you solve this problem by, somehow, convincing people that they need to be less gullible.
The point is: enough with the Islam/Christian bashing. Or religion in general
You contradict yourself. Religion is based on gullability. Therefore if gullability is the root of our problems, we have to eliminate religion. Not exclusively religion, we still have to eliminate religion.
If you make enough of a noise, you invite the Streisand effect.
The Streisand effect may work in his favor in this case. More people will see the offending video, but they'll also be aware that the original video exists and that it has been misappropriated. If you have to choose between 100 people seeing the bad video, and 10,000 people seeing both videos and being informed about the lies, I'd take the latter any time.
Wherever did you get this idea that it was "possible for us to increase the green biomass", or the idea that we were even trying to do that?
If the limiting factor for plant growth is something other than incident sunlight, then it should be possible to increase the green biomass. One such factor could be fixed nitrogen. Biological sources fix about 200Tg of nitrogen per year, the Haber process fixes about 100Tg. It's certainly not unreasonable to hypothesize that this could have a measureable effect on the Earth's total green biomass.
Unless the creators of rasbmc explicitly waived rights of ownership and declaired the work to be public domain (if so, why GPL and not BSD?) Then the additional contributors to that code (the person who modified the installer) needs to attribute proper ownership.
Kinda sorta. They need to refrain from claiming ownership of the code, and when asked they need to correctly identify the owners. But there's nothing about the GPL (excepting optional additional terms in v3) that requires explicit proactive identification of the owners of the GPL licensed software in the way that BSD or CC attribution licenses do.
One of therms of the GPL is the attribution of original authors.
GPLv2 prohibits attribution requirements. GPLv3 allows attribution requirements as an optional "additional term". We'd need to see the actual license to determine whether attribution is required.
Seriously-- I thought this kind of shit ended with the cold war, and that Russia was trying its best to become a respectable member of the global community.
You forgot, we replaced the cold war with the drug war. There's nothing respectable about any country involved with either.
Why does there have to be more? Even here in The Land of the Free (TM), we have people serving decades in prison for nothing more than growing plants. Don't underestimate the capability of any government for wanton brutality.
But it's a curvilinear relationship - somebody who is too inquisitive is going to tend to waste your valuable time (and their employer's) while trying to resolve your issue. There's a balance.
So you help the employer by discouraging them from hiring an exceptionally inquisitive employee. How do you help the inquisitive employee find a job that fits them?
You're not doing much to dispel the appearance that these systems are good for the employer only. After all, it's better to have a job that you're a bad fit for than no job at all.
The problem is that people recognize and laud individual kindness, but fail to recognize the systemic evil they participate in. If you make a huge personal sacrifice to, e.g. adopt a child but support policies that lead to increased child abandonment (e.g. anti-sex education, cuts in welfare, draconian drug laws that ruin familes, etc.) you're not actually a decent person.
I should add that if you're aware of the problems we face and don't care enough to do anything about it, you're worse than those who are merely ignorant. You can educate the ignorant, but you can't make the apathetic care.
In what way is your "You really can just accept them without dwelling on them" any different than "Fuck you, I've got mine!"?
You don't need to be deluded to be happy, and "pessimist" and "cynic" are not substitutes for "realist".
Ok, how then?
My sadness about these things will do nothing to improve them, so why should I be sad?
Because the only other option is apathy. And it is apathy that is responsible for most of the ills of the world.
e.g., if everyone in the country were appropriately cynical about our political process, no one would ever vote for either major party ever again. That would instantly break the two party hegemony and lead to real political progress.
Trust me, we all see the problems in the world just like you do.
The effects of global warming will have to be in Average Joe's face and a generation of climate skeptics might have to die off.
By then it will be too late. Complex dynamic systems have all sorts of non-linear properties. e.g. as surface ice melts, we decrease planetary albedo increasing the amount of energy absorbed by the planet. That means that even if we reduce atmospheric CO2 to below 350, the planet will be hotter for the same amount of solar radiation. And that's just one of many potential tipping points. By the time the really bad shit happens, it will be way too late.
Sounds like trying to empty the ocean with an eyedropper. In order to stop climate change reducing the amount of CO2 we produce is not enough. Ceasing CO2 production is not enough. We have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
That means we need to stop using fossil fuels entirely. We also need massive CO2 sequestration projects, which can only be funded with public money. None of that is going to happen, because reducing energy consumption puts people at a competetive disadvantage, and we live in a world based on competition.
There truly is nothing an individual can do to even slow climate change. All of your suggestions amount to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire world has to come together to solve this problem, and we all know how likely that is.
The real answer there is that Obama is a conservative, as conservative as Bush. And anyone who supports Obama is a conservative. Todays Democratic party is well to the right of where the Republican party was 30 or 40 years ago. e.g. the most liberal part of Obama's agenda, health care reform, was invented by a Republican, and is more conservative than Nixon's health care plan. Further, Reagan of all people was able to put 1000 bankers in jail after the S&L crisis in the 80s. Obama has protected every bank executive responsible for the 2008 crash. By any reasonable measure, Obama is a conservative.
If all you care about is your team winning, then you love Obama. If you care about good policy, then you will have nothing but contempt for both Democrats and Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
you solve this problem by, somehow, convincing people that they need to be less gullible.
The point is: enough with the Islam/Christian bashing. Or religion in general
You contradict yourself. Religion is based on gullability. Therefore if gullability is the root of our problems, we have to eliminate religion. Not exclusively religion, we still have to eliminate religion.
Unfortunately, the USA doesn't care about inconveniences like sovereignty of a foreign nation.
Doubly unfortunately, they'll only project their laws across borders if you're a billion dollar corporation.
If you make enough of a noise, you invite the Streisand effect.
The Streisand effect may work in his favor in this case. More people will see the offending video, but they'll also be aware that the original video exists and that it has been misappropriated. If you have to choose between 100 people seeing the bad video, and 10,000 people seeing both videos and being informed about the lies, I'd take the latter any time.
Wherever did you get this idea that it was "possible for us to increase the green biomass", or the idea that we were even trying to do that?
If the limiting factor for plant growth is something other than incident sunlight, then it should be possible to increase the green biomass. One such factor could be fixed nitrogen. Biological sources fix about 200Tg of nitrogen per year, the Haber process fixes about 100Tg. It's certainly not unreasonable to hypothesize that this could have a measureable effect on the Earth's total green biomass.
Unless the creators of rasbmc explicitly waived rights of ownership and declaired the work to be public domain (if so, why GPL and not BSD?) Then the additional contributors to that code (the person who modified the installer) needs to attribute proper ownership.
Kinda sorta. They need to refrain from claiming ownership of the code, and when asked they need to correctly identify the owners. But there's nothing about the GPL (excepting optional additional terms in v3) that requires explicit proactive identification of the owners of the GPL licensed software in the way that BSD or CC attribution licenses do.
One of therms of the GPL is the attribution of original authors.
GPLv2 prohibits attribution requirements. GPLv3 allows attribution requirements as an optional "additional term". We'd need to see the actual license to determine whether attribution is required.
I don't have the ability to do anything about our problems, but together we all do. If you're happy the way things are, you're not going to help.
Primaries are to select candidates. Candidate is not a public office.
Seriously-- I thought this kind of shit ended with the cold war, and that Russia was trying its best to become a respectable member of the global community.
You forgot, we replaced the cold war with the drug war. There's nothing respectable about any country involved with either.
Why can't these people govern themselves without state thugs snatching people in the night?
I ask the same thing about America. When we imprison sick people and their care givers, what right do we have to lecture Russia?
Comrades Put down the Vodka for a moment and THINK.
If anyone involved with drug prohibition actually thought, there would be no drug prohibition.
Why does there have to be more? Even here in The Land of the Free (TM), we have people serving decades in prison for nothing more than growing plants. Don't underestimate the capability of any government for wanton brutality.
But it's a curvilinear relationship - somebody who is too inquisitive is going to tend to waste your valuable time (and their employer's) while trying to resolve your issue. There's a balance.
So you help the employer by discouraging them from hiring an exceptionally inquisitive employee. How do you help the inquisitive employee find a job that fits them?
You're not doing much to dispel the appearance that these systems are good for the employer only. After all, it's better to have a job that you're a bad fit for than no job at all.
It may sound harsh, but the false positive outliers are exactly that - outliers. The vast majority is predictable to a reasonable degree.
And? Do the exceptional among us not deserve employment?
If anything, the more they know about me, the more likely that they will make products I want to buy.
The more they know about you, the more they can manipulate you to create wants you never had before.
Iran is doing more to punish those criminals than our own government is. Thanks Iran.
What ages is this book appropriate for?
The problem is that people recognize and laud individual kindness, but fail to recognize the systemic evil they participate in. If you make a huge personal sacrifice to, e.g. adopt a child but support policies that lead to increased child abandonment (e.g. anti-sex education, cuts in welfare, draconian drug laws that ruin familes, etc.) you're not actually a decent person.
I should add that if you're aware of the problems we face and don't care enough to do anything about it, you're worse than those who are merely ignorant. You can educate the ignorant, but you can't make the apathetic care.
In what way is your "You really can just accept them without dwelling on them" any different than "Fuck you, I've got mine!"?
You don't need to be deluded to be happy, and "pessimist" and "cynic" are not substitutes for "realist".
Ok, how then?
My sadness about these things will do nothing to improve them, so why should I be sad?
Because the only other option is apathy. And it is apathy that is responsible for most of the ills of the world.
e.g., if everyone in the country were appropriately cynical about our political process, no one would ever vote for either major party ever again. That would instantly break the two party hegemony and lead to real political progress.
Trust me, we all see the problems in the world just like you do.
Then why isn't anyone doing anything about them?
There is just one recipe for chili. Cubed beef, pork fat or suet, onion, cumin, chiles, and a little water. Simmer for at least 4 hours. That's chili.
Chili flavored bean stew, with or without tomatoes, is a fine meal. I will gladly eat it and ask for seconds. But it's not chili.
The effects of global warming will have to be in Average Joe's face and a generation of climate skeptics might have to die off.
By then it will be too late. Complex dynamic systems have all sorts of non-linear properties. e.g. as surface ice melts, we decrease planetary albedo increasing the amount of energy absorbed by the planet. That means that even if we reduce atmospheric CO2 to below 350, the planet will be hotter for the same amount of solar radiation. And that's just one of many potential tipping points. By the time the really bad shit happens, it will be way too late.
500ppm is 150ppm too high. And we don't even have the political will to do 500.
Sounds like trying to empty the ocean with an eyedropper. In order to stop climate change reducing the amount of CO2 we produce is not enough. Ceasing CO2 production is not enough. We have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
That means we need to stop using fossil fuels entirely. We also need massive CO2 sequestration projects, which can only be funded with public money. None of that is going to happen, because reducing energy consumption puts people at a competetive disadvantage, and we live in a world based on competition.
There truly is nothing an individual can do to even slow climate change. All of your suggestions amount to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire world has to come together to solve this problem, and we all know how likely that is.
The real answer there is that Obama is a conservative, as conservative as Bush. And anyone who supports Obama is a conservative. Todays Democratic party is well to the right of where the Republican party was 30 or 40 years ago. e.g. the most liberal part of Obama's agenda, health care reform, was invented by a Republican, and is more conservative than Nixon's health care plan. Further, Reagan of all people was able to put 1000 bankers in jail after the S&L crisis in the 80s. Obama has protected every bank executive responsible for the 2008 crash. By any reasonable measure, Obama is a conservative.
If all you care about is your team winning, then you love Obama. If you care about good policy, then you will have nothing but contempt for both Democrats and Republicans.