Actually, it was Republicans that passed legislation that made sure the USPS fully funded its retirement pension and medical coverage plans instead of borrowing that money to cover losses.
The GOP was saving the union, not destroying it.
Read the article. No entity has ever been expected to fully fund retirement benefits 75 years in advance. Its a completely absurd requirement based on unfounded assertions about mail delivery volume causing the postal business model to go away.
CAs including Verisign actually advertise the fact that they provide "lawful intercept" services. IOW, they cooperate with the spies and I assume they don't have to give up their master keys to the NSA in order to assist with MITM attacks. CAs are in the business of intercepting our communications.
All they have to do is keep a database of bogus certs for the addresses they verify, and perform a verification against a bogus cert for particular user IPs on a surveillance list supplied by the spies. Then all the NSA has to do is get in the middle between the user and the server he is accessing.
People may think that PKI is the strong link because CAs cannot access the website's private keys. But I believe it is the weak link, because all the spies have to do is share a list of bogus 'doppleganger' private keys with CAs who then sign the certs generated them. Undermining PKI is the easy part if you have cooperation from CAs. It the physical part of MITM that is more challenging, IMHO, which may be why the NSA finds it simpler to get the private keys from high volume sites allowing them to simply record packets instead of doing the work of singling people out for MITM sessions ahead of time.
Pointing to the highwater mark of demand from the 1990s (and the disparity today) as the reason why USPS can't pay its way is disengenuous. There is no rational explanation why today's situation is worse than the 1950s or 1850s.
Republicans see another workers union that they want destroy, so they made up absurd funding requirements to force USPS to drastically reduce staff. Its not much different than Florida Republicans requiring women to present proof of every name change (e.g. marriage license) for each and every licence/ID renewal in order to reduce an unfriendly demographic's access to the voter rolls.
If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.
"The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."
-snip-
The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels – a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about.0001 parts per million per year – in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.
"Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales," Hansen said.
I think its both the rate and direction of temperature change that is so worrisome. Life on Earth today is adapted to multi-millennial oscillations between familiar "glacial cool" and "ice age" conditions, not the hothouse Earth. Even if most species could migrate much faster, its unlikely to be of much help.
Climatologists generally agree the natural trend was (relatively slowly) taking us into another ice age. I think this means the overall natural contribution to global warming is less than zero.
What is also unnatural is the rate of warming, which appears to be orders of magnitude faster than anything since the dinosaurs were wiped out (not counting smaller variations less than 2C).
As for my "very short history", I have been on Slashdot nearly since the beginning, I just change UIDs about once a year. I think the cult of small UIDs is stupid (and if I believed in it, six digit UID would be laughable).).
Well that's a cute way of admitting that you cultivate numerous personas on this site.
BTW, any reason why you spuriously drop to AC then back when you're in the middle of a conversation with someone? Maybe using those other accounts should be done with separate browsers... you know, to avoid any confusion.
Once I started looking at one big liberal issue in detail (I forget what it was), I discovered that what had been presented as scientific fact was pure ideology, and from that point, I looked at the source materials on other liberal issues as well, and they all fell apart.
Those references had scientific papers behind them, and the one you are attacking you didn't even read (which means you read none, IMO). The methods you are using to attack are rhetorical, twisting a word like "supports" (or lack of a word like "proven") into an accusation of unexamined assumptions. You also misappropriate terminology from climatology to give your rhetoric an air of credibility.
"Deniers" is a fictitious foe and straw man created by global warming activists.
Tell that to your grandchildren. Creationists are denying that term as well these days.
What makes you think that sending the Earth's temperature to a whole different geologic era in the space of 200 years will be tolerable for most life?
There is no other warming trend seen to be anywhere near this rapid. Its like the difference between stopping a car at 60mph with brakes or with a brick wall.
You were called out on this in the other thread, but you keep spewing this misinterpretation of science because you think the economy needs to be saved from environmental regulations (even within the sphere of economics, a wholly unsupported claim except in the eyes of market fundamentalists such as yourself). Your opinion sounds "scientific" much the way a creationists does; the terminology is there but the conclusion is dead wrong.
If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.
"The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."
(edit)
The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels – a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about.0001 parts per million per year – in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.
"Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales," Hansen said.
This also provides a clue as to why "climate change" is often preferred over "global warming": That change could be so rapid as to induce a great deal of chaos where some regions experience, for example, heavier and more frequent snow storms (at least transitionally).
And you missed the other studies I linked to, apparently.
Citing other studies doesn't rectify your errors in interpreting this specific study.
Actually, they do support the first study. Now, you were saying something about " We accept scientific theories only if they have stood numerous attempts at falsification"..? I know you didn't bother reading them, but they all support the idea that rapid climate change leads to high rates of extinction.
For that matter, AGW reasearch (on temperature) hasn't stated that the theory is "proven" either.
That is still one of the recognized denier tactics (the label is especially apt when arguing from a "scientific", hence "informed", viewpoint). The consensus is farther along than you will admit because you largely ignore/reject ecology.
Another way in which you are unscientific: you think of positions in terms of "deniers", "camps", and "tactics".
You were the one who pointed the finger at "global warming activists". In any case, its clear this discussion involves politics and economics in addition to science... at least, those are the parameters you invoked earlier.
What makes you think that sending the Earth's temperature to a whole different geologic era in the space of 200 years will be tolerable for most life?
There is no other warming trend seen to be anywhere near this rapid. Its like the difference between stopping a car at 60mph with brakes or with a brick wall.
You were called out on this in the other thread, but you keep spewing this misinterpretation of science because you think the economy needs to be saved from environmental regulations (even within the sphere of economics, a wholly unsupported claim except in the eyes of market fundamentalists such as yourself). Your opinion sounds "scientific" much the way a creationists does; the terminology is there but the conclusion is dead wrong.
If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.
"The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."
(edit)
The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels – a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about.0001 parts per million per year – in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.
"Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales," Hansen said.
This also provides a clue as to why "climate change" is often preferred over "global warming": That change could be so rapid as to induce a great deal of chaos where some regions experience, for example, heavier and more frequent snow storms (at least transitionally).
And you missed the other studies I linked to, apparently.
I "deny" that there is sufficient evidence or agreement for negative consequences to warrant political and economic intervention.
That is still one of the recognized denier tactics (the label is especially apt when arguing from a "scientific", hence "informed", viewpoint). The consensus is farther along than you will admit because you largely ignore/reject ecology.
It is your camp of buffoons that must prove the economic status quo is more deserving of the Precautionary Principle (of uncertain or unintended consequences) than is the entire web of life.
The relevant phrase here isn't "caveats", the relevant phrase is "suggests". I'm sorry, but you're obviously too scientifically illiterate to even discuss this any further.
You should take a look in the mirror when making that accusation. A great many (if not most) scientific papers use just that term to claim that the data supports their theory.
Trolling for the denier position that complete certainty is required before an idea can be considered credible... That is not how science works, and I think its telling how you're been arguing here without references.
The phrasing "despite many caveats, our results suggest" doesn't mean "we have shown...", it means "if we make a whole bunch of other unsupported assumptions, maybe...".
Well that's an interesting interpretation, from a person who confuses inter-glacial temperature change over many millennia with a similar number of degrees toward a global hothouse over a few hundred years.
'Caveats' likely means possibly-mitigating factors that they considered but which didn't negate their hypothesis. I have never seen the term "caveats" used to mean "unsupported assumptions" in a scientific paper (that would be setting themselves up for quick dismissal, which is no way to get published) especially when the word is bracketed by "our results are striking" and an evolutionary shortfall x 10,000 when even a factor of 2 or 20 would be considered worrisome.
In fact, they discuss the caveats in the appendices.
Normally, it would be kind of weird to debate this study and encounter dismissals like those you've set out. 'Didn't take migration into account'-- Really?? The paper is based on data about species that reach back into the geologic past. And I never expected to see a disclaimer along the lines of 'We narrowed our examination to species known for their immobility'. IOW, over time those creatures moved however they could to try to adapt.
However, in this case its not weird when you clearly didn't consider the study in good faith and instead attacked it with whatever cheap shots came to mind. No doubt its a familiar attitude to just about anyone reading this, the compulsion to misuse good diction to try to reframe an issue in accordance with market fundamentalism (which, embarrassingly enough, seems married to religious fundamentalism once again... both traditions devoted as they are to producing 'teaming masses').
Ah, the classic left wing approach to trying to paint economics as good-people-vs-bad-corporations. This isn't about "allowing industry" to do anything, it's about not destroying the global economy, the economy that we need to grow in order to be able to make the changes that we need to make in order to reduce population growth and carbon emissions.
Throwing what you get from people back at them (sans data) in reverse is not considered clever anymore. Empty homilies laden with unsupported assumptions (economics>ecology, regulation destroys the economy, etc.) are also unconstructive. Try some humility next time you have the urge to paint an opposing viewpoint as "stupid and unscientific", because the 'more CO2 = good' line you were towing is in fact an Exxon / Koch funded talking point modeled on the "smoking is healthy" propaganda the tobacco industry tried to put across-- you've fallen for their rank denialism.
You didn't read/comprehend the article, and you have no concrete data to support your position.
In any case, we do have new technologies to deal with the problem but any expectations they (would have to) fit comfortably into the old industrial-consumer framework is misguided.
what can stop carbon emissions and population growth is technological and economic advances, precisely the things that the economic interventions proposed by global warming activists threaten.
Ah, the old 'allow industry to keep doing its thing because environmentalists are the real problem' spiel; A brilliant twist on denialism.
"Many vertebrate species would have to evolve about 10,000 times faster than they have in the past to adapt to the rapid climate change expected in the next 100 years, a study led by a University of Arizona ecologist has found."
The rate of change we are facing could put more than half of all species in danger of extinction. And because this rate of change is so unnaturally fast (unprecedented), this assessment is more than likely "conservative" (i.e. erring on the side of irresponsibility so as not to appear "alarmist"). You may want to read Prof. Peter Ward's book on greenhouse extinction events, "Under A Green Sky".
Incidentally, the Great Dying wiped out about 90% of all life (by biomass). What TFA indicates is that the alternative theory that the event was driven by a change in the ocean is probably untrue; The extinction event was probably driven by the release of greenhouse gasses which had the side effect of changing most of the ocean chemistry.
Thanks, that looks interesting. And you're absolutely right about CA Roulette, though using I2P addresses that issue because every I2P address is a verifiable identity.
Comparing the Eocene with modern AGW is like comparing parking your car at the mall with crashing your car into a tree: They both involved trips where the car reduced its speed from 60 to 0 MPH.
Or at least the sort of computer design that deliberately walked away from having security built into all levels.
With that said, the Web acquired some customs that are hostile to security: Routine execution of automatically retrieved code, coding pages as composites from many third party sites, and the ad industry's negligent attitude toward malware are a few.
Also, neither PC nor Web architecture attempted to make certificates and keys into palpable first-class entities that users could more easily understand and manipulate, so the potential for verification and privacy were not realized.
Right now, some of the best stopgaps against this miserable history are projects like Qubes, Tor and I2P. Qubes lets me handle each thing I do in separate hardware-and-GUI enforced domains. Tor enables privacy for web and is familiar to many people. I2P gives me more than web connectivity, and the expectation that sites I connect to won't need Javascript (hardly ever) and is more future-proof than Tor.
If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?
Here is the thing: The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible alternative version to the Martin side of the story (which sadly he never got to tell). If there is a plausible alternate explanation that means there is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what is needed to acquit. Zimmerman never had to prove his story to force the jury to acquit, he only had to make it a plausibe explanation. Reasonable doubt it is.
I disagree with your interpretation. If anything here is moronic, it is an insistence that Zimmerman's right to presumption of innocence be taken to absolutist heights of absurdity, while Martin's right to life is treated in such relativist terms (barely even reaching the level of subtext). Once the shooting by Zimmerman becomes established as a fact, Zimmerman's rights must be weighed against Martin's, IOW the 'bar' of doubt for Zimmerman changes and his responsiblity toward Martin's right to life becomes a factor.
Otherwise, we would have to conclude that courts can cherrypick when the different rights of people come into conflict.
As for Martin's level of responsibility? He was a minor without weapons minding his own business, being stalked by car and on foot by a strange man at night. If he did attack Zimmerman and had lived, his sentence would have been what...
The death penalty??
On the planet where I grew up, guys get into brawls. Sometimes they are charged with assault or aggrivated assault. In no case was it assumed that a participant forfeit his life because of it.
I think he is automatically disregarding undemocratic countries, which is something I would do as well. After all, a socialist dictatorship is hard to distinguish from any other dictatorship, even a capitalist one... then its simply a matter of using different economic labels for the same things.
As for corruption in the US, it has mostly been legalized though I'd guess there may be some way of measuring corruption objectively based on some form of "best practices" for business and government. In such a case, I doubt the rest of the world could quite compete with the sums involved in US corruption.
However, it is nice of you to merely look down on other countries as misguided when so many US apologists are defending an ever-growing list of invasions. Its so much more civilized.
Slashdot Mirror
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2011/09/anti-evil-maid.html
Actually, it was Republicans that passed legislation that made sure the USPS fully funded its retirement pension and medical coverage plans instead of borrowing that money to cover losses.
The GOP was saving the union, not destroying it.
Read the article. No entity has ever been expected to fully fund retirement benefits 75 years in advance. Its a completely absurd requirement based on unfounded assertions about mail delivery volume causing the postal business model to go away.
CAs including Verisign actually advertise the fact that they provide "lawful intercept" services. IOW, they cooperate with the spies and I assume they don't have to give up their master keys to the NSA in order to assist with MITM attacks. CAs are in the business of intercepting our communications.
All they have to do is keep a database of bogus certs for the addresses they verify, and perform a verification against a bogus cert for particular user IPs on a surveillance list supplied by the spies. Then all the NSA has to do is get in the middle between the user and the server he is accessing.
People may think that PKI is the strong link because CAs cannot access the website's private keys. But I believe it is the weak link, because all the spies have to do is share a list of bogus 'doppleganger' private keys with CAs who then sign the certs generated them. Undermining PKI is the easy part if you have cooperation from CAs. It the physical part of MITM that is more challenging, IMHO, which may be why the NSA finds it simpler to get the private keys from high volume sites allowing them to simply record packets instead of doing the work of singling people out for MITM sessions ahead of time.
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2011/09/anti-evil-maid.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/
Pointing to the highwater mark of demand from the 1990s (and the disparity today) as the reason why USPS can't pay its way is disengenuous. There is no rational explanation why today's situation is worse than the 1950s or 1850s.
Republicans see another workers union that they want destroy, so they made up absurd funding requirements to force USPS to drastically reduce staff. Its not much different than Florida Republicans requiring women to present proof of every name change (e.g. marriage license) for each and every licence/ID renewal in order to reduce an unfriendly demographic's access to the voter rolls.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/rapid-change-feature.html
If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.
"The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."
-snip-
The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels – a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about .0001 parts per million per year – in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.
"Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales," Hansen said.
I think its both the rate and direction of temperature change that is so worrisome. Life on Earth today is adapted to multi-millennial oscillations between familiar "glacial cool" and "ice age" conditions, not the hothouse Earth. Even if most species could migrate much faster, its unlikely to be of much help.
Climatologists generally agree the natural trend was (relatively slowly) taking us into another ice age. I think this means the overall natural contribution to global warming is less than zero.
What is also unnatural is the rate of warming, which appears to be orders of magnitude faster than anything since the dinosaurs were wiped out (not counting smaller variations less than 2C).
As for my "very short history", I have been on Slashdot nearly since the beginning, I just change UIDs about once a year. I think the cult of small UIDs is stupid (and if I believed in it, six digit UID would be laughable).).
Well that's a cute way of admitting that you cultivate numerous personas on this site.
BTW, any reason why you spuriously drop to AC then back when you're in the middle of a conversation with someone? Maybe using those other accounts should be done with separate browsers... you know, to avoid any confusion.
Once I started looking at one big liberal issue in detail (I forget what it was), I discovered that what had been presented as scientific fact was pure ideology, and from that point, I looked at the source materials on other liberal issues as well, and they all fell apart.
Of course they did. I'm having this one framed!
Those references had scientific papers behind them, and the one you are attacking you didn't even read (which means you read none, IMO). The methods you are using to attack are rhetorical, twisting a word like "supports" (or lack of a word like "proven") into an accusation of unexamined assumptions. You also misappropriate terminology from climatology to give your rhetoric an air of credibility.
Tell that to your grandchildren. Creationists are denying that term as well these days.
What makes you think that sending the Earth's temperature to a whole different geologic era in the space of 200 years will be tolerable for most life?
There is no other warming trend seen to be anywhere near this rapid. Its like the difference between stopping a car at 60mph with brakes or with a brick wall.
You were called out on this in the other thread, but you keep spewing this misinterpretation of science because you think the economy needs to be saved from environmental regulations (even within the sphere of economics, a wholly unsupported claim except in the eyes of market fundamentalists such as yourself). Your opinion sounds "scientific" much the way a creationists does; the terminology is there but the conclusion is dead wrong.
Here is a far more considered assessment: Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes
This also provides a clue as to why "climate change" is often preferred over "global warming": That change could be so rapid as to induce a great deal of chaos where some regions experience, for example, heavier and more frequent snow storms (at least transitionally).
Actually, they do support the first study. Now, you were saying something about " We accept scientific theories only if they have stood numerous attempts at falsification"..? I know you didn't bother reading them, but they all support the idea that rapid climate change leads to high rates of extinction.
For that matter, AGW reasearch (on temperature) hasn't stated that the theory is "proven" either.
You were the one who pointed the finger at "global warming activists". In any case, its clear this discussion involves politics and economics in addition to science... at least, those are the parameters you invoked earlier.
What makes you think that sending the Earth's temperature to a whole different geologic era in the space of 200 years will be tolerable for most life?
There is no other warming trend seen to be anywhere near this rapid. Its like the difference between stopping a car at 60mph with brakes or with a brick wall.
You were called out on this in the other thread, but you keep spewing this misinterpretation of science because you think the economy needs to be saved from environmental regulations (even within the sphere of economics, a wholly unsupported claim except in the eyes of market fundamentalists such as yourself). Your opinion sounds "scientific" much the way a creationists does; the terminology is there but the conclusion is dead wrong.
Here is a far more considered assessment: Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes
This also provides a clue as to why "climate change" is often preferred over "global warming": That change could be so rapid as to induce a great deal of chaos where some regions experience, for example, heavier and more frequent snow storms (at least transitionally).
And you missed the other studies I linked to, apparently.
That is still one of the recognized denier tactics (the label is especially apt when arguing from a "scientific", hence "informed", viewpoint). The consensus is farther along than you will admit because you largely ignore/reject ecology.
It is your camp of buffoons that must prove the economic status quo is more deserving of the Precautionary Principle (of uncertain or unintended consequences) than is the entire web of life.
The relevant phrase here isn't "caveats", the relevant phrase is "suggests". I'm sorry, but you're obviously too scientifically illiterate to even discuss this any further.
You should take a look in the mirror when making that accusation. A great many (if not most) scientific papers use just that term to claim that the data supports their theory.
Trolling for the denier position that complete certainty is required before an idea can be considered credible... That is not how science works, and I think its telling how you're been arguing here without references.
Built-in feature using hardware-hardened (VTx and IOMMU) disposable virtual machines. Process is described here: http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2013/02/converting-untrusted-pdfs-into-trusted.html
This is a built-in feature available to Qubes virtual machines (in fact, it uses a separarte disposable VM specifically to sanitize PDFs).
Well that's an interesting interpretation, from a person who confuses inter-glacial temperature change over many millennia with a similar number of degrees toward a global hothouse over a few hundred years.
'Caveats' likely means possibly-mitigating factors that they considered but which didn't negate their hypothesis. I have never seen the term "caveats" used to mean "unsupported assumptions" in a scientific paper (that would be setting themselves up for quick dismissal, which is no way to get published) especially when the word is bracketed by "our results are striking" and an evolutionary shortfall x 10,000 when even a factor of 2 or 20 would be considered worrisome.
In fact, they discuss the caveats in the appendices.
Normally, it would be kind of weird to debate this study and encounter dismissals like those you've set out. 'Didn't take migration into account'-- Really?? The paper is based on data about species that reach back into the geologic past. And I never expected to see a disclaimer along the lines of 'We narrowed our examination to species known for their immobility'. IOW, over time those creatures moved however they could to try to adapt.
However, in this case its not weird when you clearly didn't consider the study in good faith and instead attacked it with whatever cheap shots came to mind. No doubt its a familiar attitude to just about anyone reading this, the compulsion to misuse good diction to try to reframe an issue in accordance with market fundamentalism (which, embarrassingly enough, seems married to religious fundamentalism once again... both traditions devoted as they are to producing 'teaming masses').
As for the trend in scientific outlook, here is a sample:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0106/Climate-change-models-flawed-extinction-rate-likely-higher-than-predicted
http://www.livescience.com/16307-climate-path-migration-amphibian.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1876.html
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
Throwing what you get from people back at them (sans data) in reverse is not considered clever anymore. Empty homilies laden with unsupported assumptions (economics>ecology, regulation destroys the economy, etc.) are also unconstructive. Try some humility next time you have the urge to paint an opposing viewpoint as "stupid and unscientific", because the 'more CO2 = good' line you were towing is in fact an Exxon / Koch funded talking point modeled on the "smoking is healthy" propaganda the tobacco industry tried to put across-- you've fallen for their rank denialism.
You didn't read/comprehend the article, and you have no concrete data to support your position.
In any case, we do have new technologies to deal with the problem but any expectations they (would have to) fit comfortably into the old industrial-consumer framework is misguided.
Ah, the old 'allow industry to keep doing its thing because environmentalists are the real problem' spiel; A brilliant twist on denialism.
https://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php
This is the anti-tracking extension that does NOT have a partnership with the ad industry.
"Many vertebrate species would have to evolve about 10,000 times faster than they have in the past to adapt to the rapid climate change expected in the next 100 years, a study led by a University of Arizona ecologist has found."
The rate of change we are facing could put more than half of all species in danger of extinction. And because this rate of change is so unnaturally fast (unprecedented), this assessment is more than likely "conservative" (i.e. erring on the side of irresponsibility so as not to appear "alarmist"). You may want to read Prof. Peter Ward's book on greenhouse extinction events, "Under A Green Sky".
Incidentally, the Great Dying wiped out about 90% of all life (by biomass). What TFA indicates is that the alternative theory that the event was driven by a change in the ocean is probably untrue; The extinction event was probably driven by the release of greenhouse gasses which had the side effect of changing most of the ocean chemistry.
Thanks, that looks interesting. And you're absolutely right about CA Roulette, though using I2P addresses that issue because every I2P address is a verifiable identity.
Comparing the Eocene with modern AGW is like comparing parking your car at the mall with crashing your car into a tree: They both involved trips where the car reduced its speed from 60 to 0 MPH.
Or at least the sort of computer design that deliberately walked away from having security built into all levels.
With that said, the Web acquired some customs that are hostile to security: Routine execution of automatically retrieved code, coding pages as composites from many third party sites, and the ad industry's negligent attitude toward malware are a few.
Also, neither PC nor Web architecture attempted to make certificates and keys into palpable first-class entities that users could more easily understand and manipulate, so the potential for verification and privacy were not realized.
Right now, some of the best stopgaps against this miserable history are projects like Qubes, Tor and I2P. Qubes lets me handle each thing I do in separate hardware-and-GUI enforced domains. Tor enables privacy for web and is familiar to many people. I2P gives me more than web connectivity, and the expectation that sites I connect to won't need Javascript (hardly ever) and is more future-proof than Tor.
If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?
Here is the thing: The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible alternative version to the Martin side of the story (which sadly he never got to tell). If there is a plausible alternate explanation that means there is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what is needed to acquit. Zimmerman never had to prove his story to force the jury to acquit, he only had to make it a plausibe explanation. Reasonable doubt it is.
I disagree with your interpretation. If anything here is moronic, it is an insistence that Zimmerman's right to presumption of innocence be taken to absolutist heights of absurdity, while Martin's right to life is treated in such relativist terms (barely even reaching the level of subtext). Once the shooting by Zimmerman becomes established as a fact, Zimmerman's rights must be weighed against Martin's, IOW the 'bar' of doubt for Zimmerman changes and his responsiblity toward Martin's right to life becomes a factor.
Otherwise, we would have to conclude that courts can cherrypick when the different rights of people come into conflict.
As for Martin's level of responsibility? He was a minor without weapons minding his own business, being stalked by car and on foot by a strange man at night. If he did attack Zimmerman and had lived, his sentence would have been what...
The death penalty??
On the planet where I grew up, guys get into brawls. Sometimes they are charged with assault or aggrivated assault. In no case was it assumed that a participant forfeit his life because of it.
I think he is automatically disregarding undemocratic countries, which is something I would do as well. After all, a socialist dictatorship is hard to distinguish from any other dictatorship, even a capitalist one... then its simply a matter of using different economic labels for the same things.
As for corruption in the US, it has mostly been legalized though I'd guess there may be some way of measuring corruption objectively based on some form of "best practices" for business and government. In such a case, I doubt the rest of the world could quite compete with the sums involved in US corruption.
However, it is nice of you to merely look down on other countries as misguided when so many US apologists are defending an ever-growing list of invasions. Its so much more civilized.