Wait, what strawman are you referring to? I didn't mean to suggest that facebook gave us the internet either, I'm just saying glass-steagall repeal didn't do much for us, that superbanks aren't really helping much.
Straw man argument. No one said that banks are useless, just that "bankers" (in the wall street sense) contribute less to society (in the "where most people live" sense) than one would expect, given how much they are paid.
It's not like repealing glass-steagall gave us the internet, smart phones, and a cure for cancer. All that I can see it did was continue a feedback loop whereby the super-rich get richer, get more power, and change the laws to make themselves richer at our expense.
Credit unions serve the purpose you mention, yet they don't at the moment leech off society like chase does. We could do away with the too-big-to-fail entities, and it wouldn't hurt you or me too much. Well, in theory, anyway, I'm sure the extraction process in reality would leave something worse, be it through reform in the current political climate or violent revolution.
It's supposed to be used to find people who are willing to have sex with you: if you're on slashdot and it shows you people, you are indeed using it wrong.
Nope, I've just becoming more and more suspicious that Global Warming isn't science at all. It looks more to me these days like religion. It's got its apocalypse, its satans, its prophets and saviors.
Please realize that "global warming" is not a single entity. There are many climate scientists. Some are given to hysterics, others are very conservative in their estimates. They don't speak with a single voice any more than (some group of people you like) are all idiots because (an idiot in that group) is an idiot and says (idiotic thing they say).
And it seems to be based on an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which I'm pretty sure isn't a part of any empirical "science" that I've ever been taught.
It is falsifiable. We're doing the experiment now. It's dumb to be DOING the experiment when we only have one climate is the point. There are many sub-hypotheses that are validated as well. CO2 absorbs heat, coal plants and cars put out a lot of CO2, the amount of CO2 has increased and is continuing to increase, and changes to the system have negative consequences in the short term for anything dependent on them, like people. These are all falsifiable hypotheses that have been extensively tested.
The situation is a bit like evolution. The theists who oppose the large theory ignore the tested hypotheses or at best come up with hand waving to explain them away. Then they say there's no evidence for the grand theory, and declare it to be religion, not science, because it doesn't work exactly like textbook scientific theory as it is explained in grade school. They resort to ad-homenim attacks on the scientists. They focus most of their efforts on going around the science though, which is telling.
Your point is what, we deserve it? I'd argue that it IS quite possible to escape the consequences: the individuals who did the most to push us to climate change will be dead before the really bad effects happen, or are at least rich enough to make the consequences minor.
If you're talking about on a species level, well, maybe, but I see little point in such a perspective.
Assume no. Proceed as if the announcement was made that things are going to get worse. E-mail the FCC, e-mail your congressperson. We should believe that this is merely PR to get us to calm down, then do nothing. Wheeler was a lobbyist for the people he's regulating. That doesn't prove he's corrupt and is doing this to screw us over, but I'd bet good money if I had it that he's corrupt and is doing this to screw us over.
Just to play devil's advocate, households have more flexibility with water consumption, have more money they can spend on water, and there's also a too-big-to-fail issue. If my water bill doubles, I can use less water. It will be fucking annoying, but I can. Farms probably can't do as much to decrease their water consumption. Given how much subsidizing farms already get, I doubt much of an increase in water bills would be needed before either the farm fails or you end up increasing subsidies by that same amount which again would come out of households.
Letting farms fail as subject to the free market is not going to happen, and that's probably a really good thing.
Wait, you're suggesting that numbers dumb down political discussions? Did you actually just use "nerd numbers" as a negative in slashdot of all places? Did you just say that arguments that are wrong are better than arguments with numbers?
I suppose if you like your politics like you like your wrestling, that's reasonable. I find though that the Dunning–Kruger effect is what you get when you discard things like numbers and facts. "MY political alignment is the CORRECT one, and I know this because I don't need to rely on silly graphs or math!"
I think I get your point, which is that there's ample reasons to be opposed to Obama without getting into numbers and economic graphs, but lets not actively argue FOR simplistic arguments.
I realize that steam offends many in the church of absolutely no DRM, FOSS only, but if you don't hate steam en face, then play "The Stanley Parable." While short, it is brilliant.
I recommend playing it without reading anything more about it. I realize "some guy on the internet said I should play it" isn't very credible, but that's what I'm saying on the internet anyway.
TFA mentions that animal factories aren't very efficient compared to plants. Think of the energy pyramid of the food chain: taking energy from the sun and putting it into food directly is more efficient than channeling it through plants to chickens to eggs. For another, there's health issues: free range egg farming isn't very efficient, keeping them penned up and close to each other increases the likelihood of diseases spreading, ruining the efficiency.
So while they are somewhat cheap, they could be MUCH cheaper. Given that food is a necessity, this guy could really clean up. Bad news for egg farmers if he does, but there will probably be enough FUD about artificial eggs to keep them employed for a long time.
Off topic, but I'd reverse that example to make it more convincing to more people. "You won't be able to use bing, you'll have to use google!" = blank stare. "You won't be able to use google, you'll have to use Bing!" = hulk mode.
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. Yes, they were doing it too. No, that doesn't make the US doing it any better and no, that doesn't mean it would be good for her to drop it.
It's good to keep in mind, lest germany tries to become a tech hub based on the premise that they won't spy like the NSA, but until then, let her help us keep the spotlight on the NSA.
You ask that as if ANYONE has any idea what is in the TOS. I assume it's standard TOS stuff like you won't sue us for any reason ever, we own you and can do whatever we want, you own nothing, you pledge your soul to serve in our undead army against God in the end days... That probably covers these searches.
With any conspiracy theory, there's ample room for people to ask questions, and parts that don't on first look seem to support the explanation. The bigger the thing being explained, the more details people bring up that seem inconsistent. 9/11, Obama's citizenship, HIV, the moon landing... people spend enough time looking into something convinced that there's a conspiracy going on, eventually they find facts which make it sound convincing. They're motivated, often unconsciously, for attention.
A good number of Americans think we need to give up rights to fight cultists with box-cutters and pipe bombs, rights we didn't need to give up in the face of real national security threats. But I don't think that's the whole story here. The cold war was going on, our enemies ACTUALLY had real weapons worth considering, Nixon resigned.
I suspect one issue is the economy, and the other is a changing media. Democracies can't really function when too many people are too financially stressed, it fits that people wouldn't take threats to the freedom of the press as seriously if they're worried about losing the house. Most of the people with brains or who care have stopped watching cable news and newspapers are dying, so the audiences for the media are dumber and more easily controlled.
I'm not as convinced as many people are that the sky is falling, so I suspect the economy will eventually improve. I also suspect that when the change in media matures, perhaps when kids who now get their news online start being less apathetic, and when the fox news crowd dies, that we -might- demand better.
TLDR: I think it's more complicated than everyone collectively saying "Fuck it, I don't care about democracy, I'm going to go tweet something."
As a michigan resident I discovered this year that the Democrats have no interest in saving the environment.
If you want something done, you've got to do it yourself. You talk as if politicians of any party in any country ever have interests that are not 1. Staying in power 2. Money or 3. The interests of their supporters as it relates to 1 or 2. That's naive or lazy. Politicians aren't going to do the legwork for you. It's not because political minded people are inherently evil, politicians who DO spend political capitol on things their constituents don't care about get voted out quickly and replaced by politicians who pander to the voters rather than lead.
Get enough voters motivated about it to threaten the incumbents and the politicians will MAGICALLY obey. Fortunately, the politicians are SO concerned with keeping power that you don't actually need to convince most voters, you just need to convince enough to make the politicians think it's a trend. Which by that point it likely will be.
I sympathize that it's incredibly frustrating to see such obvious warning signs and see people who took oaths to protect the country flagrantly ignore it, but hey, that's how it's always been and always will be.
It is more successful and widespread in the US, yes. Possibly because the cult of the free market is so strong over here that we somehow think that healthcare is or can be a free market. But I'd argue that the conspiracy is indeed global. Pharmecuticals are obviously globalized. The US isn't the only place where drug patents are used to strangle more money out of sick people.
It's not global as in reaches absolutely everywhere to the same degree, but a lot of that is because it's not as cost effective to enact the same conspiracy in countries where they won't make as much of a profit.
Right, point fingers rather than doing anything to fix the problem. That's a sure-fire way to solve it.
Those other nations will point out we've already contributed the lion's share, so why should they do green energy when we didn't and won't even though we have the money. And nothing will change.
Fuck that. I suspect Holi is more than just throwing colored dust around, in which case it's as much a bastardization of Holi as people having plants is a bastardization of Christmas.
If it's like christmas in that pretty much all the boring religious traditions have been ignored in favor of the fun parts, then it's not a bastardization, it's simply spreading a fun thing to do. More power to them.
In any event, religious people whining about their traditions being bastardized can take a sharp religious icon of theirs and cram it up their asses. There's no ownership over traditions. There's certainly not any ownership over throwing colored powder at people.
"Health concerns"? Citation needed. Don't spread pointless FUD, just stick to documented douchebaggery.
As far as charity, meh, the color run doesn't seem to really hold itself out as a charity. I am not familiar with their advertising, but the appeal seems to be "Throw colors at people." Not "Run to cure breast cancer" or anything similar.
I hate to defend these assholes, but making up shit like this overshadows valid criticisms. People hear your shit and they're going to dismiss the bit about stealing photos and then using frivolous lawsuits as weapons as well.
Clearly GM set the fire intentionally and then paid off the fire department to say it was the Tesla, but the fire department failed to make it convincing! WAKE UP SHEEPLE! There's a vast incompetent conspiracy going on!
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, what strawman are you referring to? I didn't mean to suggest that facebook gave us the internet either, I'm just saying glass-steagall repeal didn't do much for us, that superbanks aren't really helping much.
Slashdot: news for nerds who dislike new technology.
Straw man argument. No one said that banks are useless, just that "bankers" (in the wall street sense) contribute less to society (in the "where most people live" sense) than one would expect, given how much they are paid.
It's not like repealing glass-steagall gave us the internet, smart phones, and a cure for cancer. All that I can see it did was continue a feedback loop whereby the super-rich get richer, get more power, and change the laws to make themselves richer at our expense.
Credit unions serve the purpose you mention, yet they don't at the moment leech off society like chase does. We could do away with the too-big-to-fail entities, and it wouldn't hurt you or me too much. Well, in theory, anyway, I'm sure the extraction process in reality would leave something worse, be it through reform in the current political climate or violent revolution.
So then it's not the ads that are making the difference between PS4 and xbox 1.
Tinder IS at least the second. Blendr was the original straight version of grindr.
It's supposed to be used to find people who are willing to have sex with you: if you're on slashdot and it shows you people, you are indeed using it wrong.
That's amateur stuff though. The anti-environmentalism side has real teeth to their attacks.
Nope, I've just becoming more and more suspicious that Global Warming isn't science at all. It looks more to me these days like religion. It's got its apocalypse, its satans, its prophets and saviors.
Please realize that "global warming" is not a single entity. There are many climate scientists. Some are given to hysterics, others are very conservative in their estimates. They don't speak with a single voice any more than (some group of people you like) are all idiots because (an idiot in that group) is an idiot and says (idiotic thing they say).
And it seems to be based on an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which I'm pretty sure isn't a part of any empirical "science" that I've ever been taught.
It is falsifiable. We're doing the experiment now. It's dumb to be DOING the experiment when we only have one climate is the point. There are many sub-hypotheses that are validated as well. CO2 absorbs heat, coal plants and cars put out a lot of CO2, the amount of CO2 has increased and is continuing to increase, and changes to the system have negative consequences in the short term for anything dependent on them, like people. These are all falsifiable hypotheses that have been extensively tested.
The situation is a bit like evolution. The theists who oppose the large theory ignore the tested hypotheses or at best come up with hand waving to explain them away. Then they say there's no evidence for the grand theory, and declare it to be religion, not science, because it doesn't work exactly like textbook scientific theory as it is explained in grade school. They resort to ad-homenim attacks on the scientists. They focus most of their efforts on going around the science though, which is telling.
Your point is what, we deserve it? I'd argue that it IS quite possible to escape the consequences: the individuals who did the most to push us to climate change will be dead before the really bad effects happen, or are at least rich enough to make the consequences minor.
If you're talking about on a species level, well, maybe, but I see little point in such a perspective.
Assume no. Proceed as if the announcement was made that things are going to get worse. E-mail the FCC, e-mail your congressperson. We should believe that this is merely PR to get us to calm down, then do nothing. Wheeler was a lobbyist for the people he's regulating. That doesn't prove he's corrupt and is doing this to screw us over, but I'd bet good money if I had it that he's corrupt and is doing this to screw us over.
Just to play devil's advocate, households have more flexibility with water consumption, have more money they can spend on water, and there's also a too-big-to-fail issue. If my water bill doubles, I can use less water. It will be fucking annoying, but I can. Farms probably can't do as much to decrease their water consumption. Given how much subsidizing farms already get, I doubt much of an increase in water bills would be needed before either the farm fails or you end up increasing subsidies by that same amount which again would come out of households.
Letting farms fail as subject to the free market is not going to happen, and that's probably a really good thing.
That's a good point. And I've heard in general that the giant industrial farms employ relatively few people. It might be a win-win-win.
Wait, you're suggesting that numbers dumb down political discussions? Did you actually just use "nerd numbers" as a negative in slashdot of all places? Did you just say that arguments that are wrong are better than arguments with numbers?
I suppose if you like your politics like you like your wrestling, that's reasonable. I find though that the Dunning–Kruger effect is what you get when you discard things like numbers and facts. "MY political alignment is the CORRECT one, and I know this because I don't need to rely on silly graphs or math!"
I think I get your point, which is that there's ample reasons to be opposed to Obama without getting into numbers and economic graphs, but lets not actively argue FOR simplistic arguments.
I realize that steam offends many in the church of absolutely no DRM, FOSS only, but if you don't hate steam en face, then play "The Stanley Parable." While short, it is brilliant.
I recommend playing it without reading anything more about it. I realize "some guy on the internet said I should play it" isn't very credible, but that's what I'm saying on the internet anyway.
TFA mentions that animal factories aren't very efficient compared to plants. Think of the energy pyramid of the food chain: taking energy from the sun and putting it into food directly is more efficient than channeling it through plants to chickens to eggs. For another, there's health issues: free range egg farming isn't very efficient, keeping them penned up and close to each other increases the likelihood of diseases spreading, ruining the efficiency.
So while they are somewhat cheap, they could be MUCH cheaper. Given that food is a necessity, this guy could really clean up. Bad news for egg farmers if he does, but there will probably be enough FUD about artificial eggs to keep them employed for a long time.
Off topic, but I'd reverse that example to make it more convincing to more people. "You won't be able to use bing, you'll have to use google!" = blank stare. "You won't be able to use google, you'll have to use Bing!" = hulk mode.
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. Yes, they were doing it too. No, that doesn't make the US doing it any better and no, that doesn't mean it would be good for her to drop it.
It's good to keep in mind, lest germany tries to become a tech hub based on the premise that they won't spy like the NSA, but until then, let her help us keep the spotlight on the NSA.
You ask that as if ANYONE has any idea what is in the TOS. I assume it's standard TOS stuff like you won't sue us for any reason ever, we own you and can do whatever we want, you own nothing, you pledge your soul to serve in our undead army against God in the end days... That probably covers these searches.
Stupid isn't exactly the right word for all denialists. Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner and inventor of PCR, is a denialist.
With any conspiracy theory, there's ample room for people to ask questions, and parts that don't on first look seem to support the explanation. The bigger the thing being explained, the more details people bring up that seem inconsistent. 9/11, Obama's citizenship, HIV, the moon landing... people spend enough time looking into something convinced that there's a conspiracy going on, eventually they find facts which make it sound convincing. They're motivated, often unconsciously, for attention.
A good number of Americans think we need to give up rights to fight cultists with box-cutters and pipe bombs, rights we didn't need to give up in the face of real national security threats. But I don't think that's the whole story here. The cold war was going on, our enemies ACTUALLY had real weapons worth considering, Nixon resigned.
I suspect one issue is the economy, and the other is a changing media. Democracies can't really function when too many people are too financially stressed, it fits that people wouldn't take threats to the freedom of the press as seriously if they're worried about losing the house. Most of the people with brains or who care have stopped watching cable news and newspapers are dying, so the audiences for the media are dumber and more easily controlled.
I'm not as convinced as many people are that the sky is falling, so I suspect the economy will eventually improve. I also suspect that when the change in media matures, perhaps when kids who now get their news online start being less apathetic, and when the fox news crowd dies, that we -might- demand better.
TLDR: I think it's more complicated than everyone collectively saying "Fuck it, I don't care about democracy, I'm going to go tweet something."
As a michigan resident I discovered this year that the Democrats have no interest in saving the environment.
If you want something done, you've got to do it yourself. You talk as if politicians of any party in any country ever have interests that are not 1. Staying in power 2. Money or 3. The interests of their supporters as it relates to 1 or 2. That's naive or lazy. Politicians aren't going to do the legwork for you. It's not because political minded people are inherently evil, politicians who DO spend political capitol on things their constituents don't care about get voted out quickly and replaced by politicians who pander to the voters rather than lead.
Get enough voters motivated about it to threaten the incumbents and the politicians will MAGICALLY obey. Fortunately, the politicians are SO concerned with keeping power that you don't actually need to convince most voters, you just need to convince enough to make the politicians think it's a trend. Which by that point it likely will be.
I sympathize that it's incredibly frustrating to see such obvious warning signs and see people who took oaths to protect the country flagrantly ignore it, but hey, that's how it's always been and always will be.
It is more successful and widespread in the US, yes. Possibly because the cult of the free market is so strong over here that we somehow think that healthcare is or can be a free market. But I'd argue that the conspiracy is indeed global. Pharmecuticals are obviously globalized. The US isn't the only place where drug patents are used to strangle more money out of sick people.
It's not global as in reaches absolutely everywhere to the same degree, but a lot of that is because it's not as cost effective to enact the same conspiracy in countries where they won't make as much of a profit.
Right, point fingers rather than doing anything to fix the problem. That's a sure-fire way to solve it.
Those other nations will point out we've already contributed the lion's share, so why should they do green energy when we didn't and won't even though we have the money. And nothing will change.
Fuck that. I suspect Holi is more than just throwing colored dust around, in which case it's as much a bastardization of Holi as people having plants is a bastardization of Christmas.
If it's like christmas in that pretty much all the boring religious traditions have been ignored in favor of the fun parts, then it's not a bastardization, it's simply spreading a fun thing to do. More power to them.
In any event, religious people whining about their traditions being bastardized can take a sharp religious icon of theirs and cram it up their asses. There's no ownership over traditions. There's certainly not any ownership over throwing colored powder at people.
"Health concerns"? Citation needed. Don't spread pointless FUD, just stick to documented douchebaggery.
As far as charity, meh, the color run doesn't seem to really hold itself out as a charity. I am not familiar with their advertising, but the appeal seems to be "Throw colors at people." Not "Run to cure breast cancer" or anything similar.
I hate to defend these assholes, but making up shit like this overshadows valid criticisms. People hear your shit and they're going to dismiss the bit about stealing photos and then using frivolous lawsuits as weapons as well.
Clearly GM set the fire intentionally and then paid off the fire department to say it was the Tesla, but the fire department failed to make it convincing! WAKE UP SHEEPLE! There's a vast incompetent conspiracy going on!