"More than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussions of climate science completed a questionnaire"
I'd agree that it is probably a fairly good representation of those deeply involved in the debate, who read those blogs and are willing to take time to do the survey.
How much it says about the general populace is a different question. And notably one the researchers don't try to answer.
This is a classic example of taking a study about a sample of a limited population and broadly generalizing it in the submission write-up for slashdot.
Planetary Society was originally in favor of a manned mission to Mars if and only if it was a joint mission done with the Soviet Union as a way of defusing international tensions.
This is nothing new from Friedman. He's preferred robotic missions to manned for decades.
The only reason he'd be in favor of Mars is that in the 1980s, Planetary Society came out in favor of Mars as a way of enhancing relations with the Soviets (to help avoid what was seen as an ultimately inevitable nuclear war unless relations were normalized). The reason was political rather than scientific. For other missions, manned flight was viewed as taking away funding for unmanned. Van Allen was another of the "stay at home" crowd at Planetary Society.
Since then, events changed some of the rationale for that, but he's on record as being in favor of a manned Mars mission, and it's a little hard to go back on it and not look silly. I really doubt that his antipathy to manned space exploration has changed at all.
"There is a variety of environmentalists, each with different concerns."
You can say that about any group. If you rigidly enforce it, it becomes impossible to say anything meaningful about sets of more than one person at a time.
Example: Republicans don't vote for Obama.
In the main, that's true. Except that I know at least one Republican that did vote for Obama in 2008. i.e. There are a variety of Republicans each with different concerns.
That's dismissing a statement on a technicality that in the main applies across a large enough portion of the group that it is a useful and largely true statement.
Of course they can. But what will the regulations be written to mandate?
You're telling me you expect standards regulations to only follow reasonable scientific thinking and be based on easy to reach consensus?
In your dreams. Just get in the middle of the recurring dog fight between industry and environmentalists over what constitutes a significant emmision or exposure and what is to be considered diminimous, as an example.
Those wars can make a debate between the Birchers and the Wobblies seem positively cordial.
Interesting that you know what I believe based on a rhetorical device.
In truth, I'm not quite sure which message you mean. You're not clear about that. Is it that you're saying I'm anti-big business or are you saying that I'm belittling organic growers? Your response can be read either way.
You say "our companies". Do you work in the food industry (either specialty organic or general food)?
My background: I used to work in a food QC lab at a fairly large cooking oil factory. (The plant shut down. I now work for a chemistry department at a university.)
The "organic" growers will want testing of foods from the big companies to keep them honest. But, it could well be mandated for all producers.
If you say it's non-gmo, prove it. Regardless of the size of your operation.
With modern laboratory methods, we can detect tiny amounts of specific genetic material.
example: detecting Asian Carp DNA in the water of Lake Michigan. We haven't seen the carp, but we know that at least a few are there from the shed genetic material.
Imagine the consternation when much of the final product "organic" food also tests positive for detectable amounts of transfered BT genes or other GM material. Additions that could have blown in with pollen or from volunteer plants. You grind, mix and process many foods, so anything in it gets distributed. If your suppliers don't do a good job of vetting their sources, you're screwed.
Too bad if it was contamination. Go to court for remedy if you want. But, in the meantime it's not GMO free so pull off the labels or pull it from the shelves.
It's all in how the levels are set in the regulations and what part of the production cycle the testing is done at.
If you want GMO free, it doesn't matter how it gets in, so end product testing rather than the incoming materials is quite reasonable.
If it passes, big food should lobby for stringent levels and testing. Besides, for large companies, the expense can be spread of huge amounts of product shipped. For small organic producers, not so much. If it passes, this "big win" may be a devil in disguise for those that wanted it.
In truth, I was more ignoring that point. There's a legitimate concern that whenever you provide interfaces that can do powerful things on a system, they can almost by definition be abused.
Often though, locking down things in the name of security doesn't do a thorough job of protecting against real mischief. A half measure job won't prevent real attackers from getting in. But, it will often prevent anyone but "authorized" service personnel from doing anything. For an industry that makes a good bit off of the service and repair of their products, it's tempting to wall off what independent mechanics/electronics techs can do.
Having security as a ready to hand reason is great cover for that.
Yes it does use hydro. But try to site a new dam for a hydroelectric power plant.
I find it hypocritical for the environmental movement to cite hydro-electric as an example of successful renewable energy in support of non hydro renewables when they've historically fought any new dams tooth and nail.
Sounds like the auto makers are getting tired of individuals being able to change their own cars engine/transmission settings, and or, do fixes that usually require paying the dealer.
Congress mandated an open set of engine/car diagnostic codes due to them not releasing service information some years back. Sounds like they're investigating the possibility of re-imposing something similar via "security" concerns.
"Think of the children that could be put at risk if $evil-auto-hacker isn't protected against!"
(Cancer is a disease that becomes more common in old age. Seatbelts help keep you from being killed at a young age before you're likely to develop cancer.)
When they give up in On the Beach, that's still a choice. They are still human in that they can make that choice.
I'd argue that in 1984, there never was a choice. Oh, they allowed Winston an illusion that he was rebelling, but in truth, he was watched the whole time. Not only is there no real choice, there never was any choice. Hope was only an illusion allowed for a short and limited time by the state which used it as part of the degradation and mockery he ultimately endured.
There is no hope for Winston, because he truly loves Big Brother at the end.
There is no hope for anyone as the Ministry of Truth will ultimately exterminate even the ability to conceive of a nondoctrine thought via changing the language to Newspeak.
Slashdot Mirror
They may be like Orcus in DnD, and there's a chance they'll reappear if you mention them.
Wait...
Oops. Who's that big pig headed guy over there?
"It is fun if you want it to be :)"
Uh... Sorry. Not my particular kink.
"And why should I wear condom when having sex? It takes away all the fun."
Yup. Changing diapers at 3 am is such fun.
Birthdays are for living things. For a computer system like slashdot, think of it as filling up the first nibble.
They started counting with 0, of course.
I still keep a couple around. Not all forms are in PDF or other fillable electronic form. A typewriter is great for filling out a random paper form.
Maturity is highly overrated.
"they believe innocent individuals need to suffer "
Often, radicals believe there are no innocents.
They feel that either you must be as militant as they are, or you're just a tool/ally of those they feel are opposing/oppressing them.
In the former case, you're a fighter for their cause and thus a martyr if killed.
In the latter case, you are a part of the problem that needs to be disposed of.
From one of the linked articles:
"More than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussions of climate science completed a questionnaire"
I'd agree that it is probably a fairly good representation of those deeply involved in the debate, who read those blogs and are willing to take time to do the survey.
How much it says about the general populace is a different question. And notably one the researchers don't try to answer.
This is a classic example of taking a study about a sample of a limited population and broadly generalizing it in the submission write-up for slashdot.
Remember tunnel 17!
The old usenet maxim still holds: There is no ironic humor so blatant that someone on the net won't take it seriously. ;)
Sorry for following myself up, but to clarify:
Planetary Society was originally in favor of a manned mission to Mars if and only if it was a joint mission done with the Soviet Union as a way of defusing international tensions.
This is nothing new from Friedman. He's preferred robotic missions to manned for decades.
The only reason he'd be in favor of Mars is that in the 1980s, Planetary Society came out in favor of Mars as a way of enhancing relations with the Soviets (to help avoid what was seen as an ultimately inevitable nuclear war unless relations were normalized). The reason was political rather than scientific. For other missions, manned flight was viewed as taking away funding for unmanned. Van Allen was another of the "stay at home" crowd at Planetary Society.
Since then, events changed some of the rationale for that, but he's on record as being in favor of a manned Mars mission, and it's a little hard to go back on it and not look silly. I really doubt that his antipathy to manned space exploration has changed at all.
"There is a variety of environmentalists, each with different concerns."
You can say that about any group. If you rigidly enforce it, it becomes impossible to say anything meaningful about sets of more than one person at a time.
Example: Republicans don't vote for Obama.
In the main, that's true. Except that I know at least one Republican that did vote for Obama in 2008. i.e. There are a variety of Republicans each with different concerns.
That's dismissing a statement on a technicality that in the main applies across a large enough portion of the group that it is a useful and largely true statement.
Of course they can. But what will the regulations be written to mandate?
You're telling me you expect standards regulations to only follow reasonable scientific thinking and be based on easy to reach consensus?
In your dreams. Just get in the middle of the recurring dog fight between industry and environmentalists over what constitutes a significant emmision or exposure and what is to be considered diminimous, as an example.
Those wars can make a debate between the Birchers and the Wobblies seem positively cordial.
Interesting that you know what I believe based on a rhetorical device.
In truth, I'm not quite sure which message you mean. You're not clear about that. Is it that you're saying I'm anti-big business or are you saying that I'm belittling organic growers? Your response can be read either way.
You say "our companies". Do you work in the food industry (either specialty organic or general food)?
My background: I used to work in a food QC lab at a fairly large cooking oil factory. (The plant shut down. I now work for a chemistry department at a university.)
The "organic" growers will want testing of foods from the big companies to keep them honest. But, it could well be mandated for all producers.
If you say it's non-gmo, prove it. Regardless of the size of your operation.
With modern laboratory methods, we can detect tiny amounts of specific genetic material.
example: detecting Asian Carp DNA in the water of Lake Michigan. We haven't seen the carp, but we know that at least a few are there from the shed genetic material.
Imagine the consternation when much of the final product "organic" food also tests positive for detectable amounts of transfered BT genes or other GM material. Additions that could have blown in with pollen or from volunteer plants. You grind, mix and process many foods, so anything in it gets distributed. If your suppliers don't do a good job of vetting their sources, you're screwed.
Too bad if it was contamination. Go to court for remedy if you want. But, in the meantime it's not GMO free so pull off the labels or pull it from the shelves.
It's all in how the levels are set in the regulations and what part of the production cycle the testing is done at.
If you want GMO free, it doesn't matter how it gets in, so end product testing rather than the incoming materials is quite reasonable.
If it passes, big food should lobby for stringent levels and testing. Besides, for large companies, the expense can be spread of huge amounts of product shipped. For small organic producers, not so much. If it passes, this "big win" may be a devil in disguise for those that wanted it.
In truth, I was more ignoring that point. There's a legitimate concern that whenever you provide interfaces that can do powerful things on a system, they can almost by definition be abused.
Often though, locking down things in the name of security doesn't do a thorough job of protecting against real mischief. A half measure job won't prevent real attackers from getting in. But, it will often prevent anyone but "authorized" service personnel from doing anything. For an industry that makes a good bit off of the service and repair of their products, it's tempting to wall off what independent mechanics/electronics techs can do.
Having security as a ready to hand reason is great cover for that.
Yes it does use hydro. But try to site a new dam for a hydroelectric power plant.
I find it hypocritical for the environmental movement to cite hydro-electric as an example of successful renewable energy in support of non hydro renewables when they've historically fought any new dams tooth and nail.
Sounds like the auto makers are getting tired of individuals being able to change their own cars engine/transmission settings, and or, do fixes that usually require paying the dealer.
Congress mandated an open set of engine/car diagnostic codes due to them not releasing service information some years back. Sounds like they're investigating the possibility of re-imposing something similar via "security" concerns.
"Think of the children that could be put at risk if $evil-auto-hacker isn't protected against!"
Seat belts increase the rate of cancer.
(Cancer is a disease that becomes more common in old age. Seatbelts help keep you from being killed at a young age before you're likely to develop cancer.)
This is not a reason for limiting seatbelt use.
About 4 seconds difference if you maintained that speed for 24 hours.
Yeah, the military would love it if we had something that could go 1/100th the speed of light in the atmosphere. *vroom*
Someone with the username "fisted" is being put off by mild sexual crudity?
When they give up in On the Beach, that's still a choice. They are still human in that they can make that choice.
I'd argue that in 1984, there never was a choice. Oh, they allowed Winston an illusion that he was rebelling, but in truth, he was watched the whole time. Not only is there no real choice, there never was any choice. Hope was only an illusion allowed for a short and limited time by the state which used it as part of the degradation and mockery he ultimately endured.
There is no hope for Winston, because he truly loves Big Brother at the end.
There is no hope for anyone as the Ministry of Truth will ultimately exterminate even the ability to conceive of a nondoctrine thought via changing the language to Newspeak.