That means someone in a cabin that is a 10 mile boat-ride - the post office does this sort of stuff.
No they don't. You don't have to be too far off the beaten track to require that your mail be picked up at the post office. You haven't lived in a rural area before, have you?
I can't speak for aaronfaby, but I think that the argument is that "too big to fail" really means "has too much influence with politicians to be allowed to fail" and that those dire predictions are all smoke and mirrors.
However I'm not sure I would draw a parallel between The Federalist Papers and the drivel many current anonymous posters write.
That's only because the barrier to entry has dropped so low. There are many pamphlets from the same era which have been lost to history because they were drivel. There would have also been some real gems that never got out there because costs prevented them from being published.
I think the point that Lanier is really missing is that anonymity is not new, just that pen and ink is now nearly free.
The first quote would seem to put the lie to the statement that "He has been consistently correct about the financial crisis" unless you're arguing that he was correct in arguing in favor of it.
His prize was for work he did 30 years ago. It can be argued, and I think successfully, that he's left that work far behind and has taken up activism. Many of his current writings are in direct conflict with his academic work of the past. I sincerely doubt that anything he's done since he started writing op-eds for the NYT would come anywhere near qualifying him for a Nobel.
The Nobel Prize for Economics isn't a normal Nobel Prize. Technically it's the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". It's been recognized by the Nobel committee and awarded in the same ceremony as the science prizes, but it's actually awarded by the central bank of Sweden.
It's not as political as the Peace Prize, but it's not as scientific as the other prizes either. Since the criteria are decided solely by the Swedish central bank an argument can be made that it leans "pro-central banking" and a look at its history would seem to indicate that this is true.
While all other industries tries hard to deny it because it is bad for business.
All other industries including solar & wind power, electric cars, bio fuels, carbon trading, etc.?
Insurance companies are busy acknowledge it because it is good for business to do so.
It's always good business for insurance companies to make people worried about something that they want to buy insurance for, especially something that it's not likely will ever be claimed on.
Yep get rid of all the unions and we can go back to the good old days of companies hiring "Strike-Breakers" to beat people to death because they don't want to work for slave labor wages. That'll be fun.
I don't understand, what can unions do to prevent this above current laws and law enforcement? Are you really suggesting that if unions went away companies would start beating their employees to death for going on strike? I understand that it has happened in the past and that unions were involved in bringing public and law enforcement attention to the issue, but I can't envision a scenario where this would return solely if unions ceased to exist. The fact that unions cover such a small portion of the workforce would seem to indicate that the continued existence of unions isn't necessary to prevent employer on employee violence.
There is some truth to what phantomfive said. The laws that govern state pensions are different than those that govern corporate pensions. State pension requirements for investments allow them to assume a higher growth rate than corporations are allowed. There are also some differences regarding borrowing from the funds. A CEO that followed the state regulations for their company's pension would be breaking the law.
Extremely high prices is the same thing as a shortage.
That may be true in the short term, but in the long term there's a massive difference. Extremely high prices drive self interested people to solve the shortage by going through the extra expense of bringing in supplies.
The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege.
The reason I prefer rationing by ability to pay is that it will bend the will of greedy business people to satisfy my needs by ending the shortage. Without that I would need to depend on the kindness of strangers.
Try reading at least the paper's summary. It's not saying that temperatures haven't risen, only that they haven't risen as far as claimed. Big difference.
but I confirmed global warming by stepping the fuck outside today. Yesterday. Day before. Week before. Month before.
Are you a new super hero? Accurately-determines-global-temperature-trends-by-exiting-building-on-subsequent-days-man? That's quite the super power you have.
Seen the weather ripping your, or your neighbor's towns and or houses apart recently? Yeah.
Seen the scientific results of those who study severe weather treads? Yeah, didn't think so.
It's only archaic in the US. In other English speaking countries it's the preferred spelling. There's a whole world outside of the US, you know. You should study some of your colourful [sic] neighbours [sic] out there.
the worst case consequences of doing that (taking a bus)
That's really the worse case? All the handwringing over just having to take the bus. If you really think that this the the worst case consequence of "slashing carbon dioxide emissions" then you're not really qualified to talk about whether we should.
All they have to do is apply the same logic by which they dismiss all of those other gods to their own god and they will go from being a monotheist to an atheist.
It doesn't work that way. The "logic" that they use to dismiss all other gods is that their god tells them that the other gods don't exist. They can't apply that same logic because it would still require belief in yet another god.
I've always thought that quote was ridiculous because it made the incorrect assumption that, for example, christians don't believe in zeus for the same reason that atheists don't believe in zeus. The reasons are very different, actually.
No, but that will also have no effect on climate whatsoever. It's the actual changes needed to mitigate CO2 which are at issue. The specifics can be argued, but there isn't anything on the table that will have sufficient effect without causing very large economic disruption. Nothing realistic, anyway.
Make sure you understand the study you're referencing. 97% of climate scientists answered yes to this question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Unfortunately, the question is essentially content free and useless for accurately gauging the real opinions of scientists, and I could believe that it is intentionally so.
(*) Only economists think that if it takes a thousand researchers 20 years to develop fusion reactors then by putting 1 million researchers on the case they can get them operational by the end of next week.
Slashdot Mirror
That means someone in a cabin that is a 10 mile boat-ride - the post office does this sort of stuff.
No they don't. You don't have to be too far off the beaten track to require that your mail be picked up at the post office. You haven't lived in a rural area before, have you?
I can't speak for aaronfaby, but I think that the argument is that "too big to fail" really means "has too much influence with politicians to be allowed to fail" and that those dire predictions are all smoke and mirrors.
However I'm not sure I would draw a parallel between The Federalist Papers and the drivel many current anonymous posters write.
That's only because the barrier to entry has dropped so low. There are many pamphlets from the same era which have been lost to history because they were drivel. There would have also been some real gems that never got out there because costs prevented them from being published.
I think the point that Lanier is really missing is that anonymity is not new, just that pen and ink is now nearly free.
The first quote would seem to put the lie to the statement that "He has been consistently correct about the financial crisis" unless you're arguing that he was correct in arguing in favor of it.
His prize was for work he did 30 years ago. It can be argued, and I think successfully, that he's left that work far behind and has taken up activism. Many of his current writings are in direct conflict with his academic work of the past. I sincerely doubt that anything he's done since he started writing op-eds for the NYT would come anywhere near qualifying him for a Nobel.
The Nobel Prize for Economics isn't a normal Nobel Prize. Technically it's the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". It's been recognized by the Nobel committee and awarded in the same ceremony as the science prizes, but it's actually awarded by the central bank of Sweden.
It's not as political as the Peace Prize, but it's not as scientific as the other prizes either. Since the criteria are decided solely by the Swedish central bank an argument can be made that it leans "pro-central banking" and a look at its history would seem to indicate that this is true.
While all other industries tries hard to deny it because it is bad for business.
All other industries including solar & wind power, electric cars, bio fuels, carbon trading, etc.?
Insurance companies are busy acknowledge it because it is good for business to do so.
It's always good business for insurance companies to make people worried about something that they want to buy insurance for, especially something that it's not likely will ever be claimed on.
Yep get rid of all the unions and we can go back to the good old days of companies hiring "Strike-Breakers" to beat people to death because they don't want to work for slave labor wages. That'll be fun.
I don't understand, what can unions do to prevent this above current laws and law enforcement? Are you really suggesting that if unions went away companies would start beating their employees to death for going on strike? I understand that it has happened in the past and that unions were involved in bringing public and law enforcement attention to the issue, but I can't envision a scenario where this would return solely if unions ceased to exist. The fact that unions cover such a small portion of the workforce would seem to indicate that the continued existence of unions isn't necessary to prevent employer on employee violence.
There is some truth to what phantomfive said. The laws that govern state pensions are different than those that govern corporate pensions. State pension requirements for investments allow them to assume a higher growth rate than corporations are allowed. There are also some differences regarding borrowing from the funds. A CEO that followed the state regulations for their company's pension would be breaking the law.
Extremely high prices is the same thing as a shortage.
That may be true in the short term, but in the long term there's a massive difference. Extremely high prices drive self interested people to solve the shortage by going through the extra expense of bringing in supplies.
The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege.
The reason I prefer rationing by ability to pay is that it will bend the will of greedy business people to satisfy my needs by ending the shortage. Without that I would need to depend on the kindness of strangers.
Only after a period of two years was it possible to apply for Australian citizenship
It's 5 years now. I just made it under the wire myself, having gotten my permanent resident status 3 months before the change.
Try reading at least the paper's summary. It's not saying that temperatures haven't risen, only that they haven't risen as far as claimed. Big difference.
But I have a hard time believing that nobody in the field has thought of this yet.
They're well aware of it, the question is whether their adjustments to account for it are correct. That's where the maths get tricky.
but I confirmed global warming by stepping the fuck outside today. Yesterday. Day before. Week before. Month before.
Are you a new super hero? Accurately-determines-global-temperature-trends-by-exiting-building-on-subsequent-days-man? That's quite the super power you have.
Seen the weather ripping your, or your neighbor's towns and or houses apart recently? Yeah.
Seen the scientific results of those who study severe weather treads? Yeah, didn't think so.
It's only archaic in the US. In other English speaking countries it's the preferred spelling. There's a whole world outside of the US, you know. You should study some of your colourful [sic] neighbours [sic] out there.
the worst case consequences of doing that (taking a bus)
That's really the worse case? All the handwringing over just having to take the bus. If you really think that this the the worst case consequence of "slashing carbon dioxide emissions" then you're not really qualified to talk about whether we should.
It's a divine limited hangout.
All they have to do is apply the same logic by which they dismiss all of those other gods to their own god and they will go from being a monotheist to an atheist.
It doesn't work that way. The "logic" that they use to dismiss all other gods is that their god tells them that the other gods don't exist. They can't apply that same logic because it would still require belief in yet another god.
I've always thought that quote was ridiculous because it made the incorrect assumption that, for example, christians don't believe in zeus for the same reason that atheists don't believe in zeus. The reasons are very different, actually.
I can't speak for the gp, but "statistically indistinguishable" usually implies "when controlling for placebo."
A quick search of pubmed turns up several studies showing that prayer doesn't work beyond placebo. Example: Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.
I always thought the only way to be sure was to nuke the site from orbit. I think I'm screwed.
No, but that will also have no effect on climate whatsoever. It's the actual changes needed to mitigate CO2 which are at issue. The specifics can be argued, but there isn't anything on the table that will have sufficient effect without causing very large economic disruption. Nothing realistic, anyway.
Wouldn't have anything to do with AC being a lot cheaper now than it was in the 70s.
Make sure you understand the study you're referencing. 97% of climate scientists answered yes to this question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Unfortunately, the question is essentially content free and useless for accurately gauging the real opinions of scientists, and I could believe that it is intentionally so.
(*) Only economists think that if it takes a thousand researchers 20 years to develop fusion reactors then by putting 1 million researchers on the case they can get them operational by the end of next week.
Only idiots think economists think this.
It's also forgetting the dimension of time. The 210m x 100m doesn't need to include any shared space (such as roads) since we take turns occupying it.