"Negative liberties" refer to interference from others, including both private citizens and government.
There's a slight problem here: Negative liberty is directly proportional to the size of your bank account. If you can't afford to defend your negative liberty on your own against interference from others, you lose it.
Progressives try to "enhance" people's "positive liberty"-- which is a zero-sum game.
Not by a long shot. If you don't have to spend so much time defending yourself from people who keep trying to make your life miserable for their own personal gain, you can actually go about using the more enjoyable aspects of your remaining liberty.
How many years of college will we all need to escape the collar? How much money in student loans? The worse things get in these low-end jobs the more people try to get out of them the higher the bar gets but with no real advantage for society.
If you want to escape the collar, you'll have to look for a way that will fit inside your garage or back yard. College degree don't work anymore.
Now that's an interesting idea. Get the kids to rediscover the library through a game where they create something that would make other kids interested in what the library has to offer. They'll probably start with the obvious - rating how interesting the books are and compiling a list of must-reads. But they should get more creative than that.
So school libraries are generally becoming obsolete because students have high-tech resources at home to do reading and research. But your students don't have that. So how is your library in danger of becoming obsolete?
Because most of the skills that the students will learn in the library will be obsolete once they leave school. Library as a place of learning should strive to teach its students something that they can use for a long time.
Perhaps it's just the knowledge gained with years, perhaps I'm just some asshole who doesn't think right. But everyone cannot be wealthy. Just isn't enough GNP.
Being wealthy is not a matter of GNP. "Wealthy" is a term relative to everybody around you. By definition, less than half the population can possibly qualify for being wealthy.
Also, if you limit economic opportunities of huge part of the population by subjecting them to severe poverty, you effectively restrict GNP.
What these petty jealous folks don't understand that the Waltons didn't get so insanely rich on executive pay or even on the profits of the company. They got rich because they own stock in a company that grew to dominate its sector. Its the value of their stock that makes them so rich. Clearly its not a zero sum game because the multi-billions in net worth that they hold did not come out of the pockets of other people, nor did that money come out of the economy.
So the wealth from owning stock comes from thin air? Well, of course not. Bubbles aside, that kind of wealth always comes from company revenue. Stock price is mostly determined by how much assets (buildings, inventory, etc.) the company holds and its annual profits (and also projected changes in future profits). How else would you convince potential investors to buy stock in your company and increase the price of your stock by doing so, making you richer?
"It's everyone's responsibility to go out and get a good job and make lots of money. Anyone can do it! If you don't you must be dumb or lazy or both and should just shoot yourself to make room for hard working people" he says.
Anyone can do it in the same sense as anyone can win an olympic medal. There's a huge difference between "anyone" and "everyone". When everyone makes lots of money, then, by mathematical necessity, at least half of all the people don't.
Possible fix; whoever sues for copyright infringement is responsible for providing the evidence and bearing all costs for both parties until such evidence is found to be infringing. After that only reward actual damages unless the infringing party knowingly and willingly infringed. It's not a perfect fix, but it'd make it more risky for corporations to sue.
And it will also effectively protect the MAFIAA from having to sign any contract with authors ever after. By all means, let's mildly annoy the big players by something that royally screws the small ones...
I think it'd be enough to make the Copyright holder have a right to a big slice of any revenue (not profits) made with use of copyrighted material without license. If there's no revenue, then there's no basis for demanding a slice of it.
Exactly, the author's ability to get paid must not depend on preventing others from distributing his work. But then it's not copyright anymore.
Surely copyright has problems, but those can be fixed to be fair to all. I say look at the original intent of copyright (which is roughly to encourage creators to keep creating) and change the laws to ensure that original intent and nothing more.
Fixed how? The single biggest problem of copyright is that it gives corporations the ability to sue a competitor out of existence. And that's a problem you can't fix because that ability is also the fundamental basis of copyright.
Copyright being enforced badly doesn't make the concept of copyright bad... it makes how it is enforced bad.
They *CAN* be separate... at least in theory.
Any law that allows one corporation to sue a competitor out of existence is bad. There's no possibility to enforce such law in a good way.
If you want a system which is beneficial for both creators and the general public, replace copyright with payright: the scope of works covered by payright would stay the same but everybody would be free to distribute those works under the condition that they pay a cut of any revenue made from using the work to its author. This system would open the market to lots of distributors resulting in better services for customers and new income streams for authors which the MAFIAA won't touch with a 10 foot pole (because just touching those income streams would require them to give up their paranoid control first).
If by "new evidence" you mean TFA, then you're wrong. The new evidence from TFA is about getting a lot more accurate amplification rate estimates than scientists use right now in their climate calculations and models.
The models have a certain level of accuracy and precision, and we need to acknowledge that.
The last time I checked, actual scientific papers about climate model results included error bars. There is no better way to acknowledge inaccuracy of scientific models than providing error bars for the result.
Whether we feel a relative error of X% or an absolute error of X degrees is high enough to "disregard" research is somewhat subjective.
There's nothing subjective about that. Scientists decide whether to accept given conclusions or not based on confidence test. The hypothesis needs to hold in a test with 95% confidence level in order to be accepted.
What it even means to "disregard" research is subjective.
The Anonymous Coward who started this thread of discussion was pretty clear about the meaning of his disregard: "As a physicist I do not take modeling of the atmosphere as we understood it now serious."
Having technical knowledge is good for a manager to understand what their team is doing and what they're saying in meetings, but "technical knowledge" is not and never has been what the manager's job is about. A good manager doesn't need to understand the details, because they're not micro-managing their staff.
But at the same time they need to understand the skillset of each team member just enough to know who to bring with them to a meeting with the client. Never, EVER let a non-technical manager go discuss product features with the client without any qualified developers/designers around.
nevertheless, it is by far the dominant greenhouse gas on this world.
Dominant in the sense that it has the biggest total impact. However, because water stays in vapor form only for a few days (9 days on average), that huge impact serves as nothing more than a mere amplifier of other influences. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for centuries before it gets removed through natural processes.
Look at the weather, local in particular, and tell me how many days ahead can they get right? They use computer models to predict weather and there predictions are worse then the days of then doing it by hand.
You can't model the flow of individual electrons through semiconductor but that didn't stop electrical engineers from designing your computer and making it work.
Saying that climate is chaotic and hard to predict shouldn't be controversial.
That's not the controversial part. The controversial part is using this as an argument for disregarding tons of valid peer-reviewed research which describes hidden patterns in the chaos.
From the article: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to transnational corporations, which exploit that data for profit," Pauley wrote in . Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection.
So, you know, some people tell everything to Facebook and Google. It's totally cool if just spy on everyone now, right? Because terrorism and stuff. We are just going to keep feeding off of something that happened over a decade ago.
[sarcasm]Millions of people voluntarily have sex every day. Therefore, they surely won't mind if we make rape legal for government officials.[/sarcasm]
Actually, there are. Turing completeness is not that hard to achieve. I've seen quite a few attempts to reinvent programming exclusively in GUI and all of them were utter failures that are painful to use for anyone who can code in a real text-based programming language. The biggest pain often comes from their single-minded focus on making insertion of new "code" trivial even for idiots and complete lack of attention to maintenance of existing code.
That's why I said "estimate". Remember it took almost 300 years before physicists found and fixed a major hole in Newtonian theory of gravity. There's always a chance that models will calculate a false positive. The only way to weed out false positives is to keep running more simulations on different data.
Let me introduce you to the concept of tidal forces and their effect causing significant heat as as the mass of a planetary body, especially the crust, flexes in response.
Check out Europa and the Jovian tidal forces that generate enough heat energy to keep water liquid that far from the sun, and even cause huge geysers, for an example.
Let me introduce you to the concept of math. Jupiter has about 100 000 times greater mass than Moon. Europa orbits Jupiter at about 600 000 km, Moon orbits Earth at about 400 000 km which gives a factor of 2 on the tidal force from Moon (ratio of squares of orbital distances). If tidal forces from Jupiter raise temperature on Europa by let's say 100 degrees Celsius, the total effect of Moon on Earth would be what, 0.001 degrees? [sarcasm]Oh man! Those pesky climate scientists are so wrong that they don't account for miniscule changes in such significant influence on global temperature in their climate models![/sarcasm]
Slashdot Mirror
"Negative liberties" refer to interference from others, including both private citizens and government.
There's a slight problem here: Negative liberty is directly proportional to the size of your bank account. If you can't afford to defend your negative liberty on your own against interference from others, you lose it.
Progressives try to "enhance" people's "positive liberty"-- which is a zero-sum game.
Not by a long shot. If you don't have to spend so much time defending yourself from people who keep trying to make your life miserable for their own personal gain, you can actually go about using the more enjoyable aspects of your remaining liberty.
How many years of college will we all need to escape the collar? How much money in student loans? The worse things get in these low-end jobs the more people try to get out of them the higher the bar gets but with no real advantage for society.
If you want to escape the collar, you'll have to look for a way that will fit inside your garage or back yard. College degree don't work anymore.
Skip the card catalog, and encourage exploring.
Now that's an interesting idea. Get the kids to rediscover the library through a game where they create something that would make other kids interested in what the library has to offer. They'll probably start with the obvious - rating how interesting the books are and compiling a list of must-reads. But they should get more creative than that.
So school libraries are generally becoming obsolete because students have high-tech resources at home to do reading and research. But your students don't have that. So how is your library in danger of becoming obsolete?
Because most of the skills that the students will learn in the library will be obsolete once they leave school. Library as a place of learning should strive to teach its students something that they can use for a long time.
No, actually of the strategies of the body to "kick bug's ass", as you pedestrianly put it, is to raise temperature to perturb germ replication.
Some bugs like the extra heat, some don't. The point of fever is to put your immune cells on red alert.
Fever is the immune system's red alert. It may not harm the bugs directly, but it ramps up the overall immune response.
Perhaps it's just the knowledge gained with years, perhaps I'm just some asshole who doesn't think right. But everyone cannot be wealthy. Just isn't enough GNP.
Being wealthy is not a matter of GNP. "Wealthy" is a term relative to everybody around you. By definition, less than half the population can possibly qualify for being wealthy.
Also, if you limit economic opportunities of huge part of the population by subjecting them to severe poverty, you effectively restrict GNP.
What these petty jealous folks don't understand that the Waltons didn't get so insanely rich on executive pay or even on the profits of the company. They got rich because they own stock in a company that grew to dominate its sector. Its the value of their stock that makes them so rich. Clearly its not a zero sum game because the multi-billions in net worth that they hold did not come out of the pockets of other people, nor did that money come out of the economy.
So the wealth from owning stock comes from thin air? Well, of course not. Bubbles aside, that kind of wealth always comes from company revenue. Stock price is mostly determined by how much assets (buildings, inventory, etc.) the company holds and its annual profits (and also projected changes in future profits). How else would you convince potential investors to buy stock in your company and increase the price of your stock by doing so, making you richer?
"It's everyone's responsibility to go out and get a good job and make lots of money. Anyone can do it! If you don't you must be dumb or lazy or both and should just shoot yourself to make room for hard working people" he says.
Anyone can do it in the same sense as anyone can win an olympic medal. There's a huge difference between "anyone" and "everyone". When everyone makes lots of money, then, by mathematical necessity, at least half of all the people don't.
Possible fix; whoever sues for copyright infringement is responsible for providing the evidence and bearing all costs for both parties until such evidence is found to be infringing. After that only reward actual damages unless the infringing party knowingly and willingly infringed. It's not a perfect fix, but it'd make it more risky for corporations to sue.
And it will also effectively protect the MAFIAA from having to sign any contract with authors ever after. By all means, let's mildly annoy the big players by something that royally screws the small ones...
I think it'd be enough to make the Copyright holder have a right to a big slice of any revenue (not profits) made with use of copyrighted material without license. If there's no revenue, then there's no basis for demanding a slice of it.
Exactly, the author's ability to get paid must not depend on preventing others from distributing his work. But then it's not copyright anymore.
Surely copyright has problems, but those can be fixed to be fair to all. I say look at the original intent of copyright (which is roughly to encourage creators to keep creating) and change the laws to ensure that original intent and nothing more.
Fixed how? The single biggest problem of copyright is that it gives corporations the ability to sue a competitor out of existence. And that's a problem you can't fix because that ability is also the fundamental basis of copyright.
Copyright being enforced badly doesn't make the concept of copyright bad... it makes how it is enforced bad.
They *CAN* be separate... at least in theory.
Any law that allows one corporation to sue a competitor out of existence is bad. There's no possibility to enforce such law in a good way.
If you want a system which is beneficial for both creators and the general public, replace copyright with payright: the scope of works covered by payright would stay the same but everybody would be free to distribute those works under the condition that they pay a cut of any revenue made from using the work to its author. This system would open the market to lots of distributors resulting in better services for customers and new income streams for authors which the MAFIAA won't touch with a 10 foot pole (because just touching those income streams would require them to give up their paranoid control first).
If by "new evidence" you mean TFA, then you're wrong. The new evidence from TFA is about getting a lot more accurate amplification rate estimates than scientists use right now in their climate calculations and models.
The models have a certain level of accuracy and precision, and we need to acknowledge that.
The last time I checked, actual scientific papers about climate model results included error bars. There is no better way to acknowledge inaccuracy of scientific models than providing error bars for the result.
Whether we feel a relative error of X% or an absolute error of X degrees is high enough to "disregard" research is somewhat subjective.
There's nothing subjective about that. Scientists decide whether to accept given conclusions or not based on confidence test. The hypothesis needs to hold in a test with 95% confidence level in order to be accepted.
What it even means to "disregard" research is subjective.
The Anonymous Coward who started this thread of discussion was pretty clear about the meaning of his disregard: "As a physicist I do not take modeling of the atmosphere as we understood it now serious."
Having technical knowledge is good for a manager to understand what their team is doing and what they're saying in meetings, but "technical knowledge" is not and never has been what the manager's job is about. A good manager doesn't need to understand the details, because they're not micro-managing their staff.
But at the same time they need to understand the skillset of each team member just enough to know who to bring with them to a meeting with the client. Never, EVER let a non-technical manager go discuss product features with the client without any qualified developers/designers around.
nevertheless, it is by far the dominant greenhouse gas on this world.
Dominant in the sense that it has the biggest total impact. However, because water stays in vapor form only for a few days (9 days on average), that huge impact serves as nothing more than a mere amplifier of other influences. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for centuries before it gets removed through natural processes.
Look at the weather, local in particular, and tell me how many days ahead can they get right? They use computer models to predict weather and there predictions are worse then the days of then doing it by hand.
You can't model the flow of individual electrons through semiconductor but that didn't stop electrical engineers from designing your computer and making it work.
Saying that climate is chaotic and hard to predict shouldn't be controversial.
That's not the controversial part. The controversial part is using this as an argument for disregarding tons of valid peer-reviewed research which describes hidden patterns in the chaos.
Only if you have no imagination.
Exactly, the Tamarians aren't so alien after all.
From the article: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to transnational corporations, which exploit that data for profit," Pauley wrote in . Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection.
So, you know, some people tell everything to Facebook and Google. It's totally cool if just spy on everyone now, right? Because terrorism and stuff. We are just going to keep feeding off of something that happened over a decade ago.
[sarcasm]Millions of people voluntarily have sex every day. Therefore, they surely won't mind if we make rape legal for government officials.[/sarcasm]
Actually, there are. Turing completeness is not that hard to achieve. I've seen quite a few attempts to reinvent programming exclusively in GUI and all of them were utter failures that are painful to use for anyone who can code in a real text-based programming language. The biggest pain often comes from their single-minded focus on making insertion of new "code" trivial even for idiots and complete lack of attention to maintenance of existing code.
That's why I said "estimate". Remember it took almost 300 years before physicists found and fixed a major hole in Newtonian theory of gravity. There's always a chance that models will calculate a false positive. The only way to weed out false positives is to keep running more simulations on different data.
Let me introduce you to the concept of tidal forces and their effect causing significant heat as as the mass of a planetary body, especially the crust, flexes in response.
Check out Europa and the Jovian tidal forces that generate enough heat energy to keep water liquid that far from the sun, and even cause huge geysers, for an example.
Let me introduce you to the concept of math. Jupiter has about 100 000 times greater mass than Moon. Europa orbits Jupiter at about 600 000 km, Moon orbits Earth at about 400 000 km which gives a factor of 2 on the tidal force from Moon (ratio of squares of orbital distances). If tidal forces from Jupiter raise temperature on Europa by let's say 100 degrees Celsius, the total effect of Moon on Earth would be what, 0.001 degrees? [sarcasm]Oh man! Those pesky climate scientists are so wrong that they don't account for miniscule changes in such significant influence on global temperature in their climate models![/sarcasm]