
The action is defensive in the same way that a sanction against North Korea is. We make it harder for those who work to harm us to get the resources they need to do so, until they decide they no longer want to harm us. Any harm they suffer is just a side-effect.
Facebook's Wealth Demands Unlimited Slaves
He has that right. But we also have the right to choose not to support him.
I disagree but I understand your point. But where do you draw the line about what behaviors it's OK to oppose? For example if you oppose people's right to go nude in public that would seem reasonable, but if you try to oppose anyone's right to reproduce you'll be considered an abominable monster. Somewhere, there's a line to be drawn. And I think opposing people's right to enter consensual sexual relations is definitely in the "abominable monster" zone. And I'm always against denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. I don't even care if it's some tiny and relatively unimportant right in that case, I just abhor bigotry.
So in turn you support Evangelical Christian companies boycotting people and causes in favor of gay marriage, abortion, etc?
Yes, they have just as much right to boycott as the rest of us.
OK with CEOs limiting services to people who disagree with them in their company?
I'm pretty sure that would be illegal and for good reason. We have laws to reduce the abuse of power by individuals with power. Same with the Hobby Lobby case, they want to defy the law of the land for religious reasons. So I disagree with those, although it's because I prefer regulated capitalism over unregulated capitalism. It wouldn't be very far down the slippery slope from there to requiring employees to vote one way or another to stay employed.
How is the pro-gay crowd intolerant? Where do they discriminate against people based on traits they can't control? Did you read my post at all?
We do it for straight couples so why not? I see it as, should we extend the same rights to gays that straights currently enjoy?
(or in the case of Prop. 8, where the rights were already in place: should we deny these rights to a specific group?)
I would prefer if it weren't possible for one non-politician to have more influence on government than another, but I am openly pro-tolerance and anti-oppression, and I do agree with what Tim Cook is doing. Nothing hypocritical about it.
LOLWUT?
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
If you're serious I will debate it with you but I think you're just being an ass and you know it. Do you want to debate why child rape and gay marriage are different and the comparison is hyper-moronic, or do you want to debate whether it's possible to deny rights to a specific group (not age, incarceration status, alive vs. dead or other groups chosen for asinine reasons...but ethnic/religious/gender/sex)?
Ho. Lee. Shit. Did you do anything more than compare a relationship between consenting adults to child rape just now? I don't think so.
I'll give you one mulligan.
I also have issues with people who are Pro-Choice calling people who are Pro-Life to be against Woman's rights. It is a case where their arguments of being for and against a particular idea are not opposites of each other but are at right angles to each other.
Well bad news, it's the very same problem. If you're pro-life, you're against at least *some* women's rights. To draw a Venn diagram, the object you're against is under both the Abortion and Women's Rights groups. It exists in both groups and would appear in the intersection. You can't move it about as is convenient.
If he's making normal people money I couldn't be bothered to care what he thinks. But if he's among the planet's top earners, he becomes a big easy target.
What if you could attach a line of giant shock absorbers across fault lines? The plates wouldn't be able to move fast enough to cause an earthquake right?
Totally impractical, especially considering the amount of anchoring that would be needed to get a meaningful structural attachment to a tectonic plate, but I wonder if it would work in theory.
Both you and the GP misunderstand tolerance. Tolerance is anti-discrimination. It's not about "not tolerating" Christians when they push their morality because it's annoying. It's about asking them to be tolerant by not being intolerant (discriminating against a group based on a trait they can't control). Likewise opposing the anti-gay crowd's intolerance is also tolerance.
No, from my knowledge hate speech laws tend to extend very little if at all beyond incitement of violence. Now that I look it up, Canada's laws include "incitement of hatred." Now as a person with enough knowledge of history to understand the dangers of speech inciting hatred against minority groups, and who has no desire to write such things himself, and cannot think of any potentially good reason to do so, tell my why this should upset me.
6 digits is a large salary, but 7+ digits is a whole different ball game. The difference between you and a minimum wage employee is far less.
Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
You're talking about hate speech laws, right? The right to threaten violence against a group, specifically. Many countries already have them and they are simply expanded to include new minorities. I find it difficult to get upset at this.
This same argument came up with the Ender's Game boycott. And really I can't bother to care about what everyday employees do. It would indeed be madness. It would be a lot of effort for tracking a small amount of influence. But a CEO can afford a massive amount of influence, maybe more than all their employees combined, and there's only one per company.
It is just STUPID to boycott anything or anyone because of one aspect of who they are. It is the worst form of bigotry and I'll not condone. it.
[...]
They were and nothing happened, because boycotting is inaction and only action stopes people.
Boycotts have worked a number of times throughout history, are you denying this? Also am I to assume you were against the boycotts of apartheid South Africa?
Gee, in 500,000 years that might almost balance out Apple's gay CEO.
I don't seek balance between tolerance and oppression so that argument won't fly with me.
Letters to the editor?
No, drumming up popular support is the first stage, where boycotting could make a difference.
Didn't? I can't see into the future, can you?
He donated $1000 when he was making a mere mortal's salary. To me that's A LOT to donate to a political cause. Personally I don't see myself ever donating even a 3-digit amount even if it was something I really cared about. What do you think he'd do with a CEO's pay?