Ah, a snow mexican who doesn't understand how standing works! You may have been taught that 'standing' or 'the moral high ground' or similar such concepts are things that you gain through "honesty" or "consistency" or "ethical standards" or suchlike bullshit. This is nonsense. You get 'standing' by being The Good Guys, which America is, always has been, and always will be.
"When it gets down to it — talking trade balances here — once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here — once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel — once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity — y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
music
movies
microcode
high-speed pizza delivery "
There's a reason why the 'let's have an anti-regulatory pity party' school of libertarianism has better donors; but the 'pollution as violence' model is arguably about as unhelpful to polluters as anything on the table. This might explain why it tends to get left on the table and accidentally covered with loose documents and forgotten about...
Oh, there's definitely a reason why even the assorted "Green Parties" (in countries that have them) propose pollution standards greater than zero, and why the 'just bodging our way toward something resembling compromise' school of legislation tends to end up at some equilibrium value.
My point was merely that libertarianism is among the most vexing theoretical frameworks from which to try to arrive at acceptable pollution levels that aren't either zero ("Pollution is violence, one of the state's few legitimate roles is preventing you from committing it unless you, as is probably impossible, negotiate the consent of all those affected") or infinite ("Pollution is a product of me exercising my property rights, state infringement on which is unacceptable"), with zero being the arguably stronger; but rather less well-befriended, outcome. It's not a useful outcome (preindustrial society kind of sucked, and somebody was still shitting upstream from your drinking water); but trying to come up with a theoretical justification for some pragmatically calculated value is quite an exercise (coming up with the pragmatically calculated value is bad enough; but that's at least mostly a technical problem).
If I am right USA is not interesting in "Kyoto protocol stuff".
Kyoto protocol covers greenhouse gasses, this study is about smog. I'm sure that there's some overlap, most chemicals do more than one thing; but "Pollution" isn't some sort of uniform, fungible, phenomenon. Different sources, different flavors, different regulatory mechanisms.
Now, I'm mostly libertarian, but in the whole 'your right to throw your fist stops at my nose' sense I'd be okay with imposing tariffs on products that aren't produced up to US pollution standards, or even trade restrictions against countries that aren't even trying, pollution wise.
The tricky thing about libertarian analyses of pollution standards is that a 'pollution standard' is actually a rather odd thing (from a libertarian standpoint, from the 'just throwing things together according to no particular overarching theory as the needs of the day dictate' sense, they occur quite naturally): Depending on how unpleasant it is, pollution is anywhere from a cost imposed on others to lethal violence visited on others, and a 'pollution standard' is the state explicitly granting the right to inflict a certain amount of that on everybody else. It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...
Assuming you are looking for RF, rather than UFOs, even short lived civilizations should show up, just as some of the stars that are presently visible to us are in fact long dead; but very far away.
This would be immensely frustrating, of course, since virtually any signal you receive would be from a civilization that is either already dead or will already be dead by the time your reply, if you wish to attempt one, reaches them; but it would still be distinguishable from silence.
I think prisons already have nutriloaf, which they value for its combination of penal and nutritive(ish) qualities. The courts keep going back and forth on the 8th amendment suitability of that one...
Considering that good food and cooking are some of the great pleasures in life, no thanks! I find the concept pretty depressing, actually.
I'm not sure why anybody would attempt to live on this stuff (though cooking is an arduous chore, so I suppose it does avoid that); but it seems like it has a fairly compelling use-case as an equally convenient alternative to far less benignly constructed convenience foods. Microwave TV dinners are almost as joyless and probably kill you faster.
It has its ethical problems; but vandalism is a fairly pragmatic response to gentrification: violence tends to be bad for property values, and a reputation for violence against certain sorts of people tends to make those people reconsider moving to an area.
It also works for whatever the opposite of gentrification is. Because in that instance the incumbents are the ones with greater power and wealth, they usually start with less overtly crass practices (a little redlining, say, is more effective, less visible, and probably less legally problematic, than throwing a brick...); but if that doesn't entirely work, a bit of violence can. The 'sundown town' is probably the most iconic example of this practice in the US.
Saying this does not connote approval; but team 'Pro Life' has spent some decades exploring the (ugly) details of exactly how much stalking and harassment you can mix into your 'protest' while staying under the first amendment. They've been pretty successful (though this is in part because they have major political clout, I suspect that all those fuzzy subjective tests totally mysteriously start working differently if you are from some unpopular outfit).
I suspect that it's less a matter of some fundamental flaw, and more a matter of the fact that 'POS' stands for more than 'Point of Sale' when it comes to the hardware and software in wide use, and everyone wants to cover their asses given the amount of fraud related losses and upgrade costs that may be floating around and looking for a place to land...
It's not news that mag-stripe systems (with their 'Hey, let's pretend that the stripe data are some kind of secret, and require them for every transaction! And, um, if that seems stupid, how about a 3-character "security" code?' design) have issues; but nobody really wants to do anything other than try to shovel liability onto the next guy.
Given that this is at least the second (known) major Target CC breach, anyone who still holds out hope for Target's good faith may have difficulties with empiricism...
Target's CC-issuing arm also scuttled a 'chip-and-pin' rollout a while back; because the store side was worried about it taking longer at the register, and the 'marketing advantages' that were supposed to have been offered by the additional customer data didn't materialize...
Politicians also display strong tendencies to keep each other out of jail... It's just that their empathic behavior drops off pretty sharply with distance.
Many municipalities have (usually hidden somewhere in the dusty crevices of their websites, sometimes not even that visible) proper GIS data access in place. The web-based viewers, while convenient, are usually pretty terrible (Google's is at least polished, if pretty lightweight). If they offer access to the data, though, you can have a proper application take care of that problem for you.
Oh, you worrywart you. Just think of how much more pleasant airplanes, movie theaters, and similar crowded public spaces would be without obnoxious screaming babies and children kicking the back of your seat!
I have no interest in defending this particular group (indeed, I find their targeting incompetent at best, and what they are up to may be dubious in other ways as well); but I wanted to call out the curious asymmetry in the grandparent post. Gentrification can be (and often... mostly... is) achieved by legal means, so quit your protesting (also possible to do entirely legally, under laws that aren't simply about suppressing protest, and often... mostly... done legally) and shut up.
I don't know if they are associated with the ones that broke that bus window (gentrification-related tension is been a Thing in the area for some time, so there are a lot of distinct groups milling around) and I have no idea whatsoever why they choose the car guy (even by Google standards, you could find plenty of creepier projects, and never mind the segment of the tech industry that overtly makes and sells spook and suppression gear, often to unsavory actors).
You'd probably need something more subtle... You want a trait that substantially enhances the target's reproductive chances (so that the trait spreads through the population as quickly and thoroughly as possible, per unit expense of introducing new engineered carriers); but somehow either makes them less noxious, or cripples them. If you are too good at engineering an aggressively heritable trait, you'll just strengthen the target population; but if you dial up the lethal/fertility-compromising, your carriers will just die out and be replaced by wild types that don't have the defect.
As an alternative, you could try to implement the defect in a viral vector, and have that spread through the population. They've done some work in Australia trying to get virally-transmitted immunocontraceptives to work on rabbits...
I'm baffled by why you would choose an autonomous vehicles researcher, rather than somebody actually dangerous; but isn't using surveillance to intimidate people who develop and operate surveillance systems a 'turnabout is fair play' sort of thing?
Shaming the unemployed is not so effective when there are no jobs.
Sure it is! It's still a perfectly good rhetorical justification for not doing anything about them, and I'm certain they'll either starve or do something we can imprison them for soon enough!
What I find somewhat curious is that Google is the one taking the heat... I can certainly understand the lack of enthusiasm for a data-driven surveillance dystopia with killer robots; but anyone who thinks that stopping Google won't simply ensure that it'll be Acxiom or LexisNexis guiding General Atomics or iRobot deathbots instead seems like a serious optimist.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, a snow mexican who doesn't understand how standing works! You may have been taught that 'standing' or 'the moral high ground' or similar such concepts are things that you gain through "honesty" or "consistency" or "ethical standards" or suchlike bullshit. This is nonsense. You get 'standing' by being The Good Guys, which America is, always has been, and always will be.
Really quite simple, no?
"When it gets down to it — talking trade balances here — once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here — once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel — once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity — y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
music
movies
microcode
high-speed pizza delivery "
There's a reason why the 'let's have an anti-regulatory pity party' school of libertarianism has better donors; but the 'pollution as violence' model is arguably about as unhelpful to polluters as anything on the table. This might explain why it tends to get left on the table and accidentally covered with loose documents and forgotten about...
Oh, there's definitely a reason why even the assorted "Green Parties" (in countries that have them) propose pollution standards greater than zero, and why the 'just bodging our way toward something resembling compromise' school of legislation tends to end up at some equilibrium value.
My point was merely that libertarianism is among the most vexing theoretical frameworks from which to try to arrive at acceptable pollution levels that aren't either zero ("Pollution is violence, one of the state's few legitimate roles is preventing you from committing it unless you, as is probably impossible, negotiate the consent of all those affected") or infinite ("Pollution is a product of me exercising my property rights, state infringement on which is unacceptable"), with zero being the arguably stronger; but rather less well-befriended, outcome. It's not a useful outcome (preindustrial society kind of sucked, and somebody was still shitting upstream from your drinking water); but trying to come up with a theoretical justification for some pragmatically calculated value is quite an exercise (coming up with the pragmatically calculated value is bad enough; but that's at least mostly a technical problem).
If I am right USA is not interesting in "Kyoto protocol stuff".
Kyoto protocol covers greenhouse gasses, this study is about smog. I'm sure that there's some overlap, most chemicals do more than one thing; but "Pollution" isn't some sort of uniform, fungible, phenomenon. Different sources, different flavors, different regulatory mechanisms.
Now, I'm mostly libertarian, but in the whole 'your right to throw your fist stops at my nose' sense I'd be okay with imposing tariffs on products that aren't produced up to US pollution standards, or even trade restrictions against countries that aren't even trying, pollution wise.
The tricky thing about libertarian analyses of pollution standards is that a 'pollution standard' is actually a rather odd thing (from a libertarian standpoint, from the 'just throwing things together according to no particular overarching theory as the needs of the day dictate' sense, they occur quite naturally): Depending on how unpleasant it is, pollution is anywhere from a cost imposed on others to lethal violence visited on others, and a 'pollution standard' is the state explicitly granting the right to inflict a certain amount of that on everybody else. It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...
Assuming you are looking for RF, rather than UFOs, even short lived civilizations should show up, just as some of the stars that are presently visible to us are in fact long dead; but very far away.
This would be immensely frustrating, of course, since virtually any signal you receive would be from a civilization that is either already dead or will already be dead by the time your reply, if you wish to attempt one, reaches them; but it would still be distinguishable from silence.
I think prisons already have nutriloaf, which they value for its combination of penal and nutritive(ish) qualities. The courts keep going back and forth on the 8th amendment suitability of that one...
Considering that good food and cooking are some of the great pleasures in life, no thanks! I find the concept pretty depressing, actually.
I'm not sure why anybody would attempt to live on this stuff (though cooking is an arduous chore, so I suppose it does avoid that); but it seems like it has a fairly compelling use-case as an equally convenient alternative to far less benignly constructed convenience foods. Microwave TV dinners are almost as joyless and probably kill you faster.
I certainly don't see the fun of soylent; but I bet the amount of shopping and prep work is a lot lower, which can be a perk.
It has its ethical problems; but vandalism is a fairly pragmatic response to gentrification: violence tends to be bad for property values, and a reputation for violence against certain sorts of people tends to make those people reconsider moving to an area.
It also works for whatever the opposite of gentrification is. Because in that instance the incumbents are the ones with greater power and wealth, they usually start with less overtly crass practices (a little redlining, say, is more effective, less visible, and probably less legally problematic, than throwing a brick...); but if that doesn't entirely work, a bit of violence can. The 'sundown town' is probably the most iconic example of this practice in the US.
Saying this does not connote approval; but team 'Pro Life' has spent some decades exploring the (ugly) details of exactly how much stalking and harassment you can mix into your 'protest' while staying under the first amendment. They've been pretty successful (though this is in part because they have major political clout, I suspect that all those fuzzy subjective tests totally mysteriously start working differently if you are from some unpopular outfit).
I suspect that it's less a matter of some fundamental flaw, and more a matter of the fact that 'POS' stands for more than 'Point of Sale' when it comes to the hardware and software in wide use, and everyone wants to cover their asses given the amount of fraud related losses and upgrade costs that may be floating around and looking for a place to land...
It's not news that mag-stripe systems (with their 'Hey, let's pretend that the stripe data are some kind of secret, and require them for every transaction! And, um, if that seems stupid, how about a 3-character "security" code?' design) have issues; but nobody really wants to do anything other than try to shovel liability onto the next guy.
Given that this is at least the second (known) major Target CC breach, anyone who still holds out hope for Target's good faith may have difficulties with empiricism...
Target's CC-issuing arm also scuttled a 'chip-and-pin' rollout a while back; because the store side was worried about it taking longer at the register, and the 'marketing advantages' that were supposed to have been offered by the additional customer data didn't materialize...
On the plus side, the odds that somebody important ends up looking stupid are incrementally reduced, so all is right with the world.
Politicians also display strong tendencies to keep each other out of jail... It's just that their empathic behavior drops off pretty sharply with distance.
Many municipalities have (usually hidden somewhere in the dusty crevices of their websites, sometimes not even that visible) proper GIS data access in place. The web-based viewers, while convenient, are usually pretty terrible (Google's is at least polished, if pretty lightweight). If they offer access to the data, though, you can have a proper application take care of that problem for you.
Oh, you worrywart you. Just think of how much more pleasant airplanes, movie theaters, and similar crowded public spaces would be without obnoxious screaming babies and children kicking the back of your seat!
I have no interest in defending this particular group (indeed, I find their targeting incompetent at best, and what they are up to may be dubious in other ways as well); but I wanted to call out the curious asymmetry in the grandparent post. Gentrification can be (and often... mostly... is) achieved by legal means, so quit your protesting (also possible to do entirely legally, under laws that aren't simply about suppressing protest, and often... mostly... done legally) and shut up.
I don't know if they are associated with the ones that broke that bus window (gentrification-related tension is been a Thing in the area for some time, so there are a lot of distinct groups milling around) and I have no idea whatsoever why they choose the car guy (even by Google standards, you could find plenty of creepier projects, and never mind the segment of the tech industry that overtly makes and sells spook and suppression gear, often to unsavory actors).
You'd probably need something more subtle... You want a trait that substantially enhances the target's reproductive chances (so that the trait spreads through the population as quickly and thoroughly as possible, per unit expense of introducing new engineered carriers); but somehow either makes them less noxious, or cripples them. If you are too good at engineering an aggressively heritable trait, you'll just strengthen the target population; but if you dial up the lethal/fertility-compromising, your carriers will just die out and be replaced by wild types that don't have the defect.
As an alternative, you could try to implement the defect in a viral vector, and have that spread through the population. They've done some work in Australia trying to get virally-transmitted immunocontraceptives to work on rabbits...
I'm baffled by why you would choose an autonomous vehicles researcher, rather than somebody actually dangerous; but isn't using surveillance to intimidate people who develop and operate surveillance systems a 'turnabout is fair play' sort of thing?
Protesting is also totally legal, so suck it up and deal, no? Or does this only work one way...
Shaming the unemployed is not so effective when there are no jobs.
Sure it is! It's still a perfectly good rhetorical justification for not doing anything about them, and I'm certain they'll either starve or do something we can imprison them for soon enough!
Why pay for a nursing home when Soylent Grey is a saleable commodity?
What I find somewhat curious is that Google is the one taking the heat... I can certainly understand the lack of enthusiasm for a data-driven surveillance dystopia with killer robots; but anyone who thinks that stopping Google won't simply ensure that it'll be Acxiom or LexisNexis guiding General Atomics or iRobot deathbots instead seems like a serious optimist.