By "true costs", he means the cost of the environmental impact and total externalities.
... which are impossible to measure accurately, and what estimates there are, depend heavily on one's belief in global warming. That is, if you fear the GW, you'll feel the "true costs" to be higher... But, as I said, only a fool would still sincerely have this fear today. And only someone, whose real goal is the diminishing of (KKKapitalist) Western society, would continue to attempt to spread such a fear — without himself believing in it.
And you are fucking lucky that people took proactive measure to curb ozone depletion.
I am, actually, surprised, your kind has not claimed credit for the global warming slowing/disappearing already...
It would've been rather nifty of you to explain the failure of all predictions to materialize: "See, we warned you, thanks to our efforts we are still living above water!"
The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse
On the basis of a could, we are supposed to drop everything and choose the most expensive options. No, thanks.
Unless one's goal is to diminish the Western society, only a fool would fall for the "global warming" rhetoric these many years after none of the dire predictions materialized.
Troll my behind — respond giving examples to the contrary: a link to a dire prediction made 10-15-20 years ago, and a link showing it materializing within 10% of the predicted "bad"...
the undercover agent that infiltrated the site was a relatively quiet staff member known as Cirrus
Kudos to the quiet agent.
Benthall, who is accused of running the new Silk Road under the handle "Defcon," has been charged with narcotics trafficking, as well as conspiracy charges related to money laundering, computer hacking, and trafficking in fraudulent identification documents. The criminal complaint against him alleges that the Silk Road 2 sold hundreds of kilograms of drugs of every description to hundreds of thousands of buyers around the world, with bitcoin-based sales of more than $8 million per month at the time of its seizure.
Yes, some times this approach fails — as seems to be the case now. But I'd rather we continued to err on the Individual's side — because the (glorious) Collective and The Greater Good cause much bigger problems of their own...
What I did wasn't violent. While on a bender I stole a bicycle out of somebody's garage.
I see, sorry to have suspected worse. But, having lost three bicycles to thieves myself, I really despise your kind. I wound not be surprised, if some of the HR-people you spoke to have similar axes to grind.
In Ohio that's a 5th degree felony.
Someone has posted here, that anything other than 1st and 2nd degree felonies can be purged from one's record in Ohio. You, probably, know more about it than the rest of us, but if you have not tried that...
As I said elsewhere, I do not claim, you should never be able able to find honest work again. But I would not blame folks for refusing to associate with a (former) thief either. Good luck.
I agree that's not exerting power over the student, but it's probably against some MIT policies
That would suggest, MIT ought to revise them. There is nothing wrong in a man pursuing nubile female(s).
If the vast majority of the Illiberal establishment (and MIT is overwhelmingly such) saw nothing wrong with Bill Clinton fucking his employee (no older than the students in TFA), I'm rather surprised, an MIT professor (retired) is getting so much flack over mere propositioning...
He is Chairman of the House Liberty Caucus and associated with the Tea Party movement. Conor Freidersdorf, writing for The Atlantic, called Amash "one of the most important civil libertarians in the House of Representatives".
In this (again, completely speculative) scenario, what are MIT's options? He's a free man who doesn't work for them. They can't fire him, nor can they "disconnect" him from the students, as you suggest.
In the scenario you are describing, MIT can also do absolutely nothing.
He is not doing anything illegal — nor even unethical, because he has no power over the ladies and can not compel them to submit to his dirty proposals.
knowing that he's out there to take advantage of them.
What "advantage" can he take — in your scenario? There is no exam, which he can grade, there is no "extra credit", that he can issue (or not) — nothing. He has no more power over them, than a free software developer has over his users — if such users contact him for help, is he not allowed to make other suggestions?
Illiberals are only opposing the government, while they are themselves in opposition. When they become the establishment, the rules change — heaven forfend, the new opposition will use the same methods to defeat them.
Don't forget it is the NSA who approves what type of encryption are legal for citizens to own.
There is no illegal encryption — not in the US. You can use anything you can get your hands on.
Now, getting your hands on something, the NSA can't break, may be difficult — because they have sabotaged efforts to develop strong crypto. But not because it is illegal.
That said, the existing freely available software — including OpenSSL — can be used properly to defeat would-be spooks. We know this — and the observation is confirmed by occasional stories on how the government leans on companies to reveal the private keys. If they could break the encryption itself, they wouldn't be demanding keys...
But if he was using this MIT program at all to try to pick up women then that is wrong, and it makes sense for MIT to put a stop to it.
It might make sense for MIT to disconnect him from such "online students", but it makes no sense to take the (presumably valuable) lectures offline. They have merit regardless of who wrote them — James Watson didn't stop being a brilliant biologist, when we learned, he is also a racist.
More generally, if we allow Communists — propagandists of the most deadly school of thought known to humanity so far — and terrorists (and some assholes, who fall into both groups) to become college professors, then a petty harasser — and even a serial rapist, with his mere few scores of victims — should be just fine...
In the real, fact-based world climate science has an all-too-good track record
Citations needed. Please, provides pairs of links: the first link in each pair pointing at a prediction of something bad made by a global-warming alarmist, and the second — to the prediction materializing (within 10% of the predicted value, whatever that may be).
Can you manage 3 such pairs?
And as for extinction events, it doesn't matter whether they're human-caused or not.
If they aren't human-caused to begin with, then altering humanity's behavior to prevent them seems silly.
Unless, of course, your goal is to affect the altering in the first place — and the hypothetical "extinction event" is used simply as a scare-crow...
Maybe the actual sight (and smell) of a few real dead and injured people would do you a world of good
Are you trying to say, you disagree that some people are better off dead?
Or just that robbers, who don't think twice about attacking policemen, aren't among them? Could you put forth an actual point, that is, instead of lamenting the sorry state of affairs in general?
the annual average number of justifiable homicides alone is estimated to be near 400
As long as they are justifiable, it may as well be 4000. 400 per year is infinitesimal for a nation of over 300 million people. For comparison, we have over 30000 traffic deaths here every year...
that showing the world how serious you take such things raised eyebrows and all.
Now find me even this much data for Russia, Cuba, China...
oh wait its OK for white cops to shoot unarmed black teens
Michael Brown attacked a policeman, who confronted him. The officer was perfectly justified in killing the thug.
That Michael Brown was "unarmed" is irrelevant. Similarly, it would've been perfectly Ok — by all ethics standards — for owners of all the looted stores (and burned cars) to shoot the attackers, whether or not the looters were armed.
they [USA] are in reality no better than Russia, China, Cuba
We are better if only because the things you listed raise eyebrows here. For Russia, China, or Cuba they are perfectly normal.
Or maybe they didn't have their cameras where the looting was taking place.
They (CNN) did. Looting was all they showed — while talking about majority being "peaceful". CNN's inability to show a single peaceful person there — all the while droning, how "majority is peaceful" — is why NY Post called CNN "liars".
I suspect, you misunderstood the NY Post article — and/or my reference to it...
If 75% of a group of people don't riot or loot, then that is most of the people.
What the article points out, is that CNN never showed anybody, who did not riot or loot. Given CNN's obvious desire to show such people, their inability to do so — despite repeated claims, they exist — can only mean one thing: there weren't any.
Which is hardly a wonder, I might add, given who Michael Brown was — a violent thug, who just robbed a store, and attacked (according to variety of witnesses) a policeman confronting him.
Doubly shameful is the fact, that these rioting scum, apparently, have swayed the public opinion elsewhere — such as in Long Island, where grand jury chose to not indict a different killer-cop, who should have been prosecuted for his deadly choke-hold of a non-threatening small-time criminal...
As demonstrations and looting took place in Ferguson, some friends of mine and many public commentators expressed disgust with some of the most prejudiced comments tweeted with the #ferguson hashtag.
If we approached risks of Artificial Intelligence with the same attitude, with which we are told to approach the risk of Global Warming, we would've shut and banned all AI-research — and denounced any and all such researchers as death-deservingtraitors to humanity — and KKKapitalist whores.
Given the failure of all hitherto issued predictions about climate, the probability of yet another dire prediction being correct is very low. Past performance is indicative of future results in this domain...
It's likely that this caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
Right. And, had there been Al Gores at that time, I'm sure, they would've blamed humanity for it too.
Slashdot Mirror
... which are impossible to measure accurately, and what estimates there are, depend heavily on one's belief in global warming. That is, if you fear the GW, you'll feel the "true costs" to be higher... But, as I said, only a fool would still sincerely have this fear today. And only someone, whose real goal is the diminishing of (KKKapitalist) Western society, would continue to attempt to spread such a fear — without himself believing in it.
I am, actually, surprised, your kind has not claimed credit for the global warming slowing/disappearing already...
It would've been rather nifty of you to explain the failure of all predictions to materialize: "See, we warned you, thanks to our efforts we are still living above water!"
The details and citations you are offering are most distinguished — by their absence.
On the basis of a could, we are supposed to drop everything and choose the most expensive options. No, thanks.
Unless one's goal is to diminish the Western society, only a fool would fall for the "global warming" rhetoric these many years after none of the dire predictions materialized.
Troll my behind — respond giving examples to the contrary: a link to a dire prediction made 10-15-20 years ago, and a link showing it materializing within 10% of the predicted "bad"...
Not until the loving, caring, and omniscient folks at the FDA approve. And each would-be "app" will need a separate approval, of course.
Kudos to the quiet agent.
What a perfect term... One of the attractions of American way of life, in my opinion, is our tendency to value the Individual (however unreasonable) above the Herd (also known as Collective, however glorious).
Yes, some times this approach fails — as seems to be the case now. But I'd rather we continued to err on the Individual's side — because the (glorious) Collective and The Greater Good cause much bigger problems of their own...
I see, sorry to have suspected worse. But, having lost three bicycles to thieves myself, I really despise your kind. I wound not be surprised, if some of the HR-people you spoke to have similar axes to grind.
Someone has posted here, that anything other than 1st and 2nd degree felonies can be purged from one's record in Ohio. You, probably, know more about it than the rest of us, but if you have not tried that...
As I said elsewhere, I do not claim, you should never be able able to find honest work again. But I would not blame folks for refusing to associate with a (former) thief either. Good luck.
That would suggest, MIT ought to revise them. There is nothing wrong in a man pursuing nubile female(s).
If the vast majority of the Illiberal establishment (and MIT is overwhelmingly such) saw nothing wrong with Bill Clinton fucking his employee (no older than the students in TFA), I'm rather surprised, an MIT professor (retired) is getting so much flack over mere propositioning...
In the scenario you are describing, MIT can also do absolutely nothing.
He is not doing anything illegal — nor even unethical, because he has no power over the ladies and can not compel them to submit to his dirty proposals.
What "advantage" can he take — in your scenario? There is no exam, which he can grade, there is no "extra credit", that he can issue (or not) — nothing. He has no more power over them, than a free software developer has over his users — if such users contact him for help, is he not allowed to make other suggestions?
It is a Republican, who is raising awareness of this issue today — you didn't see it on New York Times' front page, did you?
Given this President's — and the previous Democrat's — record, I would not count on it...
Illiberals are only opposing the government, while they are themselves in opposition. When they become the establishment, the rules change — heaven forfend, the new opposition will use the same methods to defeat them.
There is no illegal encryption — not in the US. You can use anything you can get your hands on.
Now, getting your hands on something, the NSA can't break, may be difficult — because they have sabotaged efforts to develop strong crypto. But not because it is illegal.
That said, the existing freely available software — including OpenSSL — can be used properly to defeat would-be spooks. We know this — and the observation is confirmed by occasional stories on how the government leans on companies to reveal the private keys. If they could break the encryption itself, they wouldn't be demanding keys...
It might make sense for MIT to disconnect him from such "online students", but it makes no sense to take the (presumably valuable) lectures offline. They have merit regardless of who wrote them — James Watson didn't stop being a brilliant biologist, when we learned, he is also a racist.
More generally, if we allow Communists — propagandists of the most deadly school of thought known to humanity so far — and terrorists (and some assholes, who fall into both groups) to become college professors, then a petty harasser — and even a serial rapist, with his mere few scores of victims — should be just fine...
Citations needed. Please, provides pairs of links: the first link in each pair pointing at a prediction of something bad made by a global-warming alarmist, and the second — to the prediction materializing (within 10% of the predicted value, whatever that may be).
Can you manage 3 such pairs?
If they aren't human-caused to begin with, then altering humanity's behavior to prevent them seems silly.
Unless, of course, your goal is to affect the altering in the first place — and the hypothetical "extinction event" is used simply as a scare-crow...
Are you trying to say, you disagree that some people are better off dead?
Or just that robbers, who don't think twice about attacking policemen, aren't among them? Could you put forth an actual point, that is, instead of lamenting the sorry state of affairs in general?
As long as they are justifiable, it may as well be 4000. 400 per year is infinitesimal for a nation of over 300 million people. For comparison, we have over 30000 traffic deaths here every year...
Now find me even this much data for Russia, Cuba, China...
Michael Brown attacked a policeman, who confronted him. The officer was perfectly justified in killing the thug.
That Michael Brown was "unarmed" is irrelevant. Similarly, it would've been perfectly Ok — by all ethics standards — for owners of all the looted stores (and burned cars) to shoot the attackers, whether or not the looters were armed.
We are better if only because the things you listed raise eyebrows here. For Russia, China, or Cuba they are perfectly normal.
Please, don't hate.
Do you have statistics? Killers of Amadu Diallo were prosecuted, for (counter)example, although the jury acquitted all four officers...
They (CNN) did. Looting was all they showed — while talking about majority being "peaceful". CNN's inability to show a single peaceful person there — all the while droning, how "majority is peaceful" — is why NY Post called CNN "liars".
I suspect, you misunderstood the NY Post article — and/or my reference to it...
What the article points out, is that CNN never showed anybody, who did not riot or loot. Given CNN's obvious desire to show such people, their inability to do so — despite repeated claims, they exist — can only mean one thing: there weren't any.
Which is hardly a wonder, I might add, given who Michael Brown was — a violent thug, who just robbed a store, and attacked (according to variety of witnesses) a policeman confronting him.
Doubly shameful is the fact, that these rioting scum, apparently, have swayed the public opinion elsewhere — such as in Long Island, where grand jury chose to not indict a different killer-cop, who should have been prosecuted for his deadly choke-hold of a non-threatening small-time criminal...
I wonder, if #PantsUpDontLoot was among the "prejudice"...
If we approached risks of Artificial Intelligence with the same attitude, with which we are told to approach the risk of Global Warming, we would've shut and banned all AI-research — and denounced any and all such researchers as death-deserving traitors to humanity — and KKKapitalist whores.
Given the failure of all hitherto issued predictions about climate, the probability of yet another dire prediction being correct is very low. Past performance is indicative of future results in this domain...
Right. And, had there been Al Gores at that time, I'm sure, they would've blamed humanity for it too.