Why on earth would you require that a problem must have been demonstrated in the past before you address it? What if it's a new problem? Or do you not believe it's possible for humanity to face a new problem?
Why wait for an affordable electric car? There are affordable electric cars already. Mine costs me £150 per month, all-in (purchase costs plus electricity plus running costs, which are minimal).
That is spot on. And there was no need, incidentally. McKinsey has produced a bunch of cost-curves for various types of actions to reduce carbon intensity. There was plenty in there for conservative politicians to promote, had they so wished.
Where is your evidence that groups of people are more often wrong than not? That's simply a fact-free assertion. It also implies we are unable to achieve things in groups because we're likely to get it wrong, and thus we should only do things as individuals. But most of what we do in the world is too complex for any single individual to do, and while groups can succumb to groupthink, individuals can't get an outsider's perspective to check their thinking.
The whole frigging point of Tesla's approach is to generate the next level of scale to drive down costs. Rather than do bespoke installations for a few hundred clients, they're looking to do tens to hundreds of thousands for lots of customers. That means anticipating and solving every problem you care to dream up and throw at this: complexity vs redundancy, damage, fire, expense, poor quality installations, installation time, etc etc. Everything. They are obviously going to share only a tiny fraction of their approach in public, because that is invaluable IP they're developing. But you're being very naive if you think you've come up with a question they've not considered and where necessary addressed.
Oooh, do tell us about this special world in which margin is evaluable as a free-floating number, without reference to either company growth stage or industry sector.
Are you being intentionally dim? The poster was pointing out that planting rainforests is a compensatory act, because other people are chopping rainforests down.
You go right ahead convincing yourself that Trump is as pure as the driven snow and Clinton is the devil incarnate*. It's a sure sign of precisely how well your critical faculties are working.
* I remain astounded by the fact that we are in 2016 and there are actual human beings who believe it is literally true that Clinton is the devil incarnate.
That's a pretty impressive rock you live under, my friend. Trump tweets on this subject include: "Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!"
Look, sometimes the chain of causality is lengthy and inconclusive, and sometimes it's short and obvious unless you're being wilfully blind. Examples of the latter include shouting fire in a crowded theatre, shouting "kill him" to a friend who's aiming a gun at another person's head, etc. And in many legal jurisdictions, it includes shouting "death to the Jews" or what have you -- hate speech.
And of course, this article isn't about a government seeking to restrain speech. It's about a cartoonist using a symbol he created in the way he wants to, against a backdrop of people using it in ways he doesn't approve of. So I can't really see what the problem is here. In fact, I can't see how those who purport to defend free speech in the absolutist way you have done would have a problem with him using the symbol any damn way he wants to.
Really not sure why you think this contradicts what I was saying. I was referring to the blithering idiot who doesn't understand why a consumer boycott is a completely different thing from a firebombing.
Thank god for Slashdotters with brains. I remember when the mark of a nerd was they read decent hard SF books by people like Robert Heinlein. They started with the juvies and learned about the importance of freedom of speech, and of association, and the difference between what people choose to do and what governments do. They learned nuance and thought about governance as well as learning science. I miss all that.
I made no such concession. But then it's pretty clear that reading comprehension is just one of the many, many challenges you have to deal with, day to day. A really awful ability to make wisecracks would be another ("shit"y?? did you really think that was good enough to put out there in public? it's a lamentable effort, although I'm not sure you're that big on lamenting)
Anyhoo, you enjoy your special snowflake world in which right wing voices are cruelly suppressed, and the Donald gets no favourable coverage like interviewers affably ruffling his hair and the MSM includes the NY Times but excludes the NY Post etc etc. Nursing grievances that don't exist is certainly a skill you like to practise, in common with the Trumpmeister and indeed your beloved Anne, and I can only hope it scratches some kind of psychological itch for you.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the world's tiniest violin playing a song of sympathy for you.
You complained about TV, press and the radio. So I showed you a list of conservative media outlets which included many newspapers and radio stations. I didn't attempt to show there were even numbers; I pointed out that the typical American has many choices of outlet if they wish to listen to conservative news and opinion. And the bestiest news of all for you is that Fox News, that lone doughty fighter for the Right on TV, has many more viewers than its nearest cable news rival: http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...
So don't worry, neither you nor anyone else who wants right wing perspectives is going to have any trouble hearing them any time soon.
Hey, I tell you what, I've just had a brilliant idea!! Instead of moaning about there not being enough right wing TV stations, why don't you go ahead and get together with all your very best friends, and set one up? You could pour all your energies into that, and we can all get behind you and give you a really big cheer for your services to the First Amendment. Your mom will be so proud. We all will.
Not a lot in terms of Trump? Wow, you are really firmly in the bubble, aren't you?
To refresh your memory, over the course of 40 years, corruption allegations against Trump have ranged from "mafia ties to unscrupulous business dealings, and from racial discrimination to alleged marital rape"
But but but MSM, terrible conspiracy against poor ickle defenceless Donald, etc etc. I know you won't believe any part of it. That's part of the hilariousness of it all.
I think Trump is in two minds about this, as he is about virtually everything. There's part of him that thinks as you describe, and then there's another part that says "I'm a winner! I never lose! I am the best thing ever!!" -- that side is really not enjoying the prospect of losing.
It's really weird to see how some Sanders supporters are still expressing their sour grapes when their preferred candidate has asked them to get over it. WTF is the point of saying "we want Bernie as leader" if you won't actually follow his lead?
Slashdot Mirror
Why on earth would you require that a problem must have been demonstrated in the past before you address it? What if it's a new problem? Or do you not believe it's possible for humanity to face a new problem?
Why wait for an affordable electric car? There are affordable electric cars already. Mine costs me £150 per month, all-in (purchase costs plus electricity plus running costs, which are minimal).
No need. Birth rates are dropping fast in almost all countries, as rates of female participation in education increase. See Hans Rosling on this
You think collapse has never happened? You've not being paying attention. Jared Diamond even wrote a book with that very title.
That is spot on. And there was no need, incidentally. McKinsey has produced a bunch of cost-curves for various types of actions to reduce carbon intensity. There was plenty in there for conservative politicians to promote, had they so wished.
http://www.mckinsey.com/busine...
If you're going to attempt wit, at least spell it correctly. Indisputable, not undisputable, you pillock.
Where is your evidence that groups of people are more often wrong than not? That's simply a fact-free assertion. It also implies we are unable to achieve things in groups because we're likely to get it wrong, and thus we should only do things as individuals. But most of what we do in the world is too complex for any single individual to do, and while groups can succumb to groupthink, individuals can't get an outsider's perspective to check their thinking.
The whole frigging point of Tesla's approach is to generate the next level of scale to drive down costs. Rather than do bespoke installations for a few hundred clients, they're looking to do tens to hundreds of thousands for lots of customers. That means anticipating and solving every problem you care to dream up and throw at this: complexity vs redundancy, damage, fire, expense, poor quality installations, installation time, etc etc. Everything. They are obviously going to share only a tiny fraction of their approach in public, because that is invaluable IP they're developing. But you're being very naive if you think you've come up with a question they've not considered and where necessary addressed.
Oooh, do tell us about this special world in which margin is evaluable as a free-floating number, without reference to either company growth stage or industry sector.
Are you being intentionally dim? The poster was pointing out that planting rainforests is a compensatory act, because other people are chopping rainforests down.
A cancer society above all would understand that T2 errors happen...
No harm, no foul...
All very fascinating, but what the fuck does that have to do with what I was responding to?
The poster said: Trump hasn't alleged X
I reply: Yes he has
You say: Aha! He was right to allege X
You go right ahead convincing yourself that Trump is as pure as the driven snow and Clinton is the devil incarnate*. It's a sure sign of precisely how well your critical faculties are working.
* I remain astounded by the fact that we are in 2016 and there are actual human beings who believe it is literally true that Clinton is the devil incarnate.
"afaik Trump hasn't gone there"
That's a pretty impressive rock you live under, my friend. Trump tweets on this subject include: "Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!"
Look, sometimes the chain of causality is lengthy and inconclusive, and sometimes it's short and obvious unless you're being wilfully blind. Examples of the latter include shouting fire in a crowded theatre, shouting "kill him" to a friend who's aiming a gun at another person's head, etc. And in many legal jurisdictions, it includes shouting "death to the Jews" or what have you -- hate speech.
And of course, this article isn't about a government seeking to restrain speech. It's about a cartoonist using a symbol he created in the way he wants to, against a backdrop of people using it in ways he doesn't approve of. So I can't really see what the problem is here. In fact, I can't see how those who purport to defend free speech in the absolutist way you have done would have a problem with him using the symbol any damn way he wants to.
Really not sure why you think this contradicts what I was saying. I was referring to the blithering idiot who doesn't understand why a consumer boycott is a completely different thing from a firebombing.
Thank god for Slashdotters with brains. I remember when the mark of a nerd was they read decent hard SF books by people like Robert Heinlein. They started with the juvies and learned about the importance of freedom of speech, and of association, and the difference between what people choose to do and what governments do. They learned nuance and thought about governance as well as learning science. I miss all that.
I made no such concession. But then it's pretty clear that reading comprehension is just one of the many, many challenges you have to deal with, day to day. A really awful ability to make wisecracks would be another ("shit"y?? did you really think that was good enough to put out there in public? it's a lamentable effort, although I'm not sure you're that big on lamenting)
Anyhoo, you enjoy your special snowflake world in which right wing voices are cruelly suppressed, and the Donald gets no favourable coverage like interviewers affably ruffling his hair and the MSM includes the NY Times but excludes the NY Post etc etc. Nursing grievances that don't exist is certainly a skill you like to practise, in common with the Trumpmeister and indeed your beloved Anne, and I can only hope it scratches some kind of psychological itch for you.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the world's tiniest violin playing a song of sympathy for you.
You complained about TV, press and the radio. So I showed you a list of conservative media outlets which included many newspapers and radio stations. I didn't attempt to show there were even numbers; I pointed out that the typical American has many choices of outlet if they wish to listen to conservative news and opinion. And the bestiest news of all for you is that Fox News, that lone doughty fighter for the Right on TV, has many more viewers than its nearest cable news rival:
http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...
So don't worry, neither you nor anyone else who wants right wing perspectives is going to have any trouble hearing them any time soon.
Hey, I tell you what, I've just had a brilliant idea!! Instead of moaning about there not being enough right wing TV stations, why don't you go ahead and get together with all your very best friends, and set one up? You could pour all your energies into that, and we can all get behind you and give you a really big cheer for your services to the First Amendment. Your mom will be so proud. We all will.
You do know that "stolen" and "fair and balanced" are not synonyms, right?
Not a lot in terms of Trump? Wow, you are really firmly in the bubble, aren't you?
To refresh your memory, over the course of 40 years, corruption allegations against Trump have ranged from "mafia ties to unscrupulous business dealings, and from racial discrimination to alleged marital rape"
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
But but but MSM, terrible conspiracy against poor ickle defenceless Donald, etc etc. I know you won't believe any part of it. That's part of the hilariousness of it all.
I think Trump is in two minds about this, as he is about virtually everything. There's part of him that thinks as you describe, and then there's another part that says "I'm a winner! I never lose! I am the best thing ever!!" -- that side is really not enjoying the prospect of losing.
Ahem:
http://www.conservapedia.com/C...
There's quite a long list there.
It may be time to stop feeling quite so put upon.
It's really weird to see how some Sanders supporters are still expressing their sour grapes when their preferred candidate has asked them to get over it. WTF is the point of saying "we want Bernie as leader" if you won't actually follow his lead?