I was only engaging in this 'discussion' because you were modded +4. To be honest, I don't give a shit about what you believe to be true and I sure as hell am not going to do your googling for you on a subject that is completely irrelevant to my original point.
"Energy is becoming rapidly less expensive because of modern technologies." This remains true, as you have said nothing that refutes it.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were blind and slightly retarded. Otherwise, you would have clearly seen the bit where I said 'and that is without subsidies' and you would have understood the concept of [fingerquotes]making money[/fingerquotes].
I must have missed the part where you said or implied anything about 'centennial timescales'. I guess the redundant and false claim that solar 'isn't cheap right now', indicating a painful lack of understanding of the phrase 'is becoming' threw me off.
Anyway, you've never actually looked at the data, have you? In a lot of places solar has become economically very viable (i.e., you make money on it in within 15 years). And that is without subsidies and including the cost of a battery array for a day of power.
Actually, if you use Chrome, ScriptSafe can be set to allow Javascript for the domain you're visiting. This still negates a lot of the security risks, yet allows most of the functionality to work for properly programmed websites, without further interaction. The only annoyances are having to whitelist scripts from affiliated domains or domains that provide useful external features such as Youtube or Disqus, especially when they trigger a cascade of script inclusions.
When some website refuses to function properly without (temporarily) whitelisting all their crap, I either stop caring about the content or accept the risk and fire up Firefox (where no Javascript blocking occurs).
Whether those 'silly website accounts' being hacked is a problem depends on the amount of personal non-public information you have stored there. If enough information is compromised, it becomes really easy to use that information for social engineering purposes. They could simply call up your bank and tell them that 'you have moved to a new address and that you lost your bank card and need a new one'. Usually even they accept things like your DOB as valid identification. Retarded, but true more often than not.
That's why I'm born on 01-01-1970 when anybody who (or entity that) has no fucking business knowing my birth date asks.
1. [A government] uses collective resources to acquire information on matters individuals are not or badly capable of acquiring the same sort of information on (like testing all the food they buy for harmful substances). It then makes democratically supported decisions most individuals would or could not make (like black- or white-listing certain food additives). Think about this one: do you think it should be illegal to sell your kidney? Why? It's your body, right?
2. I repeat: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
If you continue to fail to address my main points and insist on twisting the discussion to irrelevant little corners, you can go fuck yourself.
One doesn't need to be an "expert" in order to apply logic and statistics; wood burning stoves are a negligible contribution to particulate pollution in most locations.
Citation needed, my friend.
Because we do not have as a principle of government "government should make all things illegal that cause early deaths for people around them"
Actually: yes, you do. That is one of the key things a government of the people does. It uses collective resources to acquire information on matters individuals are not or badly capable of acquiring the same sort of information on (like testing all the food they buy for harmful substances). It then makes democratically supported decisions most individuals would or could not make (like black- or white-listing certain food additives). Think about this one: do you think it should be illegal to sell your kidney? Why? It's your body, right?
Such combinations not only are legal, they are commonly sold
You're doing it again. You're being intentionally obtuse and making irrelevant statements. You knew damn well I was talking about baby milk with rat poison, sold as food, which would be illegal. Here, have fun: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm I repeat: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
Your rhetorical question of "You're the expert on this, right?" is an ad hominem
Yes, it is. Considering the total lack of evidence provided for your statements and the irrelevance of those statements, it seemed like the proper response.
"You're an idiot" is merely name calling.
Except that is not what you said. Let me refresh your memory: "It matters because it shows that you don't know the fuck what you're talking about and obviously don't care."
Wood burning stoves clearly do not cause early deaths in most situations; they are only a risk when they actually increase particulate count significantly, and that only happens under pretty special conditions.
You're the expert on this. Right? Also, it is still completely irrelevant to my original point, which still stands: "Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them ([...]) only be outlawed in certain states?"
And if you make that argument for wood burning stoves, you need to make it for burning yard wastes, fireplaces, and just about any other form of burning plant materials.
You should. Not 'need to'. It is, again, a fallacy to defend something by stating there are equally bad or worse alternatives. Also, I already said something similar: "I will agree that..."
As far as I know, there are no laws outlawing the addition of rat poison to baby milk. I suspect that combinations of baby milk and rat poison are actually being sold.
You're kidding, right? I don't see how it's funny, but you sure as hell can't be serious.
You don't understand what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem is an attempt to win an argument by attacking the credibility of the person making the argument. I'm just telling you that you are an idiot, quite separately from any argument. Good riddance.
Wrong again. 1. Any attack against a person is an ad hominem. Including name calling. 2. "You don't know what you're talking about" is the most basic form of 'poisoning the well' and implies that anything I say about this subject shouldn't be trusted. 3. If (2) wasn't enough, this bit clearly shows how you explicitly connect your ad hominem to the discussion: "It matters because it shows...".
That is by far the most idiotic straw man I have ever seen. Also one of the dumbest ad hominems (poisoning the well). And the most ridiculous slippery slope fallacy. You really suck at this reasoning thing, man.
It's also all very much irrelevant to my original point, which still stands: "Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them ([...]) only be outlawed in certain states?" You know: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
Whether you get lung cancer depends on many factors; you can't just blame it on one source.
That is irrelevant to my point.
Furthermore, the result of this ban may simply be that people install fireplaces instead, together with some other heating system, resulting in worse pollution.
That is fallacious reasoning (and irrelevant to my point): if there is enough wrong with those other (worse) systems, they should be outlawed as well. What you're saying is that outlawing anything is a bad idea if there are worse alternatives that aren't outlawed. I will agree that making a law that focuses on some specific implementation (wood stoves) is worse than one that focuses on the undesirable effects (particle pollution).
WTF are you talking about? There are lots of people using wood stoves in California. They are very popular in ski areas.
Who the hell cares, man? Don't be so obtuse and pretend like it matters which fucking state I used as an example. Here, I'll make it easier for you: "You're proposing a situation where it is perfectly okay to sell or manufacture these stoves in state X, but not in state Y, because people in state X generally don't use wood stoves."
cost, different energy sources, acceptable pollution, character of the environment
Those aren't tradeoffs. Those are singular concepts. Unless you're arguing that all those concepts are being traded off against each other: "A tradeoff between different energy sources and the character of the environment" Yeah, makes total sense.
In theory, there might even be a tradeoff between money and human lives, and that too is a tradeoff we make daily, whether you like it or not.
Only if less polluting stoves are more expensive. I suppose you think that emission regulations for cars and such things as catalytic converters are a bad idea as well?
The real problem with these mistakes is that there are very, very few people that welcome the criticism. I always say thank you or at least neutrally acknowledge the error when somebody rightfully points out one of my mistakes. Then I never make it again or maybe once more.
Most of the people that are corrected go apeshit on the person who is (inadvertently) helping them. I mean, let's be honest: language can be tricky, but it's not that hard. That is, unless you never ever ever ever ever want to look at or hear about proper grammar and spelling after you've turned 12.
That is completely irrelevant. Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them (let's not argue whether that is the case) only be outlawed in certain states? You're proposing a situation where it is perfectly okay to sell or manufacture these stoves in California, but not in Minnesota, because people in California generally don't use wood stoves.
That is absolutely retarded.
Also, 'tradeoffs'? Really?? Tradeoffs between what and what, exactly?
Because that is what I was saying, that the use of the term 'assault rifle' was warranted here. Right? Read my comment again and this time try actually thinking about what it is I said.... Apology accepted.
Also, try reading and quoting entire sentences. You missed a bit of definition there.
Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.
WRONG. The 'definition' of assault rifle does not depend on what is done with it, but on the ammo it fires, the ergonomic design of the weapon and whether it is at least semi-automatic, all of which reflect the use cases this class of rifles was designed for.
You're right that most members of the press know nothing about guns (or, honestly, about anything at all) and generally talk out of their ass, but that doesn't necessarily mean the use of the term 'assault rifle' isn't warranted or is superfluous.
Don't be obtuse. The only response you're going to come up with is: 'but there is money involved there, too!' Meanwhile, you know I'm right.
Remember, you are claiming that no innovation whatsoever will take place in a profitless organization (goalpostmoved into of 'a national scale'). There are thousands and thousands of organizations operating on a non-profit basis; some small, some large. Do you really believe that they never change anything in a way that hasn't been done before? Really?
Here's a list of elements involved in motivating humans: - sex - social ranking and peer adoration - (related to the previous) feelings of self-worth - health - food - humor - knowledge - curiosity - justice
Homework: 1. Try arguing that say, the U.S. constitution is either not an improvement over earlier 'laws of the land' or of which the improvement can be attributed to profit-seeking in a free market. 2. Look into this whole 'science' thing and how most developed countries pay for it. Talking about innovation.
The problem with fixing prices and killing profit motive is that it prevents
No. No, it doesn't. Only if you assume that only selfish bastards exist and if you design a system that in no way whatsoever rewards progress or punishes regress or stagnation.
Stop thinking that money can be the only motivation for humans. Just stop.
Slashdot Mirror
better to throw out a stupid suggestion that might be the solution than to hold my tongue if it is.
You are what's wrong with the web.
Go pollute facebook with your mindless nonsense. The SNR can't get any lower there anyway.
Sounds like you haven't actually used Win8, or have failed to read GP's post.
Go ahead. Try what GP described on Win8.
I was only engaging in this 'discussion' because you were modded +4.
To be honest, I don't give a shit about what you believe to be true and I sure as hell am not going to do your googling for you on a subject that is completely irrelevant to my original point.
"Energy is becoming rapidly less expensive because of modern technologies."
This remains true, as you have said nothing that refutes it.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were blind and slightly retarded. Otherwise, you would have clearly seen the bit where I said 'and that is without subsidies' and you would have understood the concept of [fingerquotes]making money[/fingerquotes].
My apologies.
I must have missed the part where you said or implied anything about 'centennial timescales'. I guess the redundant and false claim that solar 'isn't cheap right now', indicating a painful lack of understanding of the phrase 'is becoming' threw me off.
Anyway, you've never actually looked at the data, have you?
In a lot of places solar has become economically very viable (i.e., you make money on it in within 15 years). And that is without subsidies and including the cost of a battery array for a day of power.
This got modded +4 Interesting, really?
Energy is becoming rapidly less expensive because of modern technologies.
Bollocks. [...] Solar may get to the point where it will be cheap but it certainly is not at that point right now.
Learn to read, learn to reason or just keep your mouth shut.
Actually, degrees where advanced equipment is used are vastly more costly than 'black history' degrees. High-powered lasers aren't free, you know.
The lack of a physical keyboard is a drag
Or just buy one with a physical keyboard?
They exist and are fantastic.
I imported the Motorola Droid 4 and am still absolutely delighted with it. I'll probably do the same for the Droid 5.
Actually, if you use Chrome, ScriptSafe can be set to allow Javascript for the domain you're visiting. This still negates a lot of the security risks, yet allows most of the functionality to work for properly programmed websites, without further interaction.
The only annoyances are having to whitelist scripts from affiliated domains or domains that provide useful external features such as Youtube or Disqus, especially when they trigger a cascade of script inclusions.
When some website refuses to function properly without (temporarily) whitelisting all their crap, I either stop caring about the content or accept the risk and fire up Firefox (where no Javascript blocking occurs).
Whether those 'silly website accounts' being hacked is a problem depends on the amount of personal non-public information you have stored there. If enough information is compromised, it becomes really easy to use that information for social engineering purposes. They could simply call up your bank and tell them that 'you have moved to a new address and that you lost your bank card and need a new one'. Usually even they accept things like your DOB as valid identification. Retarded, but true more often than not.
That's why I'm born on 01-01-1970 when anybody who (or entity that) has no fucking business knowing my birth date asks.
This is, to me, the best solution:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/plasma-converter.htm
1.
[A government] uses collective resources to acquire information on matters individuals are not or badly capable of acquiring the same sort of information on (like testing all the food they buy for harmful substances). It then makes democratically supported decisions most individuals would or could not make (like black- or white-listing certain food additives).
Think about this one: do you think it should be illegal to sell your kidney? Why?
It's your body, right?
2.
I repeat: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
If you continue to fail to address my main points and insist on twisting the discussion to irrelevant little corners, you can go fuck yourself.
One doesn't need to be an "expert" in order to apply logic and statistics; wood burning stoves are a negligible contribution to particulate pollution in most locations.
Citation needed, my friend.
Because we do not have as a principle of government "government should make all things illegal that cause early deaths for people around them"
Actually: yes, you do. That is one of the key things a government of the people does. It uses collective resources to acquire information on matters individuals are not or badly capable of acquiring the same sort of information on (like testing all the food they buy for harmful substances). It then makes democratically supported decisions most individuals would or could not make (like black- or white-listing certain food additives).
Think about this one: do you think it should be illegal to sell your kidney? Why?
It's your body, right?
Such combinations not only are legal, they are commonly sold
You're doing it again. You're being intentionally obtuse and making irrelevant statements. You knew damn well I was talking about baby milk with rat poison, sold as food, which would be illegal. Here, have fun: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm
I repeat: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
Your rhetorical question of "You're the expert on this, right?" is an ad hominem
Yes, it is. Considering the total lack of evidence provided for your statements and the irrelevance of those statements, it seemed like the proper response.
"You're an idiot" is merely name calling.
Except that is not what you said. Let me refresh your memory: "It matters because it shows that you don't know the fuck what you're talking about and obviously don't care."
Wood burning stoves clearly do not cause early deaths in most situations; they are only a risk when they actually increase particulate count significantly, and that only happens under pretty special conditions.
You're the expert on this. Right?
Also, it is still completely irrelevant to my original point, which still stands: "Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them ([...]) only be outlawed in certain states?"
And if you make that argument for wood burning stoves, you need to make it for burning yard wastes, fireplaces, and just about any other form of burning plant materials.
You should. Not 'need to'. It is, again, a fallacy to defend something by stating there are equally bad or worse alternatives. ..."
Also, I already said something similar: "I will agree that
As far as I know, there are no laws outlawing the addition of rat poison to baby milk. I suspect that combinations of baby milk and rat poison are actually being sold.
You're kidding, right? I don't see how it's funny, but you sure as hell can't be serious.
You don't understand what an ad hominem is either. An ad hominem is an attempt to win an argument by attacking the credibility of the person making the argument. I'm just telling you that you are an idiot, quite separately from any argument. Good riddance.
Wrong again. ...".
1. Any attack against a person is an ad hominem. Including name calling.
2. "You don't know what you're talking about" is the most basic form of 'poisoning the well' and implies that anything I say about this subject shouldn't be trusted.
3. If (2) wasn't enough, this bit clearly shows how you explicitly connect your ad hominem to the discussion: "It matters because it shows
Like I said: you really suck at this.
That is by far the most idiotic straw man I have ever seen. Also one of the dumbest ad hominems (poisoning the well). And the most ridiculous slippery slope fallacy. You really suck at this reasoning thing, man.
It's also all very much irrelevant to my original point, which still stands: "Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them ([...]) only be outlawed in certain states?"
You know: why outlaw the addition of rat poison to baby milk in [state X], but not in [state Y]?
Whether you get lung cancer depends on many factors; you can't just blame it on one source.
That is irrelevant to my point.
Furthermore, the result of this ban may simply be that people install fireplaces instead, together with some other heating system, resulting in worse pollution.
That is fallacious reasoning (and irrelevant to my point): if there is enough wrong with those other (worse) systems, they should be outlawed as well. What you're saying is that outlawing anything is a bad idea if there are worse alternatives that aren't outlawed. I will agree that making a law that focuses on some specific implementation (wood stoves) is worse than one that focuses on the undesirable effects (particle pollution).
WTF are you talking about? There are lots of people using wood stoves in California. They are very popular in ski areas.
Who the hell cares, man? Don't be so obtuse and pretend like it matters which fucking state I used as an example. Here, I'll make it easier for you:
"You're proposing a situation where it is perfectly okay to sell or manufacture these stoves in state X, but not in state Y, because people in state X generally don't use wood stoves."
cost, different energy sources, acceptable pollution, character of the environment
Those aren't tradeoffs. Those are singular concepts. Unless you're arguing that all those concepts are being traded off against each other:
"A tradeoff between different energy sources and the character of the environment"
Yeah, makes total sense.
In theory, there might even be a tradeoff between money and human lives, and that too is a tradeoff we make daily, whether you like it or not.
Only if less polluting stoves are more expensive. I suppose you think that emission regulations for cars and such things as catalytic converters are a bad idea as well?
The real problem with these mistakes is that there are very, very few people that welcome the criticism. I always say thank you or at least neutrally acknowledge the error when somebody rightfully points out one of my mistakes. Then I never make it again or maybe once more.
Most of the people that are corrected go apeshit on the person who is (inadvertently) helping them. I mean, let's be honest: language can be tricky, but it's not that hard. That is, unless you never ever ever ever ever want to look at or hear about proper grammar and spelling after you've turned 12.
That is completely irrelevant. Why would devices that cause early deaths for people around them (let's not argue whether that is the case) only be outlawed in certain states?
You're proposing a situation where it is perfectly okay to sell or manufacture these stoves in California, but not in Minnesota, because people in California generally don't use wood stoves.
That is absolutely retarded.
Also, 'tradeoffs'? Really??
Tradeoffs between what and what, exactly?
Rain, Snow & Ice anyone?
What are you, a pussy?
Wait, no, those actually like the concept of 'ploughing' and getting wet. Or so I've been told.
Didn't you get the memo?
Stuff with a higher version number is always better.
That's why I recently upgraded from Windows 2000 to Office 2012.
Because that is what I was saying, that the use of the term 'assault rifle' was warranted here. Right? ...
Read my comment again and this time try actually thinking about what it is I said.
Apology accepted.
Also, try reading and quoting entire sentences. You missed a bit of definition there.
Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.
WRONG.
The 'definition' of assault rifle does not depend on what is done with it, but on the ammo it fires, the ergonomic design of the weapon and whether it is at least semi-automatic, all of which reflect the use cases this class of rifles was designed for.
You're right that most members of the press know nothing about guns (or, honestly, about anything at all) and generally talk out of their ass, but that doesn't necessarily mean the use of the term 'assault rifle' isn't warranted or is superfluous.
I hate to do this to you, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Implied false dichotomy and based on that an appeal to hypocrisy. Your logic is terrible, which makes you either stupid or malicious.
Don't be obtuse. The only response you're going to come up with is: 'but there is money involved there, too!'
Meanwhile, you know I'm right.
Remember, you are claiming that no innovation whatsoever will take place in a profitless organization (goalpostmoved into of 'a national scale'). There are thousands and thousands of organizations operating on a non-profit basis; some small, some large. Do you really believe that they never change anything in a way that hasn't been done before? Really?
Here's a list of elements involved in motivating humans:
- sex
- social ranking and peer adoration
- (related to the previous) feelings of self-worth
- health
- food
- humor
- knowledge
- curiosity
- justice
Homework:
1. Try arguing that say, the U.S. constitution is either not an improvement over earlier 'laws of the land' or of which the improvement can be attributed to profit-seeking in a free market.
2. Look into this whole 'science' thing and how most developed countries pay for it. Talking about innovation.
The problem with fixing prices and killing profit motive is that it prevents
No. No, it doesn't.
Only if you assume that only selfish bastards exist and if you design a system that in no way whatsoever rewards progress or punishes regress or stagnation.
Stop thinking that money can be the only motivation for humans. Just stop.