I think the article is missing details that could make it more convincing.
The article's main premise is that there is a "vicious circle" which is slowly making renting unaffordable for median income people.
In the article they say "In 2013, the median rent for a new apartment was $1,290, about 50 percent of the median renter’s monthly income..."
50%!?! That sounds like a lot... but I wonder: What percentage of the median renter's monthly income was rent back in earlier decades? Has it been rising? Has it been falling? The article does not provide that historical data.
"From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises."
Not to be trollish, but why is there a voice inside my head that chants "A reading from the Gospel of Evolution 'skeptics' and other purveyors of FUD" whenever I see someone complain about consensus in science?
"The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming." http://www.theguardian.com/env...
So you're trying to tell me that "95 percent confidence" is the same thing as "wild speculation"? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
While I can't speak to the newer generations of models, but climate models from the 1990's have already been tested in the way that you describe: "UN climate change projections made in 1990 'coming true'... The world is warming at a rate that is consistent with forecasts made by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 22 years ago." http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yo...
The news article is based on: http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
We already know that some of the climate models in the 1990's have made two decades worth of accurate predictions.
What the person you are replying to (u38cg) says is exactly what I say to Creationists who claim to be "challenging the consensus of Evolution" (the Creationists I talk with call themselves "Evolution skeptics"). ... And then they reply the same way you just did. The Creationists say "It's a real good thing that scientists didn't say that to Gallileo. We might still believe in an earth-centric universe!"
I don't take it seriously when Creationists make the "appeal to Galileo" argument, why should I take it any more seriously when you make it?
I think that environmentalists are already "touching this issue".
I'm pretty sure that I've heard environmentalists call for better treatment of our waste water (to remove or degrade these hormones) before it is discharged back into the rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Maybe your problem is that environmentalists are "touching the issue" in a way that you didn't anticipate?
You know what Carl Sagan had to say about climate change? "For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
~Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))
Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.
"The vast majority of the loudest global warming proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are environmental activists, with their own agenda to advance."
The "skeptics" of Evolution said the same thing.
They said "the vast majority of the loudest Evolution proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are atheists(/secularists) with their own agenda to advance."
I didn't accept that argument from Creationists. Why would I accept it from you?
I find it even more interesting that the skeptics that have collected data and built models ended up convinced that the Climatologists are correct: "CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
~Dr. Richard A. Muller http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
"Look either we are all equals or some of us need special treatment. It can't be both."
I think you have the word "equal" confused with "identical" (it is a common mistake).
Two things can be different but still equal.
Even special treatment does not preclude the possibility of two types of things being equal: So long as both groups require some sort of special treatment then they can still be equal.
I think your summary is very good, but it makes me think that transplantation of gut microbes from thin people could be (in the long run) ineffective as the genetics of the new host may ultimately (in a sense) "reject" the transplanted microbes.
You perceive women as having a privilege of being given the "benefit of the doubt" and getting public sympathy by default (that you claim men do not receive).
Suppose we accept your premise: Why not solve the imbalance by encouraging people to extend those same social privileges to us men?
Those privileges, that you claim are exclusive to women, make the world a more compassionate and understanding place. I think we need more of that for everyone.
Supporters of prohibition frequently believe that the "lazy, stupid, stoner" effects of marijuana persist after the intoxication has passed (and that eventually they become "burnouts" in the style of Cheech & Chong)
"Stoner" is the marijuana stereotype equivalent of "the town drunkard" (and thus counts as an ad hominem).
We all know that the "drunkard/alcoholic" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of alcohol consumers. The next step is to get the public to understand that "the stoner" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of marijuana consumers.
Pointing out that Carl Sagan (or Nobel prize winners, etc) liked to smoke marijuana is a valid retort to the popular misconception that "marijuana users are lazy, stupid, stoners" (an ad hominem frequently used by supporters of prohibition).
Knowing that some of the greatest minds of our era are marijuana smokers disproves that misconception.
The only surprise I saw was that they didn't find some way to insinuate that "net neutrality will KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER!"
That's the only square missing to complete Libertarian-bingo on this issue.
I guess what made me think that might have been the story you had in mind was the part about big corporations looking to destroy the reputation of scientists that discover health problems related to the corporation's products.
The story about Tyrone Hayes (and his persecutors at Syngenta) were in my mind when I read about the court verdict that Dr. Michael Mann's persecutors at the "American Traditions Institute" must pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
I celebrated that verdict because the struggle of Dr. Mann and the struggle of Dr. Hayes are, in my mind, the same:
Wouldn't Syngenta have loved to demand Dr. Hayes hand over his private emails?
Wouldn't Syngenta have loved to torment Dr. Hayes with nuisance FOIA requests?
Wouldn't Syngenta have loved to torment Dr. Hayes with nuisance lawsuits?
Sherry Ford's spiral-bound notebook of dirty tricks tells the whole tale.
There are few things that I'm sure of in this world, but one of those things is:
I am certain that somewhere there is a carbon copy of Sherry Ford employed in the one of PR departments of the Fossil Fuel industry right now, and that Sherry Ford has an identical spiral-bound notebook full of the same dirty tricks that they'd love to pull on Dr. Mann.
It seems to be a common theme of big corporations:
If they can't find a valid flaw in the scientist's research then they order their PR people to attack the reputation of the scientist.
"There was an article in the New Yorker last year - I wish I could find it - that talked about the enormous about of pressure being put on academic journals that affect big industries. It described cases where Monsanto and another big corporation set out to destroy an otherwise well-respected scientist who discovered a high health risk from one of their products."
It sounds like you're describing: "A Valuable Reputation ...
The company documents show that, while Hayes was studying atrazine, Syngenta was studying him, as he had long suspected. Syngenta’s public-relations team had drafted a list of four goals. The first was “discredit Hayes.” In a spiral-bound notebook, Syngenta’s communications manager, Sherry Ford, who referred to Hayes by his initials, wrote that the company could “prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible.” He was a frequent topic of conversation at company meetings. Syngenta looked for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.” ...
In 2005, Ford made a long list of methods for discrediting him: “have his work audited by 3rd party,” “ask journals to retract,” “set trap to entice him to sue,” “investigate funding,” “investigate wife.” The initials of different employees were written in the margins beside entries, presumably because they had been assigned to look into the task. " http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
Syngenta couldn't find any legitimate scientific flaws in Hayes's research so they waged a PR war against him.
"A virus with high mortaility and rapid spread will rapidly kill all susceptible individuals within it's catchment area, so it's likely that such things have never really gotten off the evolutionary drawing board."
Generally speaking I agree, but only when the virus is lethal to all susceptible individuals.
If the virus is non-lethal to some susceptible individuals then those individuals could become carriers (a reservoir where the virus can continue reproduce but does not kill its host). Carriers are how a virus can have a high mortaility and rapid spread without becoming an evolutionary dead-end.
In the case of Ebola I have heard that it is suspected that fruit bats are carriers. If it is true that fruit bats are Ebola carriers then I think that means Ebola has some susceptible individuals (humans) where it is highly lethal and some susceptible individuals (fruit bats) where it is non-lethal.
When you bring up climate science (and the people who advocate climate science) on an article about moon caves it makes you sound like a deranged cultist.
Just save your hateful sniping for the next climate change article. Slashdot has at least one every week.
I see you've decided to use an article that has nothing to do with climate change as an excuse to make snide comments about climate science and the people who advocate it.
I usually associate that kind of behavior with people who have a "____ derangement syndrome" (they make everything about the topic/person they hate most: Obama or Bush, Liberals or Conservatives, Communists or Capitalists, Secularism or Religion, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I think the article is missing details that could make it more convincing. ..."
The article's main premise is that there is a "vicious circle" which is slowly making renting unaffordable for median income people.
In the article they say "In 2013, the median rent for a new apartment was $1,290, about 50 percent of the median renter’s monthly income
50%!?! That sounds like a lot... but I wonder: What percentage of the median renter's monthly income was rent back in earlier decades? Has it been rising? Has it been falling? The article does not provide that historical data.
"From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises."
Nail 'em for "false advertising"!
"If you cast your vote for the candidate of choice regardless of party affiliation how exactly is that throwing away your vote?"
Sometimes, when casting my ballot, I think "that ballot box looks like a trash can with a slot."
Not to be trollish, but why is there a voice inside my head that chants "A reading from the Gospel of Evolution 'skeptics' and other purveyors of FUD" whenever I see someone complain about consensus in science?
"The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming."
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
So you're trying to tell me that "95 percent confidence" is the same thing as "wild speculation"? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
While I can't speak to the newer generations of models, but climate models from the 1990's have already been tested in the way that you describe: ... The world is warming at a rate that is consistent with forecasts made by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 22 years ago."
"UN climate change projections made in 1990 'coming true'
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yo...
The news article is based on: http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
We already know that some of the climate models in the 1990's have made two decades worth of accurate predictions.
Science does not work on the "how consistently do you live by your beliefs" principle! That shows me how little you understand about science.
What the person you are replying to (u38cg) says is exactly what I say to Creationists who claim to be "challenging the consensus of Evolution" (the Creationists I talk with call themselves "Evolution skeptics").
... And then they reply the same way you just did. The Creationists say "It's a real good thing that scientists didn't say that to Gallileo. We might still believe in an earth-centric universe!"
I don't take it seriously when Creationists make the "appeal to Galileo" argument, why should I take it any more seriously when you make it?
Commenting to remove accidental mod.
I think that environmentalists are already "touching this issue".
I'm pretty sure that I've heard environmentalists call for better treatment of our waste water (to remove or degrade these hormones) before it is discharged back into the rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Maybe your problem is that environmentalists are "touching the issue" in a way that you didn't anticipate?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
A quip popularly attributed to Carl Sagan.
You know what Carl Sagan had to say about climate change?
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
~Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))
Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.
"The vast majority of the loudest global warming proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are environmental activists, with their own agenda to advance."
The "skeptics" of Evolution said the same thing.
They said "the vast majority of the loudest Evolution proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are atheists(/secularists) with their own agenda to advance."
I didn't accept that argument from Creationists. Why would I accept it from you?
I find it even more interesting that the skeptics that have collected data and built models ended up convinced that the Climatologists are correct:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
~Dr. Richard A. Muller
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
"Look either we are all equals or some of us need special treatment. It can't be both."
I think you have the word "equal" confused with "identical" (it is a common mistake).
Two things can be different but still equal.
Even special treatment does not preclude the possibility of two types of things being equal: So long as both groups require some sort of special treatment then they can still be equal.
I think your summary is very good, but it makes me think that transplantation of gut microbes from thin people could be (in the long run) ineffective as the genetics of the new host may ultimately (in a sense) "reject" the transplanted microbes.
You perceive women as having a privilege of being given the "benefit of the doubt" and getting public sympathy by default (that you claim men do not receive).
Suppose we accept your premise: Why not solve the imbalance by encouraging people to extend those same social privileges to us men?
Those privileges, that you claim are exclusive to women, make the world a more compassionate and understanding place. I think we need more of that for everyone.
Supporters of prohibition frequently believe that the "lazy, stupid, stoner" effects of marijuana persist after the intoxication has passed (and that eventually they become "burnouts" in the style of Cheech & Chong)
"Stoner" is the marijuana stereotype equivalent of "the town drunkard" (and thus counts as an ad hominem).
We all know that the "drunkard/alcoholic" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of alcohol consumers. The next step is to get the public to understand that "the stoner" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of marijuana consumers.
Pointing out that Carl Sagan (or Nobel prize winners, etc) liked to smoke marijuana is a valid retort to the popular misconception that "marijuana users are lazy, stupid, stoners" (an ad hominem frequently used by supporters of prohibition).
Knowing that some of the greatest minds of our era are marijuana smokers disproves that misconception.
The only surprise I saw was that they didn't find some way to insinuate that "net neutrality will KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER!"
That's the only square missing to complete Libertarian-bingo on this issue.
Wow. The comment went from +5 to -1 in less than an hour.
Apparently Syngenta's corporate shills have mod points.
I guess what made me think that might have been the story you had in mind was the part about big corporations looking to destroy the reputation of scientists that discover health problems related to the corporation's products.
The story about Tyrone Hayes (and his persecutors at Syngenta) were in my mind when I read about the court verdict that Dr. Michael Mann's persecutors at the "American Traditions Institute" must pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
I celebrated that verdict because the struggle of Dr. Mann and the struggle of Dr. Hayes are, in my mind, the same:
Wouldn't Syngenta have loved to demand Dr. Hayes hand over his private emails?
Wouldn't Syngenta have loved to torment Dr. Hayes with nuisance FOIA requests?
Wouldn't Syngenta have loved to torment Dr. Hayes with nuisance lawsuits?
Sherry Ford's spiral-bound notebook of dirty tricks tells the whole tale.
There are few things that I'm sure of in this world, but one of those things is:
I am certain that somewhere there is a carbon copy of Sherry Ford employed in the one of PR departments of the Fossil Fuel industry right now, and that Sherry Ford has an identical spiral-bound notebook full of the same dirty tricks that they'd love to pull on Dr. Mann.
It seems to be a common theme of big corporations:
If they can't find a valid flaw in the scientist's research then they order their PR people to attack the reputation of the scientist.
"There was an article in the New Yorker last year - I wish I could find it - that talked about the enormous about of pressure being put on academic journals that affect big industries. It described cases where Monsanto and another big corporation set out to destroy an otherwise well-respected scientist who discovered a high health risk from one of their products."
It sounds like you're describing:
...
...
"A Valuable Reputation
The company documents show that, while Hayes was studying atrazine, Syngenta was studying him, as he had long suspected. Syngenta’s public-relations team had drafted a list of four goals. The first was “discredit Hayes.” In a spiral-bound notebook, Syngenta’s communications manager, Sherry Ford, who referred to Hayes by his initials, wrote that the company could “prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as noncredible.” He was a frequent topic of conversation at company meetings. Syngenta looked for ways to “exploit Hayes’ faults/problems.”
In 2005, Ford made a long list of methods for discrediting him: “have his work audited by 3rd party,” “ask journals to retract,” “set trap to entice him to sue,” “investigate funding,” “investigate wife.” The initials of different employees were written in the margins beside entries, presumably because they had been assigned to look into the task. "
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
Syngenta couldn't find any legitimate scientific flaws in Hayes's research so they waged a PR war against him.
"A virus with high mortaility and rapid spread will rapidly kill all susceptible individuals within it's catchment area, so it's likely that such things have never really gotten off the evolutionary drawing board."
Generally speaking I agree, but only when the virus is lethal to all susceptible individuals.
If the virus is non-lethal to some susceptible individuals then those individuals could become carriers (a reservoir where the virus can continue reproduce but does not kill its host). Carriers are how a virus can have a high mortaility and rapid spread without becoming an evolutionary dead-end.
In the case of Ebola I have heard that it is suspected that fruit bats are carriers. If it is true that fruit bats are Ebola carriers then I think that means Ebola has some susceptible individuals (humans) where it is highly lethal and some susceptible individuals (fruit bats) where it is non-lethal.
When you bring up climate science (and the people who advocate climate science) on an article about moon caves it makes you sound like a deranged cultist.
Just save your hateful sniping for the next climate change article. Slashdot has at least one every week.
I see you've decided to use an article that has nothing to do with climate change as an excuse to make snide comments about climate science and the people who advocate it.
I usually associate that kind of behavior with people who have a "____ derangement syndrome" (they make everything about the topic/person they hate most: Obama or Bush, Liberals or Conservatives, Communists or Capitalists, Secularism or Religion, etc).