And no - you do not produce more CO2 than the plants you ate have removed. It's physically impossible for these numbers to ever NOT be identical - because for that to happen, because the laws of physics say you cannot create or destroy matter.
Right and any of those things are anywhere close to the guy who made a speech in the rain and then 10 minutes later lied to the CIA and told them it wasn't raining...
Animals and people are already carbon neutral. You can't breath our more CO2 than the carbon you've consumed, from plants can not have more carbon than they have previously removed from the atmosphere.
To be fair - the Swedish Empire was, at the time the largest empire in Europe.
Then again that was during the thirty-years war some 300-odd years ago. It's not been anything like that size since the end of the reformation wars. And even at the height of the Swedish Empire - it ruled only about half of Europe - which is a far cry from all of Eurasia, and it never depopulated the place (at least, not any more than the wars did anyway).
This is also why the rest of the world has no trouble passing sane gun control laws. The US suffers greatly on account of it's small average dick size. Contrary to popular opinion - even Japanese dicks are bigger. Everything is bigger in America - because Americans have the most to compensate for.
Erm - right, so we'll just forget about that time the Koch Brother (a fossil fuel company remember) paid for research to disprove AGW...
Oh it turns out that research not only ended up confirming the theory - but it's data set is now the prime data set used by most researchers as it's the best quality dataset available.
Plenty of money get's spent on the 'other' side - they just never find anything the other side LIKES - in fact, the best science from money spent on disproving AGW has ended up confirming it.
I give it about an hour before somebody comes ranting about how water is the greatest greenhouse gas of all, and somehow oddly forget to mention that the average water molecule spends 11 days in the atmosphere while the average CO2 molecule spends up to 80 years there.
And the most effective way to reduce methane levels is to stop burning fossil fuels, which has the advantage of reducing CO2 levels AS WELL - so it's a win-win there.
What she did was not philosophy. She may have called it that, but it wasn't, not even slightly.
At best it was a (terrible) reinterpretation of Nietszche - the kind you may get if you him to a high-schooler to read with no other information or any training in basic philosophical methodologies.
Erm... you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Nobody suggested the plant was over a hundred years old. Y2K affected the ability of computers to understand dates - so they ended up thinking a datestamp from 2000 was from 1900, it didn't change the actual date. It was a storage-overflow bug, not a time machine.
Oh, according to ancaps -- if you haven't chosen 'nothing at all' then obviously you are happy with the monopoly's service and all is well with the world.
Of course, this is the kind of conclusions you reach when you fatally oversimply the complex systems that are economies to a few simple (they call them 'unquestionable' but 'unproven' is a better description) axioms which are not even written in proper formal logic but instead in some vague verbal bullshit they call 'praxeology' to allow maximum possibility for using ambiguity and unclear definitions to guarantee you reach the conclusions you like and can conveniently dismiss equally valid conclusions from the same axioms that you don't like.
Ultimately of course - the fatal flaw in that argument is that it utterly ignores the cost of choosing 'nothing'. Just because that cost is 'higher than the monopoly' doesn't mean the monopoly isn't fucking you over.
they are lobbying to get rid of net neutrality. The next day they are trying to use net neutrality as a shield against state-level laws.
This is corporate lobbying in a nutshell - they will both use and lobby against the exact same regulations depending on what is, today, most suitable to them.
The difference between Steward and Trump is - Steward asked the owner of the pussy for permission before grabbing it. Trump just assumed he'd get away with it because of his celebrity status. The former is how decent men get pussy. The latter is called sexual assault.
That last one is still the most likely single scenario for world war 3. Water is scarce, and getting scarcer as it has to be divided among an ever larger population. Hitherto a lot of technology like desalination plants haven't made economic sense since the cost of using it was higher than the cost of just outsourcing your farming to somewhere else with more rain. Now those things are, ever more, starting to make sense because even just enough to drink is becoming a problem.
More importantly though, your textbook (and yourself), seems to have made a classic mistake which is to fundamentally fail to understand how scientific predictions work. A scientific prediction is NEVER "x will happen". A scientific prediction is "if y then x" and when scientists predict societal problems -it's with the stated AIM of having y changed so that X does not occur -they are betting that they can PREVENT their own prediction coming true. Seen from that point of view - in fact their record has been astoundingly good. In nearly every case we DID address X and Y stopped being a severe problem. Scientist: "Sulfur emisions are causing acid rain and if they continue at this raid acid rain will cause serious damage" In that prediction - the continuing of sulfur emissions is X, the damage is Y. That damage didn't occur - but not because the prediction was wrong, because - based on that science - we changed X - by regulating the hell out of sulfur emissions. That vindicated the science - it didn't prove the scientists 'alarmist' or wrong.
Another example was Y2K. In this case computer scientists found that a fatal design flaw which was common in a great deal of hardware and software could cause serious issues if it wasn't fixed before 2000. A huge, international, effort was begun to fix the problem. Older, affected, hardware was upgraded. Software was upgraded, patched or replaced. It was a massive effort that lots of very smart people worked very hard on for many years.
End result: they did manage to fix almost all the computers, and when Y2K came around there was almost no actual negative impacts. One nuclear plant shut down because it thought it hadn't received an update from the temperature guages in over a hundred years. Other such isolated incidents occured - but the calamity was averted. Not because the prediction was wrong -because it was RIGHT - and we changed the initial conditions so that the outcome would be avoided.
Popper was among history's best at philosophy of society and state. He was, unfortunately, never all that good at philosophy of science, which is a pity because so many people love to pretend he was (mostly the ones who can use him to deny science they find inconvenient unfortunately). Philosophy is a fairly broad discipline with many specializations within it. While they all share certain core skills - being good, or even great, at one does not predict you will be good at another. Indeed, all too often those who excel at one subfield are at best mediocre in another. Scientists who switch to philosophy in their elder years tend to be a particularly good example of this- they often excel at philosophy of science, but generally anything they write about anything else in philosophy tends to be absolutely terrible.
And then, of course, you get people with no training whatsoever in philosophy - who don't know it's most basic principles, don't understand the difference between logic and self-interest (and often pretend these are automatically the same), think true objectivity is even possible... and write absolutely horrendous crap which they think are philosophy and a surprisingly large number of fellow cultists end up embracing as such while the flaws that would get their crap a failing grade in phil101 is utterly overlooked. Case in point: Ayn Rand.
The Koch brothers also didn't spend a single penny in 2016. After Trump won the primary they stopped all spending because they felt it would not be a worthwhile investment.
This tells you a few things: 1) They normally get a good return on their investment -they wouldn't usually spend money if they didn't 2) You can't use the 2016 election as a measure of how much their money influences outcomes since it wasn't a factor - while it was a big factor in 2000 and 2004 (both of which the democrats lost).
More importantly - while they may have limited impact on the whitehouse (an assertion you haven't proven but which is at least conceivable) their influence on congress is significantly stronger, and that pales in comparison to their influence on state legislatures - indeed the vast majority of bills passed by republican state legislatures are actually written BY THEM (through their pet bill writing organisation known as ALEC).
The principal of equality before the law is a compelling government interest. A law should not apply only to those who lack the resources (be they intelectual or monetary) to avoid it. Tax laws full of loopholes you can only use if you are rich enough to afford a tax lawyer violate that principal. As do gun laws that only apply to those who do not know how to avoid them. If a given person is prohibited from owninf a gun - nobody should be able to sell him one. Letting those with access to gun shows ignore the law violates the principal. If banning certain citizens from owning a gun is a bad law to you - then challenge the law. But while the law stands - it should be enforced and applied equally to all gun sellers.
Slashdot Mirror
until pornhub launches their version...
Erm... no.
Everything you just said is wrong. Dead wrong.
And no - you do not produce more CO2 than the plants you ate have removed. It's physically impossible for these numbers to ever NOT be identical - because for that to happen, because the laws of physics say you cannot create or destroy matter.
Right and any of those things are anywhere close to the guy who made a speech in the rain and then 10 minutes later lied to the CIA and told them it wasn't raining ...
Animals and people are already carbon neutral.
You can't breath our more CO2 than the carbon you've consumed, from plants can not have more carbon than they have previously removed from the atmosphere.
They are, in fact, significantly ahead of schedule already. I know we don't usually read the articles here, but at least read the summary ?
To be fair - the Swedish Empire was, at the time the largest empire in Europe.
Then again that was during the thirty-years war some 300-odd years ago. It's not been anything like that size since the end of the reformation wars. And even at the height of the Swedish Empire - it ruled only about half of Europe - which is a far cry from all of Eurasia, and it never depopulated the place (at least, not any more than the wars did anyway).
Tighter !
Do I win ?
STDs ?
After all - 0 is "not even half" of "gotta-catchem-all" right ?
This is also why the rest of the world has no trouble passing sane gun control laws. The US suffers greatly on account of it's small average dick size. Contrary to popular opinion - even Japanese dicks are bigger.
Everything is bigger in America - because Americans have the most to compensate for.
Erm - right, so we'll just forget about that time the Koch Brother (a fossil fuel company remember) paid for research to disprove AGW...
Oh it turns out that research not only ended up confirming the theory - but it's data set is now the prime data set used by most researchers as it's the best quality dataset available.
Plenty of money get's spent on the 'other' side - they just never find anything the other side LIKES - in fact, the best science from money spent on disproving AGW has ended up confirming it.
For starters: acid rain.
I give it about an hour before somebody comes ranting about how water is the greatest greenhouse gas of all, and somehow oddly forget to mention that the average water molecule spends 11 days in the atmosphere while the average CO2 molecule spends up to 80 years there.
And the most effective way to reduce methane levels is to stop burning fossil fuels, which has the advantage of reducing CO2 levels AS WELL - so it's a win-win there.
What she did was not philosophy. She may have called it that, but it wasn't, not even slightly.
At best it was a (terrible) reinterpretation of Nietszche - the kind you may get if you him to a high-schooler to read with no other information or any training in basic philosophical methodologies.
I don't argue with randroids, for the same reason I don't play chess with pigeons.
Erm... you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Nobody suggested the plant was over a hundred years old.
Y2K affected the ability of computers to understand dates - so they ended up thinking a datestamp from 2000 was from 1900, it didn't change the actual date. It was a storage-overflow bug, not a time machine.
Oh, according to ancaps -- if you haven't chosen 'nothing at all' then obviously you are happy with the monopoly's service and all is well with the world.
Of course, this is the kind of conclusions you reach when you fatally oversimply the complex systems that are economies to a few simple (they call them 'unquestionable' but 'unproven' is a better description) axioms which are not even written in proper formal logic but instead in some vague verbal bullshit they call 'praxeology' to allow maximum possibility for using ambiguity and unclear definitions to guarantee you reach the conclusions you like and can conveniently dismiss equally valid conclusions from the same axioms that you don't like.
Ultimately of course - the fatal flaw in that argument is that it utterly ignores the cost of choosing 'nothing'. Just because that cost is 'higher than the monopoly' doesn't mean the monopoly isn't fucking you over.
>What's to stop them shoving a hot pocker up your ass? Twisting it till you scream, with a maniacle laugh? Erm, Pai?
Erm, that's already in the contracts - it's part of the arbitration procedure you have to agree to while you sign away your right to sue.
they are lobbying to get rid of net neutrality.
The next day they are trying to use net neutrality as a shield against state-level laws.
This is corporate lobbying in a nutshell - they will both use and lobby against the exact same regulations depending on what is, today, most suitable to them.
The difference between Steward and Trump is - Steward asked the owner of the pussy for permission before grabbing it. Trump just assumed he'd get away with it because of his celebrity status.
The former is how decent men get pussy.
The latter is called sexual assault.
That last one is still the most likely single scenario for world war 3. Water is scarce, and getting scarcer as it has to be divided among an ever larger population.
Hitherto a lot of technology like desalination plants haven't made economic sense since the cost of using it was higher than the cost of just outsourcing your farming to somewhere else with more rain. Now those things are, ever more, starting to make sense because even just enough to drink is becoming a problem.
More importantly though, your textbook (and yourself), seems to have made a classic mistake which is to fundamentally fail to understand how scientific predictions work. A scientific prediction is NEVER "x will happen".
A scientific prediction is "if y then x" and when scientists predict societal problems -it's with the stated AIM of having y changed so that X does not occur -they are betting that they can PREVENT their own prediction coming true.
Seen from that point of view - in fact their record has been astoundingly good. In nearly every case we DID address X and Y stopped being a severe problem.
Scientist: "Sulfur emisions are causing acid rain and if they continue at this raid acid rain will cause serious damage"
In that prediction - the continuing of sulfur emissions is X, the damage is Y.
That damage didn't occur - but not because the prediction was wrong, because - based on that science - we changed X - by regulating the hell out of sulfur emissions.
That vindicated the science - it didn't prove the scientists 'alarmist' or wrong.
Another example was Y2K. In this case computer scientists found that a fatal design flaw which was common in a great deal of hardware and software could cause serious issues if it wasn't fixed before 2000. A huge, international, effort was begun to fix the problem. Older, affected, hardware was upgraded. Software was upgraded, patched or replaced. It was a massive effort that lots of very smart people worked very hard on for many years.
End result: they did manage to fix almost all the computers, and when Y2K came around there was almost no actual negative impacts. One nuclear plant shut down because it thought it hadn't received an update from the temperature guages in over a hundred years. Other such isolated incidents occured - but the calamity was averted.
Not because the prediction was wrong -because it was RIGHT - and we changed the initial conditions so that the outcome would be avoided.
Popper was among history's best at philosophy of society and state. He was, unfortunately, never all that good at philosophy of science, which is a pity because so many people love to pretend he was (mostly the ones who can use him to deny science they find inconvenient unfortunately).
Philosophy is a fairly broad discipline with many specializations within it. While they all share certain core skills - being good, or even great, at one does not predict you will be good at another. Indeed, all too often those who excel at one subfield are at best mediocre in another.
Scientists who switch to philosophy in their elder years tend to be a particularly good example of this- they often excel at philosophy of science, but generally anything they write about anything else in philosophy tends to be absolutely terrible.
And then, of course, you get people with no training whatsoever in philosophy - who don't know it's most basic principles, don't understand the difference between logic and self-interest (and often pretend these are automatically the same), think true objectivity is even possible... and write absolutely horrendous crap which they think are philosophy and a surprisingly large number of fellow cultists end up embracing as such while the flaws that would get their crap a failing grade in phil101 is utterly overlooked. Case in point: Ayn Rand.
Read the whole thread, you know - so you you reply to sentences in context ?
The Koch brothers also didn't spend a single penny in 2016. After Trump won the primary they stopped all spending because they felt it would not be a worthwhile investment.
This tells you a few things:
1) They normally get a good return on their investment -they wouldn't usually spend money if they didn't
2) You can't use the 2016 election as a measure of how much their money influences outcomes since it wasn't a factor - while it was a big factor in 2000 and 2004 (both of which the democrats lost).
More importantly - while they may have limited impact on the whitehouse (an assertion you haven't proven but which is at least conceivable) their influence on congress is significantly stronger, and that pales in comparison to their influence on state legislatures - indeed the vast majority of bills passed by republican state legislatures are actually written BY THEM (through their pet bill writing organisation known as ALEC).
The principal of equality before the law is a compelling government interest. A law should not apply only to those who lack the resources (be they intelectual or monetary) to avoid it. Tax laws full of loopholes you can only use if you are rich enough to afford a tax lawyer violate that principal. As do gun laws that only apply to those who do not know how to avoid them.
If a given person is prohibited from owninf a gun - nobody should be able to sell him one. Letting those with access to gun shows ignore the law violates the principal.
If banning certain citizens from owning a gun is a bad law to you - then challenge the law. But while the law stands - it should be enforced and applied equally to all gun sellers.