And considering it's going to happen relatively gradually (not overnight in some big surprise event where you wake up and ea whole city is wiped out), it sounds like humanity can largely adapt.
Actually, it will happen both gradually and overnight. Katrina and New Orleans is the template for things to come. If the government doesn't keep up with the gradual changes, then a big event will come along and "wipe out" the city.
While most people seem to be fixated on battling back and forth about whether or not "climate change" is really happening (vs. any noted changes just being part of some natural cycle of events, and/or possibly inaccurate data) -- it seems to me the real questions get pushed by the wayside.
That is deliberate. The people opposed to doing anything about it, want to delay the question of whether it's a good idea to do anything until after it's too late to do anything, then they won't have to pay. It's pretty much the whole reason libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns.
I'm not sure that conservatives are more organized because they are a minority, it could be that they're more organized because of their fundamental principles. The values that consevatives hold dearest tend to be leadership, tribal identity and conformity. These will all naturally lead to more organized and cohesive action. Liberals, in contrast, tend to value equality and the prevention of harm.
Conservatives chose leades and follow them, anyone who steps out of line is punished, and if they stray too far, forced out of the group. The advantage is it promotes solidarity and the group acts much more cohesively, the disadvantage is that bad leaders can lead the entire group over a cliff.
Or like in Toronto which is constantly teetering on the edge of economic disaster because of liberals who want all the social programs and want someone else to pay for it. So there isn't the money for things that are really needed like new subways (worst subway system for a city its size... evvverrrr).
Actually Toronto has the lowest property taxes of any region in it's area. It's literally less than half the top property tax rate for the region and the current mayor of Toronto is an anti-tax loon. So, Toronto is constantly teetering on the edge of economic disaster because Toronto is constantly freezing property taxes, so that the amount of property tax collected rises at a slower rate than inflation. Thus even without any new programs, their tax revenue base would increase slower than their expenses.
When a musician create a new song and performs it for a public audience, it belongs to the public.
Its interesting how some people believe in intellectual property just fine when they are taking it from someone. Just not when someone asserts it for themselves.
You comment betrays a fundamental ignorance of both reality and law. When a musician performs a song for a public audience, he has voluntarily given away the intellectual property (a trade secret). In most of the world, the artist receives a limited monopoly on the right to make copies of the song in return. However, he does not own the song once it has been publicly performed. How could he? Can he go into the minds of all those present and erase the song? Can he prevent them from humming the tune, or singing it to themselves or to their friends? Can he take back the feelings the music engenders? You can't own information, you can only control it and the more people who know it, the more difficult it is to control.
Thus, you can only own a song by keeping it secret, once it has been publicly performed, it belongs to the public. This is both law and reality. There is no taking here, you can't take a song from musician any more than the musician can take a song back from the audience. Those words don't even apply to the situation.
The only thing that will get in the way of humans finding a better way, is other humans trying to frivolously and vainly prevent the inevitable "climate change" and "depletion of fossil fuels".
What if you've got it backwards? What if what's going to stop (or delay) humans finding a better way, is other humans trying to frivolously and vainly prevent the replacement of fossil fuels?
The climate change, humans have no real control of.
Collectively, we can have control over climate change, however, there are a lot of people who hate the word "collectively" for ideological reasons.
Technically speaking, banning guns would probably lower both the quantity and quality of guns in America. After all, guns are complicated to produce. I'm not sure how many good guns could be manufactured in black market gun shops. There are lot of other effects as well, but I'm not sure Guns have the same demand curve as prostitution and drugs. Do gun owners need to have their "bullet fix" or they go through withdrawal? Does every woman and man come pre-equipped with all the gear to have "guns"?
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Then why do companies make new guns? The stock of guns increases over time because the rate of creation exceeds the rate of destruction. It's unknown whether that would be true under a complete ban. Of course, a complete ban isn't going to happen. I'm just pointing out that you haven't thought this through very well.
Interesting I read a different interview with Joe, where he said he drew his weapon and pointed it at the woman with the gun, and was a split second away from putting a bullet in her head before he decided she wasn't the shooter. In the interview, he was obviously shaken by how close he came to shooting an innocent woman.
The interview I read indicated the opposite of what your blog post says, that he played no significant role in subduing the shooter, came very close to making the situation worse, and almost got himself killed.
Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
I think you accidentally got it right "it's fundamentally democratic". If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
Most people will agree that some things are too dangerous to have people carrying around on them. The argument is really where you draw the line: 1) Biological weapons (Ebola, anthrax,...) 1) Nuclear weapons (Suitecase nuke,...). 2) Explosives (Dynamite, C4, grenades,...) 3) Chemical weapons (Chlorine gas, sarin,...). 4) Firearms (50 caliber machine gun, AK-47, M-4, Shotgun, Pistols,...) 5) Knives 6) Pepper spray 7) Tazers
If you're a reasonable person, no matter where you think it should be drawn some people will think more weapons should allowed and some people will think fewer weapons should be allowed, and some people will just think different weapons should be banned.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
Not really. People can't be trusted to carry around weaponized biological weapons because the chances of accidental or deliberate release are too high and the consequences too dire. Only a total idiot couldn't understand that.
HOWEVER, We are breaking records that were set 40-60+ YEARS AGO PEOPLE! This is a WARM year, nothing more, nothing less.
The issue with temperature records is that in a stable climate, both record warm and record cold temperatures become progressively less likely to occur. The chance is 1/n of setting either record, where n is the number of readings taken. Climate change, however, loads the dice, so far this year we've set 10 times as many warm records as cold records. Now, that could be just one warm year, but 13 of the top 14 warm years occurred in the last 14 years.
The last record high temperature in MY area was set in 1954.
In my area it was set last year, and then again earlier this year, and again last week.
Why did it take almost 60 years to break a high? Oh i know why! Because there is no such thing as global warming! Because we are experiencing a fluke in what is otherwise a cooling of the earth.
That's some fluke, the long term global cooling trend ends around 1900, and a global warming trend takes over.
You mean scientists can't actually PROVE that global warming exists?!?!?!
They already have proved that global warming exists, you just weren't paying attention. Now you seem to refuse to look at the evidence. It's hard to take your protests seriously when you appear to have your eyes shut tight, your fingers stuck in your ears and you're shouting "Nananana - I can't hear you! Nananana - I won't hear you!".
There are at least 4 separate temperature reconstructions that all show long term warming trends, including one funded by the Koch brothers who as owners of a vast fossil fuel empire have vested interests in showing that global warming isn't happening. If the scientists they hired to prove that global warming doesn't exist actually came to the conclusion that it does, why don't you believe them?
Actually, I've found it's the people doing the polluting who claim that polluting less would mean everyone would have to go live in caves, I can't say I've ever heard a serious environmentalist argue we should do so*.
* Excepting the one group that advocates building homes in caves, but to be faire, the caves they want people to live in are better than the houses that most people live in now.
There are major things like cement production, which alone emits about 6% of total man-made greenhouse gases, for which there seems to be absolutely no possible option to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions, other than simply stopping cement production. With cement being one of the most important construction materials, this directly translates into stopping most large building construction, and a severe economic crash.
The goal is to reduce overall emissions to a sustainable level, they don't need to be cut to 0. Imagine for a moment that we were rational creatures, we could use taxes levied on carbon emissions to fund carbon sequestration, to achieve a net-0 emissions rate. We also don't need to cut every industry identically. For instance, if the will existed, we could switch the world to mostly electric vehicles in a generation. That would greatly cut transportation emissions while potentially increasing power generation emissions, while still reducing overall emissions.
There are alternate methods of concrete production that produce lower emissions, they aren't used because they are more expensive than the cheapest methods and CO2 emissions cost the company nothing. That's one reason why taxing emissions makes economic and environmental sense. If CO2 emissions have a cost, it makes the processes that emit less CO2 comparatively more cost-efficient (and it spurs more research into making those processes more cost-effective).
Ironically, guess what we're probably going to run into if we keep charging blindly ahead? "Hunger for food and a desire for the things necessary to live and desire for products that make life easier, reduce work, and extend quality of life". If climate change prompts world wide crop failures, and in causing climate change we deplete the world's fossil fuel supply we're just making the situation temporarily better before it gets much worse.
Also, what happens if you're just really good at the game? I mean it's based on you being better at playing your password than other chords. If you're playing everything flawlessly are you permanently locked out?
People don't tend to memorise songs they don't like. Generally speaking, most users would probably choose a lyric from one of the songs listed as their favourite songs on their Facebook (or equivalent) page. Additionally, if everyone were doing this and you had a collection of hashes you wanted to break, you could probably break a large percentage of them just by choosing the "best" lyrics from a list of the top 100 all-time songs.
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." - Texas Republican Party 2012 Platform
So they oppose Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) and Outcome-Based Education (OBE). The real issue for the Texas Republican Party is that these programs might lead children to question their parent's religion or politics. Personally, I think it's a sign of weakness to fear questions.
For example, you really believe CO2 emissions have gone from 6-7 billion tons of CO2 to 33.5 billion tons of CO2 in 10 years?
CO2 emissions went from 6-7 billion tons of carbon to 9 billion tons of carbon in 10 years. It's labelled in black in white on the graphs on both pages. Carbon is not the same as CO2, moron. Stop mixing the units up.
Since, in the real world, very few people care about what is in line with anarchist thought or not, the trip from voluntary leadership to dictator is only as long as it takes to draw a gun.
As I've stated, not only does the title seem correct, but the colums in the spreadsheet itself are titled CO2. And again, where do these numbers come from? That seems to be something you haven't dealt with nor acknowledged.
Yes, the columns are titled CO2 and the accompanying graph labels the units as "Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent". If you're going to believe the numbers you should also believe the units. Accepting one as more reliable than the other really is selective thinking.
First, that pamphlet appears to be about 12 years old. Second, did you read the headings on the graphs? They say "Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent". That's carbon equivalent not CO2. You have to convert carbon to CO2 to compare numbers and it just so happens that 9 billion tons of carbon equivalent is around 33 billion tons of CO2.
Molar mass of C: 12 g/mol Molar mass of O: 16 g/mol
Weight of CO2 to C: 3.7:1 Converting Carbon to CO2: 9 billion tons of carbon is approximately 33.3 billion tons of CO2.
Every piece of evidence you have cited to support your view has only served to undermine it, because each explicitly contradicts the views that you hold. That's an amazing display of confirmation bias and scientific illiteracy.
We also happen to know how much of that turns into CO2 (about 19lbs per gallon). So, anyone can figure out how much CO2 was created in the US. And guess what? The numbers seem to correspond closely to your spreadsheet.
I also liked your selective reading above on the analysis of the eruption of Mt St. Helens. First you denied that 60% per volume of the magma can be converted to CO2/SO2, then I shot that one down. Now, your new one is that a sampling of the eruption (one data point) is all the gas that was emitted. But that is just par for the course with you. Read it more carefully next time.
It's your evidence that you are claiming is unreliable. The same "data point" produces both numbers. If you're going to throw out their calculation for the total amount of CO2 released, you shouldn't rely on their calculation for the percentage of magma converted into CO2 either for the same eruption. Once again you're engaging in selective thinking.
1 cubic mile of magma converted at that rate emits a tremendous amount of CO2/SO2. Since one cubic mile of magma weight about 45 trillion pounds, it doesn't take much mathematical ability to realize how enormous the OVERALL eruption is (on the scale of 100's of billion of tons of CO2/SO2).
As I previously noted, you don't know how much magma was converted to CO2, you have applied an estimate of the percentage of magma converted to CO2 from a separate eruption to an earlier eruption, you have decided that more magma was converted to CO2 than was actually exposed during the eruption and you have decided that your estimates are more accurate that what the experts say actually occurred.
You opinion seems to be based on misreading a pamphlet and a rough estimate of what you think probably should have occurred.
Do you really think a thousand philosophers over 5000 years have all managed to overlook something THAT obvious without considering sollutions and YOU managed to spot it ?
Yes, actually a 1000 philosophers over 5000 years could definitely overlook something that obvious. What the total population of philosophers over that time? I'd estimate at least 1 million, especially if we allow amateur philosophers to count. So the question is could 0.1% of the target population miss the obvious? In that context the answer seems to "definitely". The size of the population that is about the same as that of philosophers who are 3 sigmas below average intelligence (or above average wishful thinking).
For further evidence please consider Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Considering that a maximum of one of those religions can be correct, how many philosophers (and theologians) have been wrong about those religions? It's a lot more than 1000.
If they have to report TO the collective, then they are in a position of service, not power.
Is there really a practical difference? What will happen is that people will form attachments to the charismatic people in the group and those people will become leaders. Now you're no longer an anarchistic collective, you're just an informal democracy with many leaders. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that a large anarchistic group can remain anarchistic for any substantial length of time (except maybe under circumstances that require very strict anonymity).
Is a music critic responsible for lost "potential sales" if he doesn't provide a "good enough" review of an album?
Because once you start trying to figuring our how many people should have bought the album, you've started down a slippery slope to oppression and tyranny.
And I don't believe you when you say you think copyright should last 10 or 20 years. If that's what you believe, do you pay for all music, movies, and shows created in the last 10 to 20 years? I think you're just looking for justifications to get valuable stuff without paying for it-- which is my definition of stealing.
Then you're doubly stupid. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a thief is effectively conceding that you have no argument, plus you admit by your own definition that you either consider yourself a thief or you consider oxygen to be worthless. I propose you try going 24 hours without it, it will solve your idiocy problem one way or another. You've gotten a lot more valuable stuff for free than you will ever be able to repay. Our entire society is based on the implictly understanding that no one can own information. If you disagree you'd better be prepared to go back to being a mute and dumb monkey living in cave, because you certainly have not paid for the millenia of technological advancement that has allowed your arrogantly self-entitled opinions to be posted on the Internet.
The point was that copyright laws, unlike murder laws, are morally bad. According to RMS, the cost (no sharing) outweighs the benefit (marginally more music).
My opinion is that the cost/benefit ratio was better before the Internet became publicly accessible. There was much less sharing being prevented and more music being created. However, the rise of the internet has increased the costs and decreased the benefits, while spawning new unexpected costs in the form of exported copyright laws, lobbying other countries, public enforcement of private copyright interests and others. Copyright needs to be reformed or abolished.
No, it really won't drive the price to zero. Because it costs very real time, money, materials, and training to be skilled enough to make the original recording in the first place. Distrubtion & copying costs are driven to zero, but those fees - even with traditional "physical copy" (CD/LP/Tape/etc.) recordings - represent only a fraction of the overall time and money required to produce the song. Hours and hours of songwriting, recording, practice, training, purchasing an instrument and recording equipment, marketing and hosting of the song for other people to get at it - all of these have very real and very non-zero costs.
Irrelevent. The invisible hand doesn't care how long you practice or how many instruments you had to buy, the invisible hand cares only for supply and demand. If an item can be duplicated at effectively 0 cost, then the supply is infinite and the demand price is effectively also 0.
Arguing that "low- or no-cost copying" will somehow magically eliminate the need for those other costs is wishful MBA thinking.
Those costs aren't eliminated, they just don't matter. Almost all of those costs are sunk costs, they were paid to create the original music file. Creating copies of that file costs nothing. The only cost that will have an impact on the price is "hosting of the song for other people to get at it". The other costs just don't matter.
He doesn't have the right to force you to buy his music, and you don't have the right to force him to provide entertainment to you for free.
Frankly, no one is forcing the musician to "provide entertainment to you for free". The song was already recorded. The musician is required to do nothing, and is not impacted except in that it might decrease his ability to sell additional recordings. He has not been "forced" to do anything. The very idea is laughably wrong.
You seem to ignoring the fundamental truth of copyright:
When a musician create a new song and performs it for a public audience, it belongs to the public. The government, however, grants musicians a temporary and limited monopoly on the right to make and distribute copies of the songs they create as an economic incentive to encourage more song creation.
Songs are information, and information can only be "owned" by keeping it secret. Therefore this is not a natural right, it is a government restriction on the freedom of the public for the public good.
Ah the analysis that is clearly labeled CO2 is labeled incorrectly in multiple locations and is titled 'Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx'. That's a lot of mislabeling.
It's not the title of the file that's incorrect, it that there's no units in the spreadsheet. They're measuring the CO2 emissions in terms of the weight of the carbon (as they clearly do on the summary page). Again, rather than relying on a row of numbers with no unit labels in a preliminary excel spreadsheet, you could read the summary page that actually provides a nice graph and an explanation of what the number in the spreadsheet mean. It seems that you are only looking for evidence that confirms what you believe.
Couple that with the Department of Energy numbers that match up pretty well too, but I guess their data is mislabeled too.
Once again, it helps if you actually cite the source of your "evidence", I've linked to three different sources that each given a very similar number for their emissions estimate. But you're sure that they're all wrong because you saw a different number on a web page once? Frankly, I suspect if you did provide the source I would find the numbers are also in tonnes of carbon.
It helps if you link properly to the file instead of the directory index the file is located in, I can only assume that you hoped I wouldn't find your reference and read because from the very same paragraph: "The cumulative emissions are estimated to be about 190 kt CO2 and 30 kt SO2.". Did you bother to read the entire paragraph? Once again the evidence explicitly says that your opinion is wrong and once again you've ignored the explicit declaration that you wrong to focus on another part of the evidence that could, if misinterpreted in just the right might support your opinion.
Frankly, you've managed to set a new low for Internet idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
And considering it's going to happen relatively gradually (not overnight in some big surprise event where you wake up and ea whole city is wiped out), it sounds like humanity can largely adapt.
Actually, it will happen both gradually and overnight. Katrina and New Orleans is the template for things to come. If the government doesn't keep up with the gradual changes, then a big event will come along and "wipe out" the city.
While most people seem to be fixated on battling back and forth about whether or not "climate change" is really happening (vs. any noted changes just being part of some natural cycle of events, and/or possibly inaccurate data) -- it seems to me the real questions get pushed by the wayside.
That is deliberate. The people opposed to doing anything about it, want to delay the question of whether it's a good idea to do anything until after it's too late to do anything, then they won't have to pay. It's pretty much the whole reason libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns.
I'm not sure that conservatives are more organized because they are a minority, it could be that they're more organized because of their fundamental principles. The values that consevatives hold dearest tend to be leadership, tribal identity and conformity. These will all naturally lead to more organized and cohesive action. Liberals, in contrast, tend to value equality and the prevention of harm.
Conservatives chose leades and follow them, anyone who steps out of line is punished, and if they stray too far, forced out of the group. The advantage is it promotes solidarity and the group acts much more cohesively, the disadvantage is that bad leaders can lead the entire group over a cliff.
Or like in Toronto which is constantly teetering on the edge of economic disaster because of liberals who want all the social programs and want someone else to pay for it. So there isn't the money for things that are really needed like new subways (worst subway system for a city its size... evvverrrr).
Actually Toronto has the lowest property taxes of any region in it's area. It's literally less than half the top property tax rate for the region and the current mayor of Toronto is an anti-tax loon. So, Toronto is constantly teetering on the edge of economic disaster because Toronto is constantly freezing property taxes, so that the amount of property tax collected rises at a slower rate than inflation. Thus even without any new programs, their tax revenue base would increase slower than their expenses.
Is to more wrong to think Sarin has no lethal dose or to think that the lethal dose is 5 mg?
After all, the people who think it has no lethal does are "closer" to the actual value, 0.5 mg than the people who think it's 5 mg.
I don't know of any republicans that want to completely abolish the EPA.
I suspect that's because you don't want to know about them.
Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race
Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA
Public Rejects GOP Push to Eliminate EPA
Bachmann pledges to have the EPA's 'doors locked and lights turned off'
GOP on abolishing the EPA
The last link is a video where a number of Republicans are allowed to speak freely about what they think should be done with the EPA.
When a musician create a new song and performs it for a public audience, it belongs to the public.
Its interesting how some people believe in intellectual property just fine when they are taking it from someone. Just not when someone asserts it for themselves.
You comment betrays a fundamental ignorance of both reality and law. When a musician performs a song for a public audience, he has voluntarily given away the intellectual property (a trade secret). In most of the world, the artist receives a limited monopoly on the right to make copies of the song in return. However, he does not own the song once it has been publicly performed. How could he? Can he go into the minds of all those present and erase the song? Can he prevent them from humming the tune, or singing it to themselves or to their friends? Can he take back the feelings the music engenders? You can't own information, you can only control it and the more people who know it, the more difficult it is to control.
Thus, you can only own a song by keeping it secret, once it has been publicly performed, it belongs to the public. This is both law and reality. There is no taking here, you can't take a song from musician any more than the musician can take a song back from the audience. Those words don't even apply to the situation.
The only thing that will get in the way of humans finding a better way, is other humans trying to frivolously and vainly prevent the inevitable "climate change" and "depletion of fossil fuels".
What if you've got it backwards? What if what's going to stop (or delay) humans finding a better way, is other humans trying to frivolously and vainly prevent the replacement of fossil fuels?
The climate change, humans have no real control of.
Collectively, we can have control over climate change, however, there are a lot of people who hate the word "collectively" for ideological reasons.
Technically speaking, banning guns would probably lower both the quantity and quality of guns in America. After all, guns are complicated to produce. I'm not sure how many good guns could be manufactured in black market gun shops. There are lot of other effects as well, but I'm not sure Guns have the same demand curve as prostitution and drugs. Do gun owners need to have their "bullet fix" or they go through withdrawal? Does every woman and man come pre-equipped with all the gear to have "guns"?
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Then why do companies make new guns? The stock of guns increases over time because the rate of creation exceeds the rate of destruction. It's unknown whether that would be true under a complete ban. Of course, a complete ban isn't going to happen. I'm just pointing out that you haven't thought this through very well.
Interesting I read a different interview with Joe, where he said he drew his weapon and pointed it at the woman with the gun, and was a split second away from putting a bullet in her head before he decided she wasn't the shooter. In the interview, he was obviously shaken by how close he came to shooting an innocent woman.
The interview I read indicated the opposite of what your blog post says, that he played no significant role in subduing the shooter, came very close to making the situation worse, and almost got himself killed.
Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
I think you accidentally got it right "it's fundamentally democratic". If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
Most people will agree that some things are too dangerous to have people carrying around on them. The argument is really where you draw the line: ...) ...). ...) ...). ...)
1) Biological weapons (Ebola, anthrax,
1) Nuclear weapons (Suitecase nuke,
2) Explosives (Dynamite, C4, grenades,
3) Chemical weapons (Chlorine gas, sarin,
4) Firearms (50 caliber machine gun, AK-47, M-4, Shotgun, Pistols,
5) Knives
6) Pepper spray
7) Tazers
If you're a reasonable person, no matter where you think it should be drawn some people will think more weapons should allowed and some people will think fewer weapons should be allowed, and some people will just think different weapons should be banned.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
Not really. People can't be trusted to carry around weaponized biological weapons because the chances of accidental or deliberate release are too high and the consequences too dire. Only a total idiot couldn't understand that.
Give me 20+ years of climbing temperatures (a mere drop in the bucket considering how old this planet is) and i'll change my mind...wait what?
Would 40ish years do?.
HOWEVER, We are breaking records that were set 40-60+ YEARS AGO PEOPLE! This is a WARM year, nothing more, nothing less.
The issue with temperature records is that in a stable climate, both record warm and record cold temperatures become progressively less likely to occur. The chance is 1/n of setting either record, where n is the number of readings taken. Climate change, however, loads the dice, so far this year we've set 10 times as many warm records as cold records. Now, that could be just one warm year, but 13 of the top 14 warm years occurred in the last 14 years.
The last record high temperature in MY area was set in 1954.
In my area it was set last year, and then again earlier this year, and again last week.
Why did it take almost 60 years to break a high? Oh i know why! Because there is no such thing as global warming! Because we are experiencing a fluke in what is otherwise a cooling of the earth.
That's some fluke, the long term global cooling trend ends around 1900, and a global warming trend takes over.
You mean scientists can't actually PROVE that global warming exists?!?!?!
They already have proved that global warming exists, you just weren't paying attention. Now you seem to refuse to look at the evidence. It's hard to take your protests seriously when you appear to have your eyes shut tight, your fingers stuck in your ears and you're shouting "Nananana - I can't hear you! Nananana - I won't hear you!".
There are at least 4 separate temperature reconstructions that all show long term warming trends, including one funded by the Koch brothers who as owners of a vast fossil fuel empire have vested interests in showing that global warming isn't happening. If the scientists they hired to prove that global warming doesn't exist actually came to the conclusion that it does, why don't you believe them?
Actually, I've found it's the people doing the polluting who claim that polluting less would mean everyone would have to go live in caves, I can't say I've ever heard a serious environmentalist argue we should do so*.
* Excepting the one group that advocates building homes in caves, but to be faire, the caves they want people to live in are better than the houses that most people live in now.
There are major things like cement production, which alone emits about 6% of total man-made greenhouse gases, for which there seems to be absolutely no possible option to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions, other than simply stopping cement production. With cement being one of the most important construction materials, this directly translates into stopping most large building construction, and a severe economic crash.
The goal is to reduce overall emissions to a sustainable level, they don't need to be cut to 0. Imagine for a moment that we were rational creatures, we could use taxes levied on carbon emissions to fund carbon sequestration, to achieve a net-0 emissions rate. We also don't need to cut every industry identically. For instance, if the will existed, we could switch the world to mostly electric vehicles in a generation. That would greatly cut transportation emissions while potentially increasing power generation emissions, while still reducing overall emissions.
There are alternate methods of concrete production that produce lower emissions, they aren't used because they are more expensive than the cheapest methods and CO2 emissions cost the company nothing. That's one reason why taxing emissions makes economic and environmental sense. If CO2 emissions have a cost, it makes the processes that emit less CO2 comparatively more cost-efficient (and it spurs more research into making those processes more cost-effective).
Ironically, guess what we're probably going to run into if we keep charging blindly ahead? "Hunger for food and a desire for the things necessary to live and desire for products that make life easier, reduce work, and extend quality of life". If climate change prompts world wide crop failures, and in causing climate change we deplete the world's fossil fuel supply we're just making the situation temporarily better before it gets much worse.
Also, what happens if you're just really good at the game? I mean it's based on you being better at playing your password than other chords. If you're playing everything flawlessly are you permanently locked out?
People don't tend to memorise songs they don't like. Generally speaking, most users would probably choose a lyric from one of the songs listed as their favourite songs on their Facebook (or equivalent) page. Additionally, if everyone were doing this and you had a collection of hashes you wanted to break, you could probably break a large percentage of them just by choosing the "best" lyrics from a list of the top 100 all-time songs.
So they oppose Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) and Outcome-Based Education (OBE). The real issue for the Texas Republican Party is that these programs might lead children to question their parent's religion or politics. Personally, I think it's a sign of weakness to fear questions.
Enough. You're an idiot.
For example, you really believe CO2 emissions have gone from 6-7 billion tons of CO2 to 33.5 billion tons of CO2 in 10 years?
CO2 emissions went from 6-7 billion tons of carbon to 9 billion tons of carbon in 10 years. It's labelled in black in white on the graphs on both pages. Carbon is not the same as CO2, moron. Stop mixing the units up.
Since, in the real world, very few people care about what is in line with anarchist thought or not, the trip from voluntary leadership to dictator is only as long as it takes to draw a gun.
As I've stated, not only does the title seem correct, but the colums in the spreadsheet itself are titled CO2. And again, where do these numbers come from? That seems to be something you haven't dealt with nor acknowledged.
Yes, the columns are titled CO2 and the accompanying graph labels the units as "Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent". If you're going to believe the numbers you should also believe the units. Accepting one as more reliable than the other really is selective thinking.
Here is a little brochure put out by the DOE and I linked this earlier. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html [eia.gov]
First, that pamphlet appears to be about 12 years old. Second, did you read the headings on the graphs? They say "Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent". That's carbon equivalent not CO2. You have to convert carbon to CO2 to compare numbers and it just so happens that 9 billion tons of carbon equivalent is around 33 billion tons of CO2.
Molar mass of C: 12 g/mol
Molar mass of O: 16 g/mol
Weight of CO2 to C: 3.7:1
Converting Carbon to CO2: 9 billion tons of carbon is approximately 33.3 billion tons of CO2.
Every piece of evidence you have cited to support your view has only served to undermine it, because each explicitly contradicts the views that you hold. That's an amazing display of confirmation bias and scientific illiteracy.
We also happen to know how much of that turns into CO2 (about 19lbs per gallon). So, anyone can figure out how much CO2 was created in the US. And guess what? The numbers seem to correspond closely to your spreadsheet.
See my previous comment on the multitude of errors in your calculation.
I also liked your selective reading above on the analysis of the eruption of Mt St. Helens. First you denied that 60% per volume of the magma can be converted to CO2/SO2, then I shot that one down. Now, your new one is that a sampling of the eruption (one data point) is all the gas that was emitted. But that is just par for the course with you. Read it more carefully next time.
It's your evidence that you are claiming is unreliable. The same "data point" produces both numbers. If you're going to throw out their calculation for the total amount of CO2 released, you shouldn't rely on their calculation for the percentage of magma converted into CO2 either for the same eruption. Once again you're engaging in selective thinking.
1 cubic mile of magma converted at that rate emits a tremendous amount of CO2/SO2. Since one cubic mile of magma weight about 45 trillion pounds, it doesn't take much mathematical ability to realize how enormous the OVERALL eruption is (on the scale of 100's of billion of tons of CO2/SO2).
As I previously noted, you don't know how much magma was converted to CO2, you have applied an estimate of the percentage of magma converted to CO2 from a separate eruption to an earlier eruption, you have decided that more magma was converted to CO2 than was actually exposed during the eruption and you have decided that your estimates are more accurate that what the experts say actually occurred.
You opinion seems to be based on misreading a pamphlet and a rough estimate of what you think probably should have occurred.
Do you really think a thousand philosophers over 5000 years have all managed to overlook something THAT obvious without considering sollutions and YOU managed to spot it ?
Yes, actually a 1000 philosophers over 5000 years could definitely overlook something that obvious. What the total population of philosophers over that time? I'd estimate at least 1 million, especially if we allow amateur philosophers to count. So the question is could 0.1% of the target population miss the obvious? In that context the answer seems to "definitely". The size of the population that is about the same as that of philosophers who are 3 sigmas below average intelligence (or above average wishful thinking).
For further evidence please consider Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Considering that a maximum of one of those religions can be correct, how many philosophers (and theologians) have been wrong about those religions? It's a lot more than 1000.
If they have to report TO the collective, then they are in a position of service, not power.
Is there really a practical difference? What will happen is that people will form attachments to the charismatic people in the group and those people will become leaders. Now you're no longer an anarchistic collective, you're just an informal democracy with many leaders. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that a large anarchistic group can remain anarchistic for any substantial length of time (except maybe under circumstances that require very strict anonymity).
You deprive them of a potential sale.
Is a music critic responsible for lost "potential sales" if he doesn't provide a "good enough" review of an album?
Because once you start trying to figuring our how many people should have bought the album, you've started down a slippery slope to oppression and tyranny.
And I don't believe you when you say you think copyright should last 10 or 20 years. If that's what you believe, do you pay for all music, movies, and shows created in the last 10 to 20 years? I think you're just looking for justifications to get valuable stuff without paying for it-- which is my definition of stealing.
Then you're doubly stupid. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a thief is effectively conceding that you have no argument, plus you admit by your own definition that you either consider yourself a thief or you consider oxygen to be worthless. I propose you try going 24 hours without it, it will solve your idiocy problem one way or another. You've gotten a lot more valuable stuff for free than you will ever be able to repay. Our entire society is based on the implictly understanding that no one can own information. If you disagree you'd better be prepared to go back to being a mute and dumb monkey living in cave, because you certainly have not paid for the millenia of technological advancement that has allowed your arrogantly self-entitled opinions to be posted on the Internet.
The point was that copyright laws, unlike murder laws, are morally bad. According to RMS, the cost (no sharing) outweighs the benefit (marginally more music).
My opinion is that the cost/benefit ratio was better before the Internet became publicly accessible. There was much less sharing being prevented and more music being created. However, the rise of the internet has increased the costs and decreased the benefits, while spawning new unexpected costs in the form of exported copyright laws, lobbying other countries, public enforcement of private copyright interests and others. Copyright needs to be reformed or abolished.
No, it really won't drive the price to zero. Because it costs very real time, money, materials, and training to be skilled enough to make the original recording in the first place. Distrubtion & copying costs are driven to zero, but those fees - even with traditional "physical copy" (CD/LP/Tape/etc.) recordings - represent only a fraction of the overall time and money required to produce the song. Hours and hours of songwriting, recording, practice, training, purchasing an instrument and recording equipment, marketing and hosting of the song for other people to get at it - all of these have very real and very non-zero costs.
Irrelevent. The invisible hand doesn't care how long you practice or how many instruments you had to buy, the invisible hand cares only for supply and demand. If an item can be duplicated at effectively 0 cost, then the supply is infinite and the demand price is effectively also 0.
Arguing that "low- or no-cost copying" will somehow magically eliminate the need for those other costs is wishful MBA thinking.
Those costs aren't eliminated, they just don't matter. Almost all of those costs are sunk costs, they were paid to create the original music file. Creating copies of that file costs nothing. The only cost that will have an impact on the price is "hosting of the song for other people to get at it". The other costs just don't matter.
He doesn't have the right to force you to buy his music, and you don't have the right to force him to provide entertainment to you for free.
Frankly, no one is forcing the musician to "provide entertainment to you for free". The song was already recorded. The musician is required to do nothing, and is not impacted except in that it might decrease his ability to sell additional recordings. He has not been "forced" to do anything. The very idea is laughably wrong.
You seem to ignoring the fundamental truth of copyright:
When a musician create a new song and performs it for a public audience, it belongs to the public. The government, however, grants musicians a temporary and limited monopoly on the right to make and distribute copies of the songs they create as an economic incentive to encourage more song creation.
Songs are information, and information can only be "owned" by keeping it secret. Therefore this is not a natural right, it is a government restriction on the freedom of the public for the public good.
Ah the analysis that is clearly labeled CO2 is labeled incorrectly in multiple locations and is titled 'Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx'. That's a lot of mislabeling.
It's not the title of the file that's incorrect, it that there's no units in the spreadsheet. They're measuring the CO2 emissions in terms of the weight of the carbon (as they clearly do on the summary page). Again, rather than relying on a row of numbers with no unit labels in a preliminary excel spreadsheet, you could read the summary page that actually provides a nice graph and an explanation of what the number in the spreadsheet mean. It seems that you are only looking for evidence that confirms what you believe.
Couple that with the Department of Energy numbers that match up pretty well too, but I guess their data is mislabeled too.
Once again, it helps if you actually cite the source of your "evidence", I've linked to three different sources that each given a very similar number for their emissions estimate. But you're sure that they're all wrong because you saw a different number on a web page once? Frankly, I suspect if you did provide the source I would find the numbers are also in tonnes of carbon.
Let's see how much gas fraction can potentially yield from magma shall we?
From http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/ [agu.org] and I quote
It helps if you link properly to the file instead of the directory index the file is located in, I can only assume that you hoped I wouldn't find your reference and read because from the very same paragraph: "The cumulative emissions are estimated to be about 190 kt CO2 and 30 kt SO2.". Did you bother to read the entire paragraph? Once again the evidence explicitly says that your opinion is wrong and once again you've ignored the explicit declaration that you wrong to focus on another part of the evidence that could, if misinterpreted in just the right might support your opinion.
Frankly, you've managed to set a new low for Internet idiocy.