We don't have a two party system because the "system" or any laws dictate it. The reason we havee a two party system is because our culture as a whole thinks exactly as you just did.
I agree that we don't have a two-party system anymore, but I think it might be well beyond the culture.
I was pretty much convinced we have nothing but a ruling class when the government shutdown ended not just with the Republicans getting nothing, but instead capitulating the government to complete Democrat/Presidential control. The shutdown ended with the Republicans agreeing to put the debt-ceiling on autopilot only to be reviewed if Congress acts with enough majority in the Senate to overcome a Presidential veto. You'll notice the Republicans had no such majority in the Senate, and no such President in office.
Why would an "opposing party" give up their only remaining leverage (Congress's job is to manage spending) on terms that essentially renders their offices moot? Why would such a party give their "opponents" unlimited spending capability a year prior to the next major election? Why?
You and Richard Alley are choosing to disregard historical non-anthropengenic-global-warming.
From Richard Alley
Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming.
and
Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming [...]
Which is a neat summary of your previous paragraphs, sans the political drivel.
You are decidedly only interested in the current effects of man-made global warming; whereas I am allowing that these measured man-made effects are easily eclipsed by nature given the historical record.
As a deterministic construction, the 110 Rule is an interesting idea; seems to entertain a certain possibility of materialistic emergence.
Since animal-life seems to be quadratic instead of binary, there's still a bit of a gap between life today and an iterative genesis (DNA codons being made up of four elements (GACT) instead of just one or two). I don't know if that helps by making the field richer for interactions, I do know it makes modeling it much more difficult with this idea.
Maxwell's demon aside, I was curious if you know of some examples where demonstrations of the binary 110 rule may actually be found in cellular machinery.
I actually like the concept a lot. But I agree that there is some potential for fallout here:
Having a replacement for Fukushima is one thing, but a world of these going wrong could be a real problem. A majority of the world's oxygen comes from phytoplankton in the ocean: killing them in mass via radioactive leaks might actually create a credible climate disaster.
Not likely that all of the world's reactors would start spilling simultaneously, but the only thing about this that gives me pause. Otherwise, this is a really great idea.
This is Slashdot of course, but did you realise the whole point of TFA is that the climate change we're seeing is not ordinary weather? That the chances of what we're seeing being naturally-caused are 1% at best?
And my point (in reference to the link concluding with Richard Alley's decision to disregard previous non-anthropogenic-global-warming) is the regardless of man's current contribution "weather" may completely dwarf mankind's efforts or effects either way.
And when hundreds of plumbers from all over the city tell you the same, and show you photos of the leaks? What if they're actually right - are you prepared to risk paying considerably more for a whole new bathroom (and possibly your neighbours' as well)?
If they are justifying their claims on the basis that fixing the leaks will stop future tsunamis, I cannot take their photos or their consensus seriously.
There is climate change due to larger natural forces that, so far, we are all helpless against: it's called weather.
Inventing a tsunami as an excuse for doing nothing when the plumber is telling you your bathroom is flooding because your pipes are leaking, is just foolish. When that flooding will spread to apartments below you as well, inaction verges on criminal.
By all means, be responsible for what's in front of you and actually possible to address!
However, I will remain skeptical of the plumber who comes knocking on my door claiming I have leaky pipes and purchasing his services is the only way to stop the next tsunami.
This is analogous to a flooded bathroom in a Fukushima apartment sometime after lunch April 7th, 2011. Cleaning up the mess in your bathroom may help your quality of life for a few hours, but its essentially going to do nothing about the tsunami outside.
Sure, you're responsible for the mess you made on the floor. But cleaning that up isn't going to overcome larger natural forces. For that, you're going to need a bigger mop.
I find the article's conclusion in the form of the quote from Richard Alley illogical, wherein he states that warming may or may not have happened in the past, but we need to cleanup our own current contribution.
This is illogical, because a natural course may induce warming far more significant than anything our modern output may have. Richard's conclusion that we must address our contribution completely ignores the possibility that this will do anything to alleviate the impact or magnitude of natural events.
I'm referring to the article's quote of Richard Alley:
Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred
Alley is obviously concerned about our modern contribution to global warming, and discounts dwelling on historical warming as not engaging the problem. However this assumes that dealing with man's modern contribution to warming will somehow alleviate nature's own course, which it won't.
What I find interesting is the conclusion of your linked article which mentions that it has been much warmer in the past, but restates the supposed dangers of AGW.
The article's conclusion is illogical.
Given the occurrences of much warmer periods in the past (no matter how catastrophic such warming might be to the billions of people now on the planet) there is no technological basis upon which to expect mankind now posses the capability to stop such warmer temperatures from occurring.
Doubtless carbon fuel combustion is a contributing factor to climate change. Whether industrial sources have any comparison to natural events (forest fires, volcanoes) is more the question.
The release of carbon/methane into the atmosphere has been occurring naturally and violently for a very long time.
In my opinion, we need more carbon in the air to support the food supply; the slow introduction of more carbon into the atmosphere is a good thing.
Governments are extracting heaps of wealth from billionaires to fund political structures that consolidate government power; all under the pretense of benefiting the middle class.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually this would have been best: http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted it... here's more about the foundation trying to do it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
We don't have a two party system because the "system" or any laws dictate it. The reason we havee a two party system is because our culture as a whole thinks exactly as you just did.
I agree that we don't have a two-party system anymore, but I think it might be well beyond the culture.
I was pretty much convinced we have nothing but a ruling class when the government shutdown ended not just with the Republicans getting nothing, but instead capitulating the government to complete Democrat/Presidential control. The shutdown ended with the Republicans agreeing to put the debt-ceiling on autopilot only to be reviewed if Congress acts with enough majority in the Senate to overcome a Presidential veto. You'll notice the Republicans had no such majority in the Senate, and no such President in office.
Why would an "opposing party" give up their only remaining leverage (Congress's job is to manage spending) on terms that essentially renders their offices moot? Why would such a party give their "opponents" unlimited spending capability a year prior to the next major election? Why?
Because there is no opposing party.
You and Richard Alley are choosing to disregard historical non-anthropengenic-global-warming.
From Richard Alley
Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming.
and
Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming [...]
Which is a neat summary of your previous paragraphs, sans the political drivel.
You are decidedly only interested in the current effects of man-made global warming; whereas I am allowing that these measured man-made effects are easily eclipsed by nature given the historical record.
Got the master "development" branch from OpenSSL. No sign the OpenBSD guys have been doing anything there.
So all of these commits must be happening on Theo's system. Looks like its only a fork, for now.
As a deterministic construction, the 110 Rule is an interesting idea; seems to entertain a certain possibility of materialistic emergence.
Since animal-life seems to be quadratic instead of binary, there's still a bit of a gap between life today and an iterative genesis (DNA codons being made up of four elements (GACT) instead of just one or two). I don't know if that helps by making the field richer for interactions, I do know it makes modeling it much more difficult with this idea.
Maxwell's demon aside, I was curious if you know of some examples where demonstrations of the binary 110 rule may actually be found in cellular machinery.
I really find this hard to believe. I had an Atari 800XL: sure the metal shielding had some weight, but several pounds?
And once we moved to a warmer climate those they didn't last at all. Must have gone through four of 'em
I'm pretty sure you're just describing Maxwell's demon
Heck, that's all this NASA proposal is: Maxwell's demon with a theoretical location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
I actually like the concept a lot. But I agree that there is some potential for fallout here:
Having a replacement for Fukushima is one thing, but a world of these going wrong could be a real problem. A majority of the world's oxygen comes from phytoplankton in the ocean: killing them in mass via radioactive leaks might actually create a credible climate disaster.
Not likely that all of the world's reactors would start spilling simultaneously, but the only thing about this that gives me pause. Otherwise, this is a really great idea.
Sounds like NASA finally discovered Maxwell's Demon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
This is Slashdot of course, but did you realise the whole point of TFA is that the climate change we're seeing is not ordinary weather? That the chances of what we're seeing being naturally-caused are 1% at best?
And my point (in reference to the link concluding with Richard Alley's decision to disregard previous non-anthropogenic-global-warming) is the regardless of man's current contribution "weather" may completely dwarf mankind's efforts or effects either way.
And when hundreds of plumbers from all over the city tell you the same, and show you photos of the leaks? What if they're actually right - are you prepared to risk paying considerably more for a whole new bathroom (and possibly your neighbours' as well)?
If they are justifying their claims on the basis that fixing the leaks will stop future tsunamis, I cannot take their photos or their consensus seriously.
There is climate change due to larger natural forces that, so far, we are all helpless against: it's called weather.
Inventing a tsunami as an excuse for doing nothing when the plumber is telling you your bathroom is flooding because your pipes are leaking, is just foolish. When that flooding will spread to apartments below you as well, inaction verges on criminal.
By all means, be responsible for what's in front of you and actually possible to address!
However, I will remain skeptical of the plumber who comes knocking on my door claiming I have leaky pipes and purchasing his services is the only way to stop the next tsunami.
Yeah, I just read their security advisory. I was basing my information on the original Heartbleed slashdot article which listed OpenBSD as unaffected.
(Note to self: Verify all thy claims before making a near-first comment on slashdot...)
Obviously since OpenBSD is running their fork of OpenSSL 0.9.8 which essentially doesn't have this exploit, this is just a shameless plug.
But having an OpenBSD vetted OpenSSL 1.0.1g+ for Ubuntu, now that would be something!
This is analogous to a flooded bathroom in a Fukushima apartment sometime after lunch April 7th, 2011. Cleaning up the mess in your bathroom may help your quality of life for a few hours, but its essentially going to do nothing about the tsunami outside.
Sure, you're responsible for the mess you made on the floor. But cleaning that up isn't going to overcome larger natural forces. For that, you're going to need a bigger mop.
I find the article's conclusion in the form of the quote from Richard Alley illogical, wherein he states that warming may or may not have happened in the past, but we need to cleanup our own current contribution.
This is illogical, because a natural course may induce warming far more significant than anything our modern output may have. Richard's conclusion that we must address our contribution completely ignores the possibility that this will do anything to alleviate the impact or magnitude of natural events.
I'm referring to the article's quote of Richard Alley:
Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred
Alley is obviously concerned about our modern contribution to global warming, and discounts dwelling on historical warming as not engaging the problem. However this assumes that dealing with man's modern contribution to warming will somehow alleviate nature's own course, which it won't.
What I find interesting is the conclusion of your linked article which mentions that it has been much warmer in the past, but restates the supposed dangers of AGW.
The article's conclusion is illogical.
Given the occurrences of much warmer periods in the past (no matter how catastrophic such warming might be to the billions of people now on the planet) there is no technological basis upon which to expect mankind now posses the capability to stop such warmer temperatures from occurring.
Doubtless carbon fuel combustion is a contributing factor to climate change. Whether industrial sources have any comparison to natural events (forest fires, volcanoes) is more the question.
The release of carbon/methane into the atmosphere has been occurring naturally and violently for a very long time.
In my opinion, we need more carbon in the air to support the food supply; the slow introduction of more carbon into the atmosphere is a good thing.
You make is sound like a bad thing.
I moved into some crummy apartments in Dallas, TX just to get FiOS fiber (25Mbit/25Mbit). Really low latency: about 2ms to google if I recall.
But who monitors the monitors?
Sorry man. You're acting the idiot. Maybe try re-reading what he actually wrote.
Governments are extracting heaps of wealth from billionaires to fund political structures that consolidate government power; all under the pretense of benefiting the middle class.