The OP is making a vapid argument, but let me extend the vapidity: the government is doing the taking, by allowing the corporation to violate the extant net neutrality.
No, I don't buy it either, but it is slightly less absurd than the original topic of weather net neutrality violates the fifty amendment.
End of discussion. This is exactly the truth. This is a simple question of market regulation; there is no taking going on, and the eminent domain question is ridiculous.
I'm not clear on what you mean. They want to use the lines on my land to provide uneven service to their customers. If that weren't true, then I could rip up the lines on my land without affecting their little racket there; but ripping up the lines would in fact ruin their evil scheme. Their servers on their own land also have a part in the whole thing.
That sounds good for you, but presumably this study looked at more than just you, and drew conclusions based on characteristics widespread among the group. The study might be hokus (I didn't even read the article, let alone read the study), but your anecdote wouldn't be sufficient to upend it.
Hi. You seem to be a little confused about natural history, but I think I can help. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, humans hadn't even evolved yet, so humans had nothing to do with breeding the dinosaurs. We came along much later and simply used the world as we found it to our own ends. Similarly, we use energy from the sun to generate electricity, even though we didn't have to start the sun burning. We also get energy from waterfalls without having to put the water at the top of the hill in the first place. Other energy sources are similar -- we look around the world as it exists, and see where we can squeeze out some power.
That's one example, but there are others. Telephones took a heck of a long time to be adopted widely (but, I don't know how price affected that). You are right to say that price is a very significant (perhaps the most significant) factor, but it is one among many.
Oh, yeah, totally right. I hear often tropes about "we're selling out our children's future!" but nobody seems to think about our present being sold out by the last generation. It all goes together. Nobody needs to be perfect, but to the same degree that we should be making reasonable decisions to lay out a good future for our children, and deserve criticism for failing to do that, previous generations deserve the same criticism. Almost certainly, our children will make similar mistakes.
But, global warming specifically is a problem today, because it wasn't prevented in the past. Now, we have to clean up the mess, which is already a mess -- it's not, say, a coming mess, it's a present mess. The time to prevent the problem was after the 1970s oil embargo.
The world has marched slowly in the right direction, and our parents get credit for doing lots of great things, as do we.
It's easy to sound well informed. It's difficult to be well informed. It's difficult for me to tell the difference, so I asked for his credentials, to determine whether he is a well-educated professional who has spent many many years studying the minutia of this subject, or just some wanker who thinks he knows a lot because he can throw around some funny terms which are above the understanding of his interlocutors. I didn't attack anyone. He could easily come back by telling me his real name and the university where he achieved that stunning level of knowledge.
You haven't seen it because evidence doesn't prove things, it merely provides evidence for things. In this case, we have lots of evidence, overwhelming evidence. The only people who refuse the obvious conclusion of AGW are people who, like you, deny anything until it is "proven", which is a conveniently impossible standard. My suggestion is that you lower your threshold to "overwhelming evidence" and then get on board with the rest of us. We were all skeptical back in the late 1990s, but the skeptics are now all convinced, and only the deniers are left out there.
You have completely changed my mind, and the minds of countless others, with your complete and utter rebuttal of all the relevant evidence. Thank you THANK YOU so much for saving us from our delusion. You are truly a king among men.
In the not-so-distant past, environmental conservation was a conservative political policy because of the hunter lobby, and only those labor-union pro-development liberals wanted to pave the forest. Things change.
Actually, it was our parents who refused to listen to the scientists in the 1980s (and earlier), who have saddled you and me and the current generation with the problem today.
Thanks a lot, mom and dad. Your ignorance and refusal to listen to people who knew what they were talking about is giving my peers skin cancer and heat stroke.
Which earth was used to change the levels of CO2 and leave all the other factors constant to measure the actual effect of CO2 on temperature?
The ones in thousands of simulations done with sophisticated and specific understandings of the physical workings of earth's climate. Duh, just like a lot of modern science. Surely you already knew this.
Typically the term "unnatural" refers to things made by intelligent means.
There is a legitimate philosophical question as to whether intelligence can be separated from "nature", but if not, then everything is "natural", and the word loses meaning. So, that's the way the word is used.
Then, also, there is a legitimate question as to how "intelligent" is "intelligent". It's a sliding scale, and maybe not always clear, but for most purposes the dividing line is somewhere that puts humans above the line, and every other living thing on earth below the line. Some people will quibble about whales and ravens and dolphins, but that's the way the word is used.
So, I hope that helps you understand what people mean when they say "natural" and "unnatural", even if you think that is not very tight diction. So when someone talks about "unnatural" climate change, they mean climate change caused by humans, which wouldn't have occurred without humans being around to cause it.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP is making a vapid argument, but let me extend the vapidity: the government is doing the taking, by allowing the corporation to violate the extant net neutrality.
No, I don't buy it either, but it is slightly less absurd than the original topic of weather net neutrality violates the fifty amendment.
Indeed! and thus it is interstate commerce. Well said.
(But, interstate commerce isn't really the issue here.)
Yikes. Nothing at the state level has anything to do with interstate commerce, by definition.
Ha ha, you said something dumb. No wonder you posted AC.
Good times, good times.
End of discussion. This is exactly the truth. This is a simple question of market regulation; there is no taking going on, and the eminent domain question is ridiculous.
I'm not clear on what you mean. They want to use the lines on my land to provide uneven service to their customers. If that weren't true, then I could rip up the lines on my land without affecting their little racket there; but ripping up the lines would in fact ruin their evil scheme. Their servers on their own land also have a part in the whole thing.
As much as we wish it did, the Constitution does not prevent Comcast from infringing our right to free speech or to assemble.
That sounds good for you, but presumably this study looked at more than just you, and drew conclusions based on characteristics widespread among the group. The study might be hokus (I didn't even read the article, let alone read the study), but your anecdote wouldn't be sufficient to upend it.
Hi. You seem to be a little confused about natural history, but I think I can help. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, humans hadn't even evolved yet, so humans had nothing to do with breeding the dinosaurs. We came along much later and simply used the world as we found it to our own ends. Similarly, we use energy from the sun to generate electricity, even though we didn't have to start the sun burning. We also get energy from waterfalls without having to put the water at the top of the hill in the first place. Other energy sources are similar -- we look around the world as it exists, and see where we can squeeze out some power.
I hope that helps clear things up for you.
That's one example, but there are others. Telephones took a heck of a long time to be adopted widely (but, I don't know how price affected that). You are right to say that price is a very significant (perhaps the most significant) factor, but it is one among many.
work is fiction? what do you mean by that?
Oh, yeah, totally right. I hear often tropes about "we're selling out our children's future!" but nobody seems to think about our present being sold out by the last generation. It all goes together. Nobody needs to be perfect, but to the same degree that we should be making reasonable decisions to lay out a good future for our children, and deserve criticism for failing to do that, previous generations deserve the same criticism. Almost certainly, our children will make similar mistakes.
But, global warming specifically is a problem today, because it wasn't prevented in the past. Now, we have to clean up the mess, which is already a mess -- it's not, say, a coming mess, it's a present mess. The time to prevent the problem was after the 1970s oil embargo.
The world has marched slowly in the right direction, and our parents get credit for doing lots of great things, as do we.
It's easy to sound well informed. It's difficult to be well informed. It's difficult for me to tell the difference, so I asked for his credentials, to determine whether he is a well-educated professional who has spent many many years studying the minutia of this subject, or just some wanker who thinks he knows a lot because he can throw around some funny terms which are above the understanding of his interlocutors. I didn't attack anyone. He could easily come back by telling me his real name and the university where he achieved that stunning level of knowledge.
"Ungood", dude, the quote from 1984 is "ungood". And indeed, AGW is doubleplusungood.
You seem very well informed. From what university did you get your climate science PhD?
You haven't seen it because evidence doesn't prove things, it merely provides evidence for things. In this case, we have lots of evidence, overwhelming evidence. The only people who refuse the obvious conclusion of AGW are people who, like you, deny anything until it is "proven", which is a conveniently impossible standard. My suggestion is that you lower your threshold to "overwhelming evidence" and then get on board with the rest of us. We were all skeptical back in the late 1990s, but the skeptics are now all convinced, and only the deniers are left out there.
So you've heard the trope, that's good, but you still don't understand it, so please do a little more self education.
You have completely changed my mind, and the minds of countless others, with your complete and utter rebuttal of all the relevant evidence. Thank you THANK YOU so much for saving us from our delusion. You are truly a king among men.
In the not-so-distant past, environmental conservation was a conservative political policy because of the hunter lobby, and only those labor-union pro-development liberals wanted to pave the forest. Things change.
Actually, it was our parents who refused to listen to the scientists in the 1980s (and earlier), who have saddled you and me and the current generation with the problem today.
Thanks a lot, mom and dad. Your ignorance and refusal to listen to people who knew what they were talking about is giving my peers skin cancer and heat stroke.
Which earth was used to change the levels of CO2 and leave all the other factors constant to measure the actual effect of CO2 on temperature?
The ones in thousands of simulations done with sophisticated and specific understandings of the physical workings of earth's climate. Duh, just like a lot of modern science. Surely you already knew this.
Typically the term "unnatural" refers to things made by intelligent means.
There is a legitimate philosophical question as to whether intelligence can be separated from "nature", but if not, then everything is "natural", and the word loses meaning. So, that's the way the word is used.
Then, also, there is a legitimate question as to how "intelligent" is "intelligent". It's a sliding scale, and maybe not always clear, but for most purposes the dividing line is somewhere that puts humans above the line, and every other living thing on earth below the line. Some people will quibble about whales and ravens and dolphins, but that's the way the word is used.
So, I hope that helps you understand what people mean when they say "natural" and "unnatural", even if you think that is not very tight diction. So when someone talks about "unnatural" climate change, they mean climate change caused by humans, which wouldn't have occurred without humans being around to cause it.
Hot temperatures in one place == weather
Hot temperatures all over the place == climate
You have mistaken those. Good luck.
Oh, around 1990 or so.
Yawn. Your straw man is boring and stupid. Nobody buys it.