The WMD debacle that led to the Iraq invasion. The filtering of news coverage for the Iraq War. ( and any conflict since Vietnam for that matter )
This is not providing intel, not feeding false data.”
Number of civilians killed as collateral damage in any military operation.
I might be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone showing the data is wrong. They have “unconventional” understanding of what is a combatant and they admit that they can't always verify actual deaths.
Unemployment numbers ( which conveniently leave out those who exhaust their unemployment benefits and aren't counted as unemployed )
They report on U1 to U6. Again, you might feel that U6 is more important, but that is not the problem of government data.
Blaming Russia / Hackers for anything that happens these days
Really everything? Which data is putting blame on Russia? There are intelligence reports, that blame them on couple of things, but this discussion is not about that. It is about trustworthiness of released data.
So long as they report U3 consistently, that is not even misleading. To say that someone is “unemployed” when they are “underemployed” is just lying. I think John Green explains this quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Omission could very well be because addition of nuclear power is not that important. If they replaced coal with diesel generators, that would have been a blatant omission. It seems that article is talking about reduction of coal (not contested) to reduce CO2 emissions (nuclear has large up-front energy consumption for concrete, but far less operational C02 costs) and pollution (possibly less problematic with nuclear in short term). Also summary talks about relying more on renewable power sources, but at least here it means some baseline energy provider — either nuclear, fossils or batteries. As such, new nuclear plants are (at least to me) a rather non-story. TMMW.
The other side of the GBP depreciation: companies that make apps in UK and profit is calculated in GBP, are making more profits in overseas markets. The selling point of currency depreciation is boot to exports at the expense of import consumption. In other words, producers get richer and consumers — poorer. Unless the trickle down economics actually work.
So, what you're saying is, corporations have always required government intervention and labor organization to succeed.
I would like to agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by “government intervention”. Do you consider modern law enforcement as government intervention? For example, guilds could be seen as [city] government tool to protect industry and keep prices high, but if there is no [formal] government, craftsmen would most likely make their own Mafia style organization, with burning down of competition. Would this type of labor organization be more free?
At least now we can dispense with the notion that there has ever been anything like a "free market".
It depends. If we go by wikipedia article on free market, global stock and commodities markets are pretty free. When it comes to every-day stuff we buy, asymmetry of “market power, bargaining power and information” makes it nigh impossible to have a truly “free market”, and ofttimes governments try to make markets more free than they naturally would.
Indeed they did, and they protected their “rights” with guilds, gunboats and monopoly rights from monarchs. I personally would not want to have FedEx with private army.
I would still support giving wind and solar tech to poor communities. If they actually have coal (and not all do), then they will use up those resources that are easily available and when chips go down, the more unavailable stuff will be out of reach. If near surface coal stays there, bootstrapping will be easier.
Besides, we are trying to prevent the tragedy in the first place. Using fossil fuels IS the cause of the problem.
Finally, we can't force others to go through the industrialization evolution like we did. Solar and wind electricity tech is available in free market and it is competitive, and getting more so every year.
I would like to see the papers and the critics. If the critics were some internet randos who are not scientists in the field, then yes, criticism is most likely moot. If the criticism is about some specific aspect of the paper (for example, pointing out problems with statistical methods), then it can be valid so long as the critic understands the aspect he/she is criticizing. If the authors of the research are making policy suggestions, then basically everyone can be a critic (e.g. you if prove that black kids are doing wore in school than white kids, it does not mean that the *right* policy is to concentrate teaching resources on the white kids *or* to attempt to equalize education outcomes).
As for GP case, it is really silly to expect that rather well established field will be overthrown by “that particular thing looks fishy”. Is is like expecting to disprove gravity by pointing to birds.
One problem with such large scale disasters is that it can throw civilization back quite a bit (and this has happened before). For example, do you think satellite communications would remain? Sure, they work now, but can the tech last? With 85% population gone because of harsh climate, who will maintain them? To keep satellites running you would need to preserve the whole supply chain of space tech, and if the current (advanced) supply chains are disrupted, high tech stuff may become unmaintainable. It might not be completely deadly, since we could revert to old style industry (and the abundant scrap metal is sure helpful), but current fossil fuel is much less accessible than in the past.
TL;DR collapse of populations can lead to dark ages. It is not just the same old, but with less people around.
CSS programmer (are they seriously claiming to be programmers)
If you believe that writing vanilla SQL is programming, then so is writing CSS. Both are just declarations of desired outcome and it is up to the interpreter to get there. Even functional programming is like that.
Where do you see this “upward trajectory”? Heir GDP is declining (and growth is under global average). They do have some territorial gains and expansion of military, but that is rarely used as an indicator of health of nation.
I'm, sorry, but the AC won't be able to call you, since you did not leave your phone number, or any other contact info. In fact, I suspect you and the parent are both the same person.
Ok then. Perhaps you can do better than Tom and point out, what US policy towards Libya should have been at any time during Obama administration, so that everything would have ended well.
And speaking of pictures, I heard that in USA, there is a big tumbleweed problem. I have seen a picture of one, or several of them, but why isn't there a picture of ALL OF THEM?
What what? The link you gave refers to a nuclear issues and mentions smallpox as a historical reference. Add to that, it is a blog post in 2009, not a official proposal.
Slashdot Mirror
Time to feed a troll.
The WMD debacle that led to the Iraq invasion.
The filtering of news coverage for the Iraq War. ( and any conflict since Vietnam for that matter )
This is not providing intel, not feeding false data.”
Number of civilians killed as collateral damage in any military operation.
I might be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone showing the data is wrong. They have “unconventional” understanding of what is a combatant and they admit that they can't always verify actual deaths.
Unemployment numbers ( which conveniently leave out those who exhaust their unemployment benefits and aren't counted as unemployed )
They report on U1 to U6. Again, you might feel that U6 is more important, but that is not the problem of government data.
Blaming Russia / Hackers for anything that happens these days
Really everything? Which data is putting blame on Russia? There are intelligence reports, that blame them on couple of things, but this discussion is not about that. It is about trustworthiness of released data.
So long as they report U3 consistently, that is not even misleading. To say that someone is “unemployed” when they are “underemployed” is just lying. I think John Green explains this quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Omission could very well be because addition of nuclear power is not that important. If they replaced coal with diesel generators, that would have been a blatant omission. It seems that article is talking about reduction of coal (not contested) to reduce CO2 emissions (nuclear has large up-front energy consumption for concrete, but far less operational C02 costs) and pollution (possibly less problematic with nuclear in short term). Also summary talks about relying more on renewable power sources, but at least here it means some baseline energy provider — either nuclear, fossils or batteries. As such, new nuclear plants are (at least to me) a rather non-story. TMMW.
How exactly does not including nuclear power show bias?
You seem to take issue with corruption in particular. Authoritarian regimes are rather prone to this and China is no exception.
The other side of the GBP depreciation: companies that make apps in UK and profit is calculated in GBP, are making more profits in overseas markets. The selling point of currency depreciation is boot to exports at the expense of import consumption. In other words, producers get richer and consumers — poorer. Unless the trickle down economics actually work.
Perhaps PopeRatzo meant it as a selective and arbitrary intervention.
So, what you're saying is, corporations have always required government intervention and labor organization to succeed.
I would like to agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by “government intervention”. Do you consider modern law enforcement as government intervention? For example, guilds could be seen as [city] government tool to protect industry and keep prices high, but if there is no [formal] government, craftsmen would most likely make their own Mafia style organization, with burning down of competition. Would this type of labor organization be more free?
At least now we can dispense with the notion that there has ever been anything like a "free market".
It depends. If we go by wikipedia article on free market, global stock and commodities markets are pretty free. When it comes to every-day stuff we buy, asymmetry of “market power, bargaining power and information” makes it nigh impossible to have a truly “free market”, and ofttimes governments try to make markets more free than they naturally would.
P.S. I forgot to add trade secrets.
Indeed they did, and they protected their “rights” with guilds, gunboats and monopoly rights from monarchs. I personally would not want to have FedEx with private army.
Yeah, perks are great, but that certain death at the end of experiment is a bit of a downer. Hmm, what was that wooshing sound?
I would still support giving wind and solar tech to poor communities. If they actually have coal (and not all do), then they will use up those resources that are easily available and when chips go down, the more unavailable stuff will be out of reach. If near surface coal stays there, bootstrapping will be easier.
Besides, we are trying to prevent the tragedy in the first place. Using fossil fuels IS the cause of the problem.
Finally, we can't force others to go through the industrialization evolution like we did. Solar and wind electricity tech is available in free market and it is competitive, and getting more so every year.
I would like to see the papers and the critics. If the critics were some internet randos who are not scientists in the field, then yes, criticism is most likely moot. If the criticism is about some specific aspect of the paper (for example, pointing out problems with statistical methods), then it can be valid so long as the critic understands the aspect he/she is criticizing. If the authors of the research are making policy suggestions, then basically everyone can be a critic (e.g. you if prove that black kids are doing wore in school than white kids, it does not mean that the *right* policy is to concentrate teaching resources on the white kids *or* to attempt to equalize education outcomes).
As for GP case, it is really silly to expect that rather well established field will be overthrown by “that particular thing looks fishy”. Is is like expecting to disprove gravity by pointing to birds.
One problem with such large scale disasters is that it can throw civilization back quite a bit (and this has happened before). For example, do you think satellite communications would remain? Sure, they work now, but can the tech last? With 85% population gone because of harsh climate, who will maintain them? To keep satellites running you would need to preserve the whole supply chain of space tech, and if the current (advanced) supply chains are disrupted, high tech stuff may become unmaintainable. It might not be completely deadly, since we could revert to old style industry (and the abundant scrap metal is sure helpful), but current fossil fuel is much less accessible than in the past.
TL;DR collapse of populations can lead to dark ages. It is not just the same old, but with less people around.
CSS programmer (are they seriously claiming to be programmers)
If you believe that writing vanilla SQL is programming, then so is writing CSS. Both are just declarations of desired outcome and it is up to the interpreter to get there. Even functional programming is like that.
I'm sorry, but I missed the episode where CIA and NSA threatened to dump personal info. Can you provide a link?
Where do you see this “upward trajectory”? Heir GDP is declining (and growth is under global average). They do have some territorial gains and expansion of military, but that is rarely used as an indicator of health of nation.
I'm, sorry, but the AC won't be able to call you, since you did not leave your phone number, or any other contact info. In fact, I suspect you and the parent are both the same person.
Cool story, bro. Any citations?
Ok then. Perhaps you can do better than Tom and point out, what US policy towards Libya should have been at any time during Obama administration, so that everything would have ended well.
You don't seem to understand. I get Tom's sarcasm. I am pointing out that he can shove it up his ass.
Can you point out, what US policy would bring peace, prosperity and freedom in Libya? Your time-line is anywhere in Obama administration.
If wikipedia is to be believed. Condom typically fails 18% of the time, in best case it fails 2%. For the pill it is 9% typical case, 0,3%.
And speaking of pictures, I heard that in USA, there is a big tumbleweed problem. I have seen a picture of one, or several of them, but why isn't there a picture of ALL OF THEM?
Matthew Garrett wore informative article on this one: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/44...
What what? The link you gave refers to a nuclear issues and mentions smallpox as a historical reference. Add to that, it is a blog post in 2009, not a official proposal.