It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
I think it goes back further than that. My sense is that it crept up steadily post-9/11, but spiked after Barack Obama was first elected. The target shifted from him to Hillary Clinton (his presumptive successor) over the next 8 years, with "Benghazi", "but her e-mails", and "lock her up" calls from the right-wing chorus. And it spiked yet again during the lead-up to the 2016 POTUS election, I suspect with help from Russian troll-farms.
Linear extrapolations 80 years into the future are never good science.
Good predictive science is about making the best extrapolations you can with the data and theory you have. Yes, you can be wrong, and you always need to be prepared for that. But that doesn't mean it isn't important to try to predict.
Science tries to explain and predict the behaviour of our universe, but it also has a duty to do the best it can to inform public policy.
You make many good points. But my one quibble with your post is that you use a false-choice fallacy.
Yes, nuclear power is a compelling option for low-CO2 sources of energy. But there are others. Solar, wind, geothermal, tides, and so on. Long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that other technologies do not face.
Let's keep an open mind. But open to other alternatives besides nuclear energy.
it seems like in recent years stuff like node.js has really started to take over server development, and Javascript is slowly spreading to other realms as well.
Like what? [I'm sincerely curious.]
Also I find it perverse that node.js is taking over server development. Really? At what scale? [Again, sincerely curious.]
The point is that Obama did not "shut down the space program altogether". He did cancel the Constellation program because, in his words, it was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation." He and other officials subsequently restored development of the Orion capsule, along with the Ares I lift stage and a Heavy Launch Vehicle stage to replace Ares V.
And if any Democrat President had offered unlimited funding to get a human mars landing in 4 years we'd be applauding the progressive actions to move technology and human progress forward.
Or have we forgotten that Obama shut down the space program altogether?
The Space Shuttle program was extended several times beyond its originally envisioned 15-year life span because of the delays in building the United States space station in low Earth orbit—a project which eventually evolved into the International Space Station. It was formally scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2010 in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued on January 14, 2004 in his Vision for Space Exploration.[
Unlike the realm of sensory perception available to humans and other living organisms, this technology appears to rely upon reflection of light off of a surface facing the camera(s).
FTFY, Light refracts when it passes through a medium, not when it bounces off it.
Why is it then predominantly only the left that pushes the cataclysmic effects of climate change, while those on the right tend not to see it as a dire threat (if they acknowledge it exists)?
It's a matter of temperament with each group. At the risk of over-generalizing, leftists support progress, reform, internationalism, whereas rightists support order, tradition, and nationalism. More here.
Is it the those on the left are just so wise, and those on the right are dumb?
No and no. There are lots of dumb leftists and smart rightists. As I said, it's more an issue of temperament than intelligence.
Or is it that the left has been attaching climate change to all of their favorite other ideas, making it even less of an attractive/plausible issue to those on the right?
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one. I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
Meanwhile, in civilised countries, if a budget approval isn't given, the previous authorised budget is automatically continued until such time as a new budget is approved.
In may countries (particularly those with parliaments) a failure to pass a budget is considered a vote of non-confidence, and it triggers an election. And yes, the government continues to operate with the old budget until a new one is passed, perhaps by a newly-elected government.
And votes of non-confidence are not restricted to budgets. They can be about almost anything important (like Brexit -- see UK current events). In short, the government can fall at any time, and an election ensues.
If only the USA worked like that.
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -- Will Rogers
Just because extreme ends of the political spectrum have some similarity in their priority of their ideological interests over those of the individual does not make them identical. Opposite? Perhaps not. But not the same.
Both are totalitarian regimes, arguable of a socialist structure (yes, the NAZIs held many socialist concepts strongly, including eradication of 'oppressors')
I see that you like to define your enemies in your own terms. Whatever. Nazis are not socialists, despite what their name implies. Socialism embraces a precept of universal brotherhood. Nazis most certainly do not.
Classical Liberals/Libertarians are probably the closest to the opposite, although the terms have been stolen these days by socialists, most likely trying to play wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.
Liberals are centre-left to moderate-left. IMHO libertarians are in the moderate range on both sides, perhaps with some exceptions.
Politics is multi-dimensional, and as such, "opposite" is not a clearly-defined concept.
Communism and Fascism are not opposites. They are almost the same thing. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. The main difference between extreme left and extreme right is how they justify their policies. The left says is is for "the good of the people" while the right says it is for "the good of the country". But that doesn't make much difference to the people starving in the death camps.
ShanghaiBill, I seldom agree with you, but now and then I find your comments to be insightful and well-considered. Nevertheless, I'm at a loss here.
You made an excellent point in another post that totalitarianism is not the same as authoritarianism. If I interpret your thesis correctly, you associate the former with communism and the latter with fascism. Fair enough. But that means they are not the same thing.
The only similarity I find is that both require (impose?) a surrender of the individual to some perceived "higher" cause -- either defined in terms of the populace (communism) or of the state (fascism). Yet there are many other differences between these two philosophies that I think makes them distinct. And to be clear, I'm not enamoured of either form of extremism.
tenants = people who rent property. Tennents = a kind of tramp juice, popular in Scotland tenets = core beliefs, fundamental principles./|\ the word you were probably looking for, thicko.
You forgot:
ten ants - a posse of insects of the Formiciae family who have been separated from their colony.
Mussolini was at one time the head of the Socialist party in Italy, and was a follower of Georges Sorel.
He was a leader in (not the head of) the Italian Socialist Party, but he was expelled when he advocated for military involvement in WWI, contrary to the Party's position of neutrality. He went on to create the National Fascist Party and advocate for totalitarian nationalism.
As for Georges Sorel -- he began as a Marxist and turned into something all his own, He abandoned socialism in 1910 and declared it was "dead" in 1914. He began to support nationalistic ideas in 1909. Oh, and he was an apologist for violence in the service of political causes.
So pointing to Mussolini and pretending he was somehow the opposite of socialist or communist is a bit bizarre.
Mussolini turned himself into the opposite of a socialist/communist. I'm not saying bad things haven't been done in the name of socialism, communism, or any other political ideology (left or right). I'm just saying Mussolini may have started as a socialist in name, but he turned into something much differet.
Fascism is what happens when socialist meets reality. Socialism is a fiction book has an imaginary race of people with no instinct for self-preservation or self-interest. Real people try to take care of themselves and their families, so fascism is required to force socialism on them.
Fascism is considered to be on the far right of the left-right political spectrum. Fascists consider socialists and marxists to be their enemies. Fascism doesn't force socialism on people. Fascism forces fascism on people.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
I think it goes back further than that. My sense is that it crept up steadily post-9/11, but spiked after Barack Obama was first elected. The target shifted from him to Hillary Clinton (his presumptive successor) over the next 8 years, with "Benghazi", "but her e-mails", and "lock her up" calls from the right-wing chorus. And it spiked yet again during the lead-up to the 2016 POTUS election, I suspect with help from Russian troll-farms.
Either good science or huge conspiracy...
Linear extrapolations 80 years into the future are never good science.
Good predictive science is about making the best extrapolations you can with the data and theory you have. Yes, you can be wrong, and you always need to be prepared for that. But that doesn't mean it isn't important to try to predict.
Science tries to explain and predict the behaviour of our universe, but it also has a duty to do the best it can to inform public policy.
Occam's Razor is a philosophical precept, not a conspiracy.
Troll harder.
You make many good points. But my one quibble with your post is that you use a false-choice fallacy.
Yes, nuclear power is a compelling option for low-CO2 sources of energy. But there are others. Solar, wind, geothermal, tides, and so on. Long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that other technologies do not face.
Let's keep an open mind. But open to other alternatives besides nuclear energy.
Either good science or huge conspiracy...
Given how difficult it is to sustain a huge conspiracy, what does Occam's Razor tell you?
Your next!
Grammar crime.
Nah, C# is a no-go. It's only useful as long as you don't care about any platforms beyond Microsoft Windows.
Oh really?
No.
Q: "How Dead Is Java?"
A: "No."
Works for me. :-/
A robot with spinning blades called Terror...
History will look back on the great Man vs. Machine War that started when lawnmowers demanded suffrage and wonder what iRobot were thinking.
This.
Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet.
He's collecting spreadsheet software.
Who cares? Ladies, he's single!!
it seems like in recent years stuff like node.js has really started to take over server development, and Javascript is slowly spreading to other realms as well.
Like what? [I'm sincerely curious.]
Also I find it perverse that node.js is taking over server development. Really? At what scale? [Again, sincerely curious.]
See my reply to penandpaper above.
The point is that Obama did not "shut down the space program altogether". He did cancel the Constellation program because, in his words, it was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation." He and other officials subsequently restored development of the Orion capsule, along with the Ares I lift stage and a Heavy Launch Vehicle stage to replace Ares V.
And if any Democrat President had offered unlimited funding to get a human mars landing in 4 years we'd be applauding the progressive actions to move technology and human progress forward.
Or have we forgotten that Obama shut down the space program altogether?
Nice troll.
TL/DR? Okay, here you go:
The Space Shuttle program was extended several times beyond its originally envisioned 15-year life span because of the delays in building the United States space station in low Earth orbit—a project which eventually evolved into the International Space Station. It was formally scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2010 in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued on January 14, 2004 in his Vision for Space Exploration.[
Nice post. But one nitpick:
Unlike the realm of sensory perception available to humans and other living organisms, this technology appears to rely upon reflection of light off of a surface facing the camera(s).
FTFY, Light refracts when it passes through a medium, not when it bounces off it.
Why is it then predominantly only the left that pushes the cataclysmic effects of climate change, while those on the right tend not to see it as a dire threat (if they acknowledge it exists)?
It's a matter of temperament with each group. At the risk of over-generalizing, leftists support progress, reform, internationalism, whereas rightists support order, tradition, and nationalism. More here.
Is it the those on the left are just so wise, and those on the right are dumb?
No and no. There are lots of dumb leftists and smart rightists. As I said, it's more an issue of temperament than intelligence.
Or is it that the left has been attaching climate change to all of their favorite other ideas, making it even less of an attractive/plausible issue to those on the right?
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one. I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
Can you make more than $50,000? Asking for a friend...
Error 501 - Not implemented - No data scientists could be found to answer that question.
Yeah, they're all too busy making more than $50,000.
Meanwhile, in civilised countries, if a budget approval isn't given, the previous authorised budget is automatically continued until such time as a new budget is approved.
In may countries (particularly those with parliaments) a failure to pass a budget is considered a vote of non-confidence, and it triggers an election. And yes, the government continues to operate with the old budget until a new one is passed, perhaps by a newly-elected government.
And votes of non-confidence are not restricted to budgets. They can be about almost anything important (like Brexit -- see UK current events). In short, the government can fall at any time, and an election ensues.
If only the USA worked like that.
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -- Will Rogers
A totalitarian justifies everything by pointing to the rulebook.
An authoritarian thinks he is the rulebook.
Fascist is not the opposite of Communist, and yet you seem to think it is.
I'm not the only one.
Just because extreme ends of the political spectrum have some similarity in their priority of their ideological interests over those of the individual does not make them identical. Opposite? Perhaps not. But not the same.
Both are totalitarian regimes, arguable of a socialist structure (yes, the NAZIs held many socialist concepts strongly, including eradication of 'oppressors')
I see that you like to define your enemies in your own terms. Whatever. Nazis are not socialists, despite what their name implies. Socialism embraces a precept of universal brotherhood. Nazis most certainly do not.
Classical Liberals/Libertarians are probably the closest to the opposite, although the terms have been stolen these days by socialists, most likely trying to play wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.
Liberals are centre-left to moderate-left. IMHO libertarians are in the moderate range on both sides, perhaps with some exceptions.
Politics is multi-dimensional, and as such, "opposite" is not a clearly-defined concept.
Communism and Fascism are not opposites. They are almost the same thing. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. The main difference between extreme left and extreme right is how they justify their policies. The left says is is for "the good of the people" while the right says it is for "the good of the country". But that doesn't make much difference to the people starving in the death camps.
ShanghaiBill, I seldom agree with you, but now and then I find your comments to be insightful and well-considered. Nevertheless, I'm at a loss here.
You made an excellent point in another post that totalitarianism is not the same as authoritarianism. If I interpret your thesis correctly, you associate the former with communism and the latter with fascism. Fair enough. But that means they are not the same thing.
The only similarity I find is that both require (impose?) a surrender of the individual to some perceived "higher" cause -- either defined in terms of the populace (communism) or of the state (fascism). Yet there are many other differences between these two philosophies that I think makes them distinct. And to be clear, I'm not enamoured of either form of extremism.
You can't sodomize a cucumber
In Soviet Russia, cucumber sodomizes you!
tenants = people who rent property. /|\ the word you were probably looking for, thicko.
Tennents = a kind of tramp juice, popular in Scotland
tenets = core beliefs, fundamental principles.
You forgot:
ten ants - a posse of insects of the Formiciae family who have been separated from their colony.
Trump is totalitarian.
No, he's authoritarian.
Mussolini was at one time the head of the Socialist party in Italy, and was a follower of Georges Sorel.
He was a leader in (not the head of) the Italian Socialist Party, but he was expelled when he advocated for military involvement in WWI, contrary to the Party's position of neutrality. He went on to create the National Fascist Party and advocate for totalitarian nationalism.
As for Georges Sorel -- he began as a Marxist and turned into something all his own, He abandoned socialism in 1910 and declared it was "dead" in 1914. He began to support nationalistic ideas in 1909. Oh, and he was an apologist for violence in the service of political causes.
So pointing to Mussolini and pretending he was somehow the opposite of socialist or communist is a bit bizarre.
Mussolini turned himself into the opposite of a socialist/communist. I'm not saying bad things haven't been done in the name of socialism, communism, or any other political ideology (left or right). I'm just saying Mussolini may have started as a socialist in name, but he turned into something much differet.
Fascism is what happens when socialist meets reality. Socialism is a fiction book has an imaginary race of people with no instinct for self-preservation or self-interest. Real people try to take care of themselves and their families, so fascism is required to force socialism on them.
Fascism is considered to be on the far right of the left-right political spectrum. Fascists consider socialists and marxists to be their enemies. Fascism doesn't force socialism on people. Fascism forces fascism on people.