1) human lives aren't precious. There are more than 7 billion of us. 7 billion of anything is usually too much. We can spare some, particularly bad ones.
2) let's understand and acknowledge how vital and critical the internet is to today's world. They attacked that infrastructure in a way that is hard to refute.
Personally, I believe it's catastrophically stupid to take a mortgage to buy bitcoin.
I rather suspect most of the people doing that couldn't even tell you, substantially, what bitcoin is.
It's a free society, they can do it if they want. What I really am not looking forward to is the inevitable crash/fraud/whatever, after which there will be a great hue and cry for government (ie with taxpayer money) remediation because these people were too stupid to understand the risks.
These people were the same ones flipping houses in 2007 because of the great income potential. And now we taxpayers have spent 10 years funding saving their stupid asses.
Company: Here, will you do this job? We'll pay you $200. Person: Um, sure. (After working 50 hours to complete task, resulting in $4/hour pay) Person: Hey, you cheated me! That's only $4 an hour! Company: We asked if you'd do it for $200, you said yes. Person: I know I did, but I regret that!
...I have more fears regarding the consequences of accidental fuckups with these sorts of things than I do of nuclear plants, Donald Trump, DPRK, and climate change all bundled together.
A co-worker of mine used to be in senior management at VW DE (left more than a decade ago), and he said that the whole thing was utterly unsurprising to him. He said the US management was the worst cross between lickspittle toadies focused only on their personal ladder-climbing and soulless used car salesman willing to say anything regardless of facts.
...because it's so much easier to expect others to clean up your shit, instead of facing the fact that it's your policies, your choices, your behavior as governments that are creating the conditions in which such people thrive and multiply.
I don't give a shit about the coffee or whatever overpriced shitty beverage I'm drinking, or crappy dried out husk of overpriced muffin.
I'm paying for a high bandwidth web connection, a plugin, a decent chair and work area, and a bathroom for an hour or two - I buy their goods because I feel like I really should be paying them for their availability, and $5-6 isn't unreasonable.
Although some places have some colossally shitty musicians polluting the airspace, they should refund me for listening to that.
...brilliant man, but suffering badly from both the "I'm good at something, so I must be brilliant at everything" syndrome and the George Lucas ("nobody around me will tell me that's a stupid idea") syndrome.
Together, Stephen, they kind of make you ridiculous.
I'm 50, and admit I'm sometimes afflicted by it but I generally don't get the constant nostalgia binging.
I was truly an 80s kid - turned 13 in 1980, graduated from college in 1990. Love 80s music, etc.
But for millennials and hipsters - why do you possibly give a shit about the 80s? I can look through rose-colored glasses but TBH: everything really is pretty much better now, objectively.
If coral numbers "dwindled" during major temp-related extinction events, you've proved my point: they *dwindled* means they survived...like 70%, 80%, 90% of other species DIDN'T. In that context, merely 'dwindling' is a victory.
And I knew someone would haul out the 'rate of change' nonsense. When you and your ilk assert that +2.5 deg C and 3000+ PPM CO2 is 'catastrophic', it's easy to point to times when both were higher, and coral was thriving. Then, you assert "but...no, it's the RATE of change...!" But - In the ~240 million year span of corals, there have been at least 4 extinction events that have been more or less "instant" (impactors). It doesn't GET "faster" than that.
So it's provably not the levels alone, and it's provably not the rate. Please ascribe your falling sky to some other reason.
Yes, I'd like to see someone convicted of what the crowd is actually baying for.
The charges (not a conviction, btw) against Manafort are basically all about HIS stuff, still nothing about Trump, nor Russian "manipulation" of the election (however that's being defined this moment).
1. A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today. - hasn't happened. 2. Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from âoeirretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.â 3. Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the âoeice apocalypseâ at a pace âoetoo quickly for humanity to adapt.â - Still waiting. 4. World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the âoelast effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].â 5. Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said âoewe have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.â - 1300 days later, still looking for result. 6. United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obamaâ(TM)s second term was âoethe last window of opportunityâ to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said itâ(TM)s âoethe last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,â adding that if âoewe donâ(TM)t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.â 7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only âoehas four years to save Earth.â 8. 2009 the head of Canadaâ(TM)s Green Party wrote that there was only âoehoursâ left to stop global warming. 9. 2009 Gordon Brown warned there was only âoe50 days to save the world from global warming,â the BBC reported. According to Brown there was âoeno plan B.â 10. Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if âoethereâ(TM)s no action before 2012, thatâ(TM)s too late.â 11. Environmentalist writer George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within âoeas little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the worldâ(TM)s animals or it continues to feed the worldâ(TM)s people. It cannot do both.â About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N. data. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot. 12. The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences. The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a âoesenior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.â
You know, you'd think after a year of the most intense scrutiny by official (Mueller) and unofficial (every media organization ever) organizations, there'd be something like, well, actual proof - right?
If the Republicans are that good at running a covert operation with the Russians, well hell, they may indeed be the best party to run government.
Corals are one of the oldest forms of multicellular life on the planet. They've thrived when the earth has been both much cooler, and much warmer than it is today. They've thrived when CO2 was both higher and lower than today. They've thrived when the climate has changed both more slowly, and more quickly. Sometimes radically quickly.
Seriously, if you're going to pick a poster child for 'most likely to not give a shit about warming' - that would be corals. For every coral that bleaches because of slightly warmer water, another two whole latitudes toward the poles are opened for coral growth and exploitation.
".... it still feels brazen hearing the commission staff repeatedly discount Americans' preference for consumer protections, simply because they aren't phrased in legal terms...."
You mean, they should have instead set up a whole website to let people submit opinions that they simply ignored, instead? (cf https://petitions.whitehouse.g...)
Which is more disingenuous? Telling people you need to make a cogent POINT, and then they'll bother to read it? Or telling people they have a voice...but you actually ignore it completely?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm serious.
1) human lives aren't precious. There are more than 7 billion of us. 7 billion of anything is usually too much. We can spare some, particularly bad ones.
2) let's understand and acknowledge how vital and critical the internet is to today's world. They attacked that infrastructure in a way that is hard to refute.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
Personally, I believe it's catastrophically stupid to take a mortgage to buy bitcoin.
I rather suspect most of the people doing that couldn't even tell you, substantially, what bitcoin is.
It's a free society, they can do it if they want. What I really am not looking forward to is the inevitable crash/fraud/whatever, after which there will be a great hue and cry for government (ie with taxpayer money) remediation because these people were too stupid to understand the risks.
These people were the same ones flipping houses in 2007 because of the great income potential. And now we taxpayers have spent 10 years funding saving their stupid asses.
I remember Obama, and before him Bush II saying the exact same things.
Going to reinvigorate the space program.
Going to Mars.
Signing that order. ...and NOTHING.
It's not just that Trump's full of shit, they ALL are.
Company: Here, will you do this job? We'll pay you $200.
Person: Um, sure.
(After working 50 hours to complete task, resulting in $4/hour pay)
Person: Hey, you cheated me! That's only $4 an hour!
Company: We asked if you'd do it for $200, you said yes.
Person: I know I did, but I regret that!
(Media: THIS IS UNFAIR!)
...of the very, very fine line between clever and stupid.
...I have more fears regarding the consequences of accidental fuckups with these sorts of things than I do of nuclear plants, Donald Trump, DPRK, and climate change all bundled together.
...it looks like you're an idiot.
QED
A co-worker of mine used to be in senior management at VW DE (left more than a decade ago), and he said that the whole thing was utterly unsurprising to him. He said the US management was the worst cross between lickspittle toadies focused only on their personal ladder-climbing and soulless used car salesman willing to say anything regardless of facts.
...because it's so much easier to expect others to clean up your shit, instead of facing the fact that it's your policies, your choices, your behavior as governments that are creating the conditions in which such people thrive and multiply.
Ah, so anyone that disagrees with you must be a Jew, er, "russian troll"?
Yes, you're ENTIRELY different than Nazis.
It's EASY to say "that offends me, ban it!"
It's harder to say "that offends me, but I need to stand against it on its merits, not just because I have the power to ban it."
I don't give a shit about the coffee or whatever overpriced shitty beverage I'm drinking, or crappy dried out husk of overpriced muffin.
I'm paying for a high bandwidth web connection, a plugin, a decent chair and work area, and a bathroom for an hour or two - I buy their goods because I feel like I really should be paying them for their availability, and $5-6 isn't unreasonable.
Although some places have some colossally shitty musicians polluting the airspace, they should refund me for listening to that.
...brilliant man, but suffering badly from both the "I'm good at something, so I must be brilliant at everything" syndrome and the George Lucas ("nobody around me will tell me that's a stupid idea") syndrome.
Together, Stephen, they kind of make you ridiculous.
there are a lot of words that don't mean what they used to:
"crypto"
"drone"
"AI"
"president"
...I'm looking forward to them deleting my account ...finally.
I'm 50, and admit I'm sometimes afflicted by it but I generally don't get the constant nostalgia binging.
I was truly an 80s kid - turned 13 in 1980, graduated from college in 1990. Love 80s music, etc.
But for millennials and hipsters - why do you possibly give a shit about the 80s? I can look through rose-colored glasses but TBH: everything really is pretty much better now, objectively.
If coral numbers "dwindled" during major temp-related extinction events, you've proved my point: they *dwindled* means they survived...like 70%, 80%, 90% of other species DIDN'T.
In that context, merely 'dwindling' is a victory.
And I knew someone would haul out the 'rate of change' nonsense. When you and your ilk assert that +2.5 deg C and 3000+ PPM CO2 is 'catastrophic', it's easy to point to times when both were higher, and coral was thriving. Then, you assert "but...no, it's the RATE of change...!"
But - In the ~240 million year span of corals, there have been at least 4 extinction events that have been more or less "instant" (impactors). It doesn't GET "faster" than that.
So it's provably not the levels alone, and it's provably not the rate.
Please ascribe your falling sky to some other reason.
Yes, I'd like to see someone convicted of what the crowd is actually baying for.
The charges (not a conviction, btw) against Manafort are basically all about HIS stuff, still nothing about Trump, nor Russian "manipulation" of the election (however that's being defined this moment).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The burden's on the doomsayers, not on the people dismissing them.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11...
1. A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today. - hasn't happened.
2. Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from âoeirretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.â
3. Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the âoeice apocalypseâ at a pace âoetoo quickly for humanity to adapt.â - Still waiting.
4. World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the âoelast effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].â
5. Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said âoewe have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.â - 1300 days later, still looking for result.
6. United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obamaâ(TM)s second term was âoethe last window of opportunityâ to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said itâ(TM)s âoethe last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,â adding that if âoewe donâ(TM)t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.â
7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only âoehas four years to save Earth.â
8. 2009 the head of Canadaâ(TM)s Green Party wrote that there was only âoehoursâ left to stop global warming.
9. 2009 Gordon Brown warned there was only âoe50 days to save the world from global warming,â the BBC reported. According to Brown there was âoeno plan B.â
10. Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if âoethereâ(TM)s no action before 2012, thatâ(TM)s too late.â
11. Environmentalist writer George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within âoeas little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the worldâ(TM)s animals or it continues to feed the worldâ(TM)s people. It cannot do both.â About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N. data. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.
12. The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences. The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a âoesenior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.â
Still waiting for Armageddon. How's it coming?
Store located on Elm Street claims making Elm Street less accessible will be catastrophic.
News at 11.
You know, you'd think after a year of the most intense scrutiny by official (Mueller) and unofficial (every media organization ever) organizations, there'd be something like, well, actual proof - right?
If the Republicans are that good at running a covert operation with the Russians, well hell, they may indeed be the best party to run government.
Corals are one of the oldest forms of multicellular life on the planet.
They've thrived when the earth has been both much cooler, and much warmer than it is today.
They've thrived when CO2 was both higher and lower than today.
They've thrived when the climate has changed both more slowly, and more quickly. Sometimes radically quickly.
Seriously, if you're going to pick a poster child for 'most likely to not give a shit about warming' - that would be corals. For every coral that bleaches because of slightly warmer water, another two whole latitudes toward the poles are opened for coral growth and exploitation.
".... it still feels brazen hearing the commission staff repeatedly discount Americans' preference for consumer protections, simply because they aren't phrased in legal terms...."
You mean, they should have instead set up a whole website to let people submit opinions that they simply ignored, instead? (cf https://petitions.whitehouse.g...)
Which is more disingenuous? Telling people you need to make a cogent POINT, and then they'll bother to read it? Or telling people they have a voice...but you actually ignore it completely?