There is no consensus that what you just made up will happen. You just made out of thin air: the number 100 million, the under water part, and the "not good" part.
Advocating ripping out the American economy and replacing it with something else needs more justification than glib little comments.
Spending money on something that is already built - like energy infrastructure - is a net drain on the economy. Supposing that it will be a net economic boon is practicing broken-window economics.
Of course, the alternative is to let global warming happen and watch as Florida sinks into the ocean. That wouldn't be all bad, I suppose. I mean, many in New Orleans could use a good bath.
You have no idea what will happen under global warming in 5, 10, 15, 50 years. There is no consenus on the outcomes of global warming into the future. Your supposition is based on what you think you might have heard somewhere. Where we are heading temperature wise has happened before. We've been there as a planet and as a race.
Planet or people, if we don't start doing something about this soon, we're screwed, and our kids are screwed.
The topic of whether global warming is good or bad for man is seriously unanswered.
Taking arguments to an extreme is a classical logical fallacy intended to discredit other peoples' arguments. It's also a trick of simple minds. You and I both know he wasn't saying anything like that. Don't be an idiot.
The point was and remains that we can do anything from nothing to a very lot, yet everyone who clamours for "something to be done" is unwilling to specify at what cost. Kyoto was so vicious to the US economic outlook that the president whose vice-president negogiated the treaty wouldn't even let it come to vote. There wasn't a siggle sitting senator - even amoung the left leaning ones - who'd agree to support it even in a non-binding way.
So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP?
it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.
Really, you mean that? Congress could ban all pollution. Period. You cannot cause anything to be emitted into the air. No automobiles. No coal burning. No non-renewable 100% clean power plants. No aersol, no burning of leaves, no burning of wood, no unlicensed burning of anything.
They could. It would be legal. You are saying it is our responsibility to do that?
They write the requirements! And they pass 100-250 modifications a year to the system. Literally, there are hundreds of conditions:
"If you are a small farm owner (less than x acres, or y profit, or z total revevenue; if none of these apply then double y and if you have less than c employees, you are a small farm) and you have been audited twice in the last five years or once in the five years if the farm has not be continuously operated (7 out 12 months employement at 80% or higher or 11 out 12 months at 60% highest employement) then decrease your change of being audited by a total of 50%, not to fall below an absolute chance of.50%."
That would be one exclusion, in total, the system probably has 5000-6000 of them.
The problem is that the anti-spam people write and design the algorithm. In the case I presented the design is dictated by a body of 400 elected officals, in incremental fashion, year-by-year. When a new requirement is introduced, usually around October, it has to be in effect usually by January 1.
The problem is I didnt design the *%@!#$ system, the legislature did. There is not a coherent system of rules in place, you understand. Every year 100-250 new rules are implemented usually around October and have to be in place and working before January 1.
IE; the souce code of your program should never have contained those secret details in the first place.
That's just impossible. The key numbers are in config files, that's true. But that doesn't mean that the code isn't important. It's not likle I dont know about using these tools. When you are dealing with 8,000 tax laws there is going to be a lot of the system designed around specific laws.
This has impact in other areas than security as well; what happens if the client wants to adjust the audit parameters? You have to change the sourcecode and recompile?
The client is a state government. When they want to change parameters, they pass a law. Those changes have to happen on specific timetable or all hell breaks lose.
I dont mean to be rude, but you outta learn something about how software is done outside of the computer science world. You have to understand that the beautiful system designed 10 years ago has very little in common with the realities of what it has to do today. Impossibly little. Virtually nothing in common. Any skilled programmer with access to the source - no matter how well designed - could design a tax return that decieves the system without seeing a single config file. Just knowing what fields are in the config file is enough to get around the system, even if perfectly designed like you suggest.
I thought of that, and no, the definition of even what the criteria is is the answer to the problem.
The algorithm is The Law. The software itself could never, never ever be open sourced. Even putting various thresholds in configuration files would reveal what the code actually looks for.
I've written software before that is used by state government to determine who gets audited. If that software was public and open there wouldn't be a single audit flagged by anyone. Accountants could pre-pare returns in very cleverly different ways with different numbers here and there to craft an audit-proof return.
There is no way for this application to be GPL'd with the source out in the open. The utility of the program is that no one knows the exact criteria.
The code are the rules in this system. And if everyone knew every rule, there would be no enforcement possible!
UC is obviously, blatantly, indefensably guilty of ignoring critical safety precautions that directly resulted in this massive loss of life.
I've said nothing to discourage that. I did note however that India is guilty of taking a huge pile of cash and doing nothing resolve the suffering caused by UC. That is horrendous, perhaps as bad or worse than the original crime. 20 years of sitting on nearly $500M in cash is indefensible.
That being said, there is not irrefutable evidence that the CEO of the company is personally criminally liable for the safety problems at the plant in question. That is a fiction, and if you proof I ask you to present it instead of swearing up and down all day.
Why on earth you would deign to take this position is a mystery, unpenetrated by your bloviatings.
Justice requires more than blind scapegoating. Holding one person solely responsible for a chain of events that was long, uninterrupted, and far removed does no justice to anyone. Frankly, unless the CEO was personally the one to pull a lever that knew would kill all those people he does not hold 100% of the guilt. Assigning guilt in the proper proportion is essential to detecting and preventing this massive type of injustice in the future.
Warren Anderson should go to jail and UC should have to pay restitution.
I have said nothing that contradicts that. Two things should be noted. One is that simply stating Warren Anderson should go to jail solves nothing, and does nothing to address the huge, larger than life issues of right and wrong, justice and injustice that this case raises. Secondly, UC paid significant damages. Virtually any amount larger and UC would have been bankrupt and everyone involved would have got absolutely nothing. Not one dime. India extracted the maximum fine that UC could absorb without bankruptcy. Since then India has done nothing to assuage the suffering of the victims. Virtually all of the funds are left stagnant. That is a crime on a scale that is beyond anything UC ever was accountable for.
It's a massive crime, and it's just that simple.
Asking you to look deeper than just a silly obsession with swearing at the "bad guy" might be a waste of time, but I am going to anyways. Holding a person like Anderson "fully-accountable" for this crime makes nothing better. It prevents nothing. It resolves nothing. And ultimately, it's not just. One person clearly was not fully responsible for this act. And falsely assigning blame to one person is a massive failure of people like yourself who want neat little resolutions where everyone gets placed in the "good guy" or "evil villian" column.
I am not doubting that creation by a surpreme being is central to the shared faith of most Christians. You are quite correct. But regarding fundamental tenants of the religion as well as the historical aspects of a specific domination, many many many Christians are entirely ignorant. For many Christians in the West religion is like a sport, only less important. You pick sides, you root and cheer and jeer.
What about them? I am not saying they didnt know something about inards, just that most things in ancient forms of Hebrew were concatened words. We have a word for "liver", "pancreas", etc. They would have used common words strung together to visually describe the things they saw.
Ancient languages had a very limited common vocabulary compared with today.
Great, you'd rather know for sure that justice will NOT be done than having a chance that justice will be done. Brilliant.
No, I'd like to know that what justice is promised to able to be delivered. Government ought to make only promises it can keep with 100% certainity.
Given that, why do so many christians believe that evolution contradicts the bible?
Most Christians don't really know much about their faith.
To most Christians faiths of the Western variety the Old Testament is a historical book of parables. It isn't considered to be the divinely inspired word of God. It isn't considered to be "the truth" - it's testimony of history and happenings. The people who wrote it were working from generations oral history. Languages factors into the mix: transliterating from a language of 10,000 words to a language of 400,000 words is a risky business!
There are Christians who literally believe the world was created a few thousand years ago in the course of a 7 24-hr days. That is certainly their right, but I disagree that the Bible relates this as the truth.
Either that or somebody is certainly trying to make the time span managed in the book.
Most of the Old Testament was written after hundreds of years of oral history. Pass a story down that many times and exaggerations and liberalizations are bound to happen.
I mean a couple of billion years has fit in about 5 days.
Most Christians do not believe that the Old Testament is the literal truth. For example, Catholics believe that the history of the world is divided into two logical sections: before Christ, and after (and during) Christ. The before Christ peoples of the earth required preperation for the coming according to the teachings of the Church. The Old Testament contains amoug other things the history of the people of the covenant as well as laws to prepare for the coming. When Catholics - as well as many other Christian faiths - read the Old Testament it is much like reading a historical source in a US History class. The old documents inform and shape current perspective but are applicable directly.
This is important. This is why for most Christian faiths it is not a contradiction to disregard the Old Testament laws of the Jewish faith - keeping kosher, etc. Those laws were supplanted by the laws of the New Testament which vary between more liberal and more strict.
So to directly answer your question: the creation story is parable to most Christian faiths. Everything in the bible is not literally true (Example: "The mountains will sing and trees will dance" is a metaphor). The Old Testament is a history of pre-Christian people, their laws, customs, and beliefs. It is formatory but not essential to the bulk of Christian faiths.
I hope this has helped you understand a bit better how the big picture of the Bible and scientific truth match-up in many Christian minds!
This shit goes too damn far.
Swearing about shows you have no grasp of the details.
If someone negligently directs safety to be disregarded to increase profits, then he or she is a criminal.
What you have described though is that the CEO is personally criminally responsible for any act of wrongdoing done by any part of the company. That is absurd.
That word apparently doesn't mean what it used to, because they are seldom expected to actually take responsibility. They have all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks.
If a person is head of a multi-national company with 150,000 employees, is that person personally criminally liable for the actions of every single employee?
Additionally, you claim that if one life is lost in the pursuit of profit they person responsible should be in jail. Fine if you think that. But that's every accidental industrial accident, ever. For the right amount of money any accident can be prevented. Period. Any. There isn't an industrial accident that couldn't be prevent given the right amount of cash. Any death at the hands of a corporation in your system would require the CEO to be imprisoned.
Corporations have limited liability for a reason. It is impossible to run a large company and not have issues of wrong-doing come up in the company. We need large companies. Large companies were not possible before limited-liability companies were concieved.
If a person knew that various safety systems were offline for maintenance, and then acted to sabtoage the process, he'd be at fault even though the safety systems were shut down.
Granted the systems should have been online, but the underlying act of malice is the disciding factor in the death and destruction.
$470 million in 1980's dollars is a substantial settlement. Small, but not marginal. The problem is that if the government of India pushes for more than UC can afford, UC would declare bankruptcy and victims would get absolutely nothing.
It wasn't even like that! Union Carbide settled with the government in India for nearly $500M in the late 1980's. That money has gone virtually unused since then. Unused!
On top of that, Union Carbide did more than it had to in providing cash directly to survivors. NPR had the story this monring of a women whose husband died. She was living in an apartment paid for life by UC and recieved $4,000 cash shortly after the disaster. For someone who in her whole life never had more than a few dollars worth of money, that's a princely sum.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no consensus that what you just made up will happen. You just made out of thin air: the number 100 million, the under water part, and the "not good" part.
Advocating ripping out the American economy and replacing it with something else needs more justification than glib little comments.
Spending money on something that is already built - like energy infrastructure - is a net drain on the economy. Supposing that it will be a net economic boon is practicing broken-window economics.
Of course, the alternative is to let global warming happen and watch as Florida sinks into the ocean. That wouldn't be all bad, I suppose. I mean, many in New Orleans could use a good bath.
You have no idea what will happen under global warming in 5, 10, 15, 50 years. There is no consenus on the outcomes of global warming into the future. Your supposition is based on what you think you might have heard somewhere. Where we are heading temperature wise has happened before. We've been there as a planet and as a race.
Planet or people, if we don't start doing something about this soon, we're screwed, and our kids are screwed.
The topic of whether global warming is good or bad for man is seriously unanswered.
Taking arguments to an extreme is a classical logical fallacy intended to discredit other peoples' arguments. It's also a trick of simple minds. You and I both know he wasn't saying anything like that. Don't be an idiot.
The point was and remains that we can do anything from nothing to a very lot, yet everyone who clamours for "something to be done" is unwilling to specify at what cost. Kyoto was so vicious to the US economic outlook that the president whose vice-president negogiated the treaty wouldn't even let it come to vote. There wasn't a siggle sitting senator - even amoung the left leaning ones - who'd agree to support it even in a non-binding way.
So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP?
That's the real question.
it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.
Really, you mean that? Congress could ban all pollution. Period. You cannot cause anything to be emitted into the air. No automobiles. No coal burning. No non-renewable 100% clean power plants. No aersol, no burning of leaves, no burning of wood, no unlicensed burning of anything.
They could. It would be legal. You are saying it is our responsibility to do that?
They write the requirements! And they pass 100-250 modifications a year to the system. Literally, there are hundreds of conditions: "If you are a small farm owner (less than x acres, or y profit, or z total revevenue; if none of these apply then double y and if you have less than c employees, you are a small farm) and you have been audited twice in the last five years or once in the five years if the farm has not be continuously operated (7 out 12 months employement at 80% or higher or 11 out 12 months at 60% highest employement) then decrease your change of being audited by a total of 50%, not to fall below an absolute chance of .50%."
That would be one exclusion, in total, the system probably has 5000-6000 of them.
The problem is that the anti-spam people write and design the algorithm. In the case I presented the design is dictated by a body of 400 elected officals, in incremental fashion, year-by-year. When a new requirement is introduced, usually around October, it has to be in effect usually by January 1.
The problem is I didnt design the *%@!#$ system, the legislature did. There is not a coherent system of rules in place, you understand. Every year 100-250 new rules are implemented usually around October and have to be in place and working before January 1.
IE; the souce code of your program should never have contained those secret details in the first place.
That's just impossible. The key numbers are in config files, that's true. But that doesn't mean that the code isn't important. It's not likle I dont know about using these tools. When you are dealing with 8,000 tax laws there is going to be a lot of the system designed around specific laws.
This has impact in other areas than security as well; what happens if the client wants to adjust the audit parameters? You have to change the sourcecode and recompile?
The client is a state government. When they want to change parameters, they pass a law. Those changes have to happen on specific timetable or all hell breaks lose.
I dont mean to be rude, but you outta learn something about how software is done outside of the computer science world. You have to understand that the beautiful system designed 10 years ago has very little in common with the realities of what it has to do today. Impossibly little. Virtually nothing in common. Any skilled programmer with access to the source - no matter how well designed - could design a tax return that decieves the system without seeing a single config file. Just knowing what fields are in the config file is enough to get around the system, even if perfectly designed like you suggest.
That's false.
I thought of that, and no, the definition of even what the criteria is is the answer to the problem.
The algorithm is The Law. The software itself could never, never ever be open sourced. Even putting various thresholds in configuration files would reveal what the code actually looks for.
Some things can never be open sourced.
I've written software before that is used by state government to determine who gets audited. If that software was public and open there wouldn't be a single audit flagged by anyone. Accountants could pre-pare returns in very cleverly different ways with different numbers here and there to craft an audit-proof return.
There is no way for this application to be GPL'd with the source out in the open. The utility of the program is that no one knows the exact criteria.
The code are the rules in this system. And if everyone knew every rule, there would be no enforcement possible!
UC is obviously, blatantly, indefensably guilty of ignoring critical safety precautions that directly resulted in this massive loss of life.
I've said nothing to discourage that. I did note however that India is guilty of taking a huge pile of cash and doing nothing resolve the suffering caused by UC. That is horrendous, perhaps as bad or worse than the original crime. 20 years of sitting on nearly $500M in cash is indefensible.
That being said, there is not irrefutable evidence that the CEO of the company is personally criminally liable for the safety problems at the plant in question. That is a fiction, and if you proof I ask you to present it instead of swearing up and down all day.
Why on earth you would deign to take this position is a mystery, unpenetrated by your bloviatings.
Justice requires more than blind scapegoating. Holding one person solely responsible for a chain of events that was long, uninterrupted, and far removed does no justice to anyone. Frankly, unless the CEO was personally the one to pull a lever that knew would kill all those people he does not hold 100% of the guilt. Assigning guilt in the proper proportion is essential to detecting and preventing this massive type of injustice in the future.
Warren Anderson should go to jail and UC should have to pay restitution.
I have said nothing that contradicts that. Two things should be noted. One is that simply stating Warren Anderson should go to jail solves nothing, and does nothing to address the huge, larger than life issues of right and wrong, justice and injustice that this case raises. Secondly, UC paid significant damages. Virtually any amount larger and UC would have been bankrupt and everyone involved would have got absolutely nothing. Not one dime. India extracted the maximum fine that UC could absorb without bankruptcy. Since then India has done nothing to assuage the suffering of the victims. Virtually all of the funds are left stagnant. That is a crime on a scale that is beyond anything UC ever was accountable for.
It's a massive crime, and it's just that simple.
Asking you to look deeper than just a silly obsession with swearing at the "bad guy" might be a waste of time, but I am going to anyways. Holding a person like Anderson "fully-accountable" for this crime makes nothing better. It prevents nothing. It resolves nothing. And ultimately, it's not just. One person clearly was not fully responsible for this act. And falsely assigning blame to one person is a massive failure of people like yourself who want neat little resolutions where everyone gets placed in the "good guy" or "evil villian" column.
I am not doubting that creation by a surpreme being is central to the shared faith of most Christians. You are quite correct. But regarding fundamental tenants of the religion as well as the historical aspects of a specific domination, many many many Christians are entirely ignorant. For many Christians in the West religion is like a sport, only less important. You pick sides, you root and cheer and jeer.
What about them? I am not saying they didnt know something about inards, just that most things in ancient forms of Hebrew were concatened words. We have a word for "liver", "pancreas", etc. They would have used common words strung together to visually describe the things they saw.
Ancient languages had a very limited common vocabulary compared with today.
I believe that God dictated the ten commandments to Moses, but the entire book of Genesis?
Various forms of ancient Hebrew had between 8,000 and 20,000 words.
Custom then (as now) was that the dead was to be buried within 24-hrs of death, preferably before the next sundown.
There really wasn't much knowledge of the human body excepting outwardly visible parts.
Great, you'd rather know for sure that justice will NOT be done than having a chance that justice will be done. Brilliant.
No, I'd like to know that what justice is promised to able to be delivered. Government ought to make only promises it can keep with 100% certainity.
Given that, why do so many christians believe that evolution contradicts the bible?
Most Christians don't really know much about their faith.
To most Christians faiths of the Western variety the Old Testament is a historical book of parables. It isn't considered to be the divinely inspired word of God. It isn't considered to be "the truth" - it's testimony of history and happenings. The people who wrote it were working from generations oral history. Languages factors into the mix: transliterating from a language of 10,000 words to a language of 400,000 words is a risky business!
There are Christians who literally believe the world was created a few thousand years ago in the course of a 7 24-hr days. That is certainly their right, but I disagree that the Bible relates this as the truth.
Either that or somebody is certainly trying to make the time span managed in the book.
Most of the Old Testament was written after hundreds of years of oral history. Pass a story down that many times and exaggerations and liberalizations are bound to happen.
I mean a couple of billion years has fit in about 5 days.
Most Christians do not believe that the Old Testament is the literal truth. For example, Catholics believe that the history of the world is divided into two logical sections: before Christ, and after (and during) Christ. The before Christ peoples of the earth required preperation for the coming according to the teachings of the Church. The Old Testament contains amoug other things the history of the people of the covenant as well as laws to prepare for the coming. When Catholics - as well as many other Christian faiths - read the Old Testament it is much like reading a historical source in a US History class. The old documents inform and shape current perspective but are applicable directly.
This is important. This is why for most Christian faiths it is not a contradiction to disregard the Old Testament laws of the Jewish faith - keeping kosher, etc. Those laws were supplanted by the laws of the New Testament which vary between more liberal and more strict.
So to directly answer your question: the creation story is parable to most Christian faiths. Everything in the bible is not literally true (Example: "The mountains will sing and trees will dance" is a metaphor). The Old Testament is a history of pre-Christian people, their laws, customs, and beliefs. It is formatory but not essential to the bulk of Christian faiths.
I hope this has helped you understand a bit better how the big picture of the Bible and scientific truth match-up in many Christian minds!
This shit goes too damn far.
Swearing about shows you have no grasp of the details.
If someone negligently directs safety to be disregarded to increase profits, then he or she is a criminal.
What you have described though is that the CEO is personally criminally responsible for any act of wrongdoing done by any part of the company. That is absurd.
That's a fine argument to make. Except I'd rather know something for sure than hope and pray that someone far away will protect me.
That word apparently doesn't mean what it used to, because they are seldom expected to actually take responsibility. They have all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks.
If a person is head of a multi-national company with 150,000 employees, is that person personally criminally liable for the actions of every single employee?
Additionally, you claim that if one life is lost in the pursuit of profit they person responsible should be in jail. Fine if you think that. But that's every accidental industrial accident, ever. For the right amount of money any accident can be prevented. Period. Any. There isn't an industrial accident that couldn't be prevent given the right amount of cash. Any death at the hands of a corporation in your system would require the CEO to be imprisoned.
Corporations have limited liability for a reason. It is impossible to run a large company and not have issues of wrong-doing come up in the company. We need large companies. Large companies were not possible before limited-liability companies were concieved.
If a person knew that various safety systems were offline for maintenance, and then acted to sabtoage the process, he'd be at fault even though the safety systems were shut down.
Granted the systems should have been online, but the underlying act of malice is the disciding factor in the death and destruction.
$470 million in 1980's dollars is a substantial settlement. Small, but not marginal. The problem is that if the government of India pushes for more than UC can afford, UC would declare bankruptcy and victims would get absolutely nothing.
And the Bhopal disaster was a result of corporate greed
Back that claim up, how about?
Research the issue a little. It's not nearly as clear cut as you'd love it to be.
It wasn't even like that! Union Carbide settled with the government in India for nearly $500M in the late 1980's. That money has gone virtually unused since then. Unused!
On top of that, Union Carbide did more than it had to in providing cash directly to survivors. NPR had the story this monring of a women whose husband died. She was living in an apartment paid for life by UC and recieved $4,000 cash shortly after the disaster. For someone who in her whole life never had more than a few dollars worth of money, that's a princely sum.