Forests NEED fires to stay healthy. Preventing forest fires only means that eventually the fire that comes will be catastrophic and unsurvivable by anything.
Capitalism is based on a NEED for some businesses (including banks) that make stupid choices to fail. Preventing them from failing *incentivizes* continued stupid choices.
If the "too big to fails" had actually failed in 2007, the financial road would have been rocky. Many peoples' lives would have been destroyed because they made poor choices (or, by a lasseiz-faire approach to their investments and 401ks, allowed others to make poor choices), but the end result would have been much LOWER market prices as businesses desperate to survive cut prices to stay in business.
Hilarious example, since it's the longshoremen's union(s) that have acted as a significant brake on the US economy for decades.
People are currently paid north of $90,000 to perform an utterly replaceable job (crane operator) with boutique medical and pension plans. Cross the picket lines when they strike, and you're lucky if you only escape with a smashed car or burnt-down house.
Los Angeles, the US's biggest port, runs on little more than clipboards and notecards. Computers? NEVER - to implement them would cost jobs. In terms of port productivity, it takes HOURS in Los Angeles to complete the loading/unloading of a container that in the more-highly-automated ports of the Eastern Pacific or Europe complete in tens of minutes.
The longshoremens' unions are an example of the WORST
I think people should freely be allowed to unionize, but people should also be allowed to NOT be part of the unions if they don't want to be: it's their economic choice, really.
However, I do believe that if a union interposes itself as the collective-bargaining agent for a number of workers, then the union logically should be legally held liable for the conduct of the workers it's representing: ie if productivity falls below normal, etc, the union should be liable to compensate the firm for lost income.
...is that you know at every one of those companies, people got the "I'm sorry, I know you work hard and do a good job, you really do, but we simply can't afford to give you that $3000/year raise you're asking for" while they paid these celebrity "employees" hundreds of thousands.
I get it, it's more like a marketing cost than a salary, but that's bullshit.
"The researchers cautioned that the output and productivity growth they noted when the number of IP address increased was correlation rather than causation."
I'm torn between being sad that they actually felt it was necessary to say this, and being glad that they did to preclude democrats proposing a new program to help the impoverished by handing out ip addresses.
I know "fake news" is getting us all worked up right now, but
"...fake news did not change the result 2016 presidential election, according to a study by researchers at Stanford and New York University released Thursday...."
Like the "Russia hacked the election" story the original threat being discussed was specifically hacking of electronic voting machines. When that was proved ridiculous, the phrase was re-framed to something more vague, saying that Russia "manipulated" the results by media...you know, exactly like the Martin Sheen "dump Trump" video attempted to do (and failed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Cause doesn't matter, only the effect." And this is incredibly myopic, if you actually plan to take corrective action, instead of amelioratory action. If your engine is breaking down, an amelioritory action would be to slow down and turn it off to prevent more damage. To try to FIX it - as we assert we're trying to do with AGW - you/have/ to have SOME idea what the problem is.
If you want to see a list of 10 things more important and solvable than climate change, here you go - it's a great talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/bjor...
10 items that are all known, understood, and at much lower investments will have more substantial, tangible, immediate, and significant benefits for more people. Here's the gist, in short: - NO city will last forever - NO 'current beautiful vacation spots' will last forever
I believe the climate is changing. It's always BEEN changing, but yeah, it seems like it's warming.
I believe that humans are likely making it worse.
I believe that the 'science' of climate change is about as 'science' as psychology: observations, reasonable inferences, but no replication, no null hypothesis. I believe that the FUD about global warming have led to a truly ridiculous universality (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html) to the point of uselessness as a theory.
I believe many people are supporting or refuting AGW based purely on politics, and it's nearly impossible to find any data today that isn't tainted by true-believerism one way or another.
I recognize that the "97% of climate scientists agree" is neither persuasive (there are many times in history where 'experts' have widely agreed on something totally wrong) nor even mathematically true (the '97%' comes from a review of climatological papers THAT EXPRESSED AN OPINION, which were themselves a small fraction of the papers), It's also easy to mistake the loudest voices for consensus. I believe there's probably a moderate majority of climate scientists who agree on the subject.
According to the most objective data I can find, I see that there are 'pulses' of sudden, increased & substantial warming about every 120-140k years, for (at least) the last 3+ million years. The last such pulse was about 120k years ago, so we're due. I wonder how we would discern such an event in the midst of it and, in our natural Ptolemaic human conceit, would we assume that this MUST BE our fault?
If an event happens more-or-less cyclically every 120k years or so for millions of years, yet someone is asserting that THIS TIME the event is caused by another mechanism, then they bear the burden of proof to show: - how this mechanism could work (I think we've done that) - how the OTHER previous mechanism somehow stopped working (I don't see *any* effort on that) (as well as, for humanity's sake) - how whatever corrective mechanism has historically ended such peaks works, and how it purportedly WON'T work this time.
I don't think I'm totally stupid (my wife's opinion notwithstanding). I don't have a problem changing my already pretty-environmentally-conscious way of life, and I clearly am not making any $ by refuting it. In reality, standing up as someone who has doubts is a FUCKTON more annoying than just 'going along' with consensus would be.
I also, admittedly, tend to react negatively to FUD and it's pretty clear that much of the climate debate - starting with Mr Gore's terrible movie - is driven by emotion and histrionics.
I don't see *any* recognition that climate warming would, in some cases, benefit some peoples.
I see strident climate claims that don't even begin to pass the logic test: for example, articles every day that claim 'corals are dying'. Corals are one of the OLDEST forms of life on this planet, and have tolerated (and frankly flourished) in not only substantially warmer conditions, but (for those claiming that this climate change is too fast for them to adapt) have likewise cheerfully survived massive meteorite impacts that changed our climate MUCH more radically in a MUCH shorter period of time. SOME corals are dying, unquestionably. But to thus extrapolate the demise of perhaps one of the hardiest forms of life on the planet? No, that's just not believable to anyone who isn't already in the choir.
I believe it's important that we take care of our environment. I believe it's stupid to shit where you sleep. But resources are finite, and if we're talking about doing the greatest good for the investment of these finite resources, I believe that the $billions it would take to avert 0.5 C warming could substantially improve life globally in many, higher-multiplier ways. PARTICULARLY when the science seems uncertain enough that 0.5C is within the error-bars of even the best predictions.
The link in the slashdot story leads to...https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/01/29/1942208/mashable.com/2017/01/25/tostitos-breathalyzer-bag-super-bowl/...the slashdot story itself.
Brilliant recursive clickthrough ad-revenue perpetual motion? Or, perhaps the poster was drunk?
Please let me know when the Middle East hasn't been an unstable, violent, shithole.
Our first involvement with the region as a state was when Barbary Pirates captured and enslaved US sailors. One might say that everything after that is karma.
"Yeah, it is easy to see why the West in general and the US in particular are so often despised in those countries. "
Could it be 70 years of hate-America propaganda promulgated by the ceaseless parade of dictators and crazy-nutter-religious leaders that have inhabited that part of the world since the Ottomans left?
Could it be because the US *didn't* agree with simply letting the Arabs genocide the Israelis? Crazy, I know!
Night Filter - like so many others - seems to only want to filter out the blue, leaving everything a yellow-tint which is fine but still negatively impacts night vision.
One example? Sure: I think the posting of the pictures of the mall with the smaller Trump crowds by the Dept of the Interior is a perfect example of a fact-based shitpost.
Trump was full of crap. His crowds were smaller. No question. Then again, the comparison was to 2009's inauguration, why? Because 2009 was a RECORD SETTING crowd? according to politifact: Barack Obama, 2013: 1 million Barack Obama, 2009: 1.8 million (generally considered a record for people on the National Mall) George W. Bush, 2005: 400,000 George W. Bush, 2001: 300,000 Bill Clinton, 1997: 250,000 Bill Clinton, 1993: 800,000 George H.W. Bush, 1989: 300,000...so really, Trump's crowds were very comparable to those of previous Republicans, and in fact comparable to 5/7 of previous inaugurations of ANY party.
So, yes: it was factually true. Posting it in the midst of the controversy *verged* on being a shitpost anyway. Specifically comparing it not to the previous inaugural (but instead to the single highest count of people ever seen on the mall by nearly a factor of 80%), or mentioning that it was comparable to any other Republican president, THOSE are the facts that made it clearly a shitpost, *intended* to embarrass.
And where I work, if I posted something deliberately meant to embarrass my CEO, I'd get my ass fired. Most people in normal jobs would.
The BAS has *always* been a purveyor of FUD (or as they themselves characterize their tone: Failure, Peril, and Fear): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Their Doomsday Clock has been a meaningless bit of political theater that only is publicized when Left-Leaning media need to attack a (generally Right-leaning) president, congress, or leader for something they don't like. They were casting about around the end of the Cold War in fear of their sudden irrelevancy, but fortunately (coincidentally, I'm sure) Global Warming has a taken its place as a new 'sky' they can confidently predict is 'falling'.
Maybe it has something to do with partisans of the former administration being unable to simply DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS without smarmy anti-Trump shitposting?
3rd grade level "It's just facts, it's not a shitpost"....no, it's still a shitpost and its unprofessional. Or did you think Trump wouldn't notice?
You want to "Resist Every Day"? Fine, that's your right. But you're not entitled to a public-paid job to push your politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution is powered not by time, but by death.
Forests NEED fires to stay healthy. Preventing forest fires only means that eventually the fire that comes will be catastrophic and unsurvivable by anything.
Capitalism is based on a NEED for some businesses (including banks) that make stupid choices to fail. Preventing them from failing *incentivizes* continued stupid choices.
If the "too big to fails" had actually failed in 2007, the financial road would have been rocky. Many peoples' lives would have been destroyed because they made poor choices (or, by a lasseiz-faire approach to their investments and 401ks, allowed others to make poor choices), but the end result would have been much LOWER market prices as businesses desperate to survive cut prices to stay in business.
Hilarious example, since it's the longshoremen's union(s) that have acted as a significant brake on the US economy for decades.
People are currently paid north of $90,000 to perform an utterly replaceable job (crane operator) with boutique medical and pension plans. Cross the picket lines when they strike, and you're lucky if you only escape with a smashed car or burnt-down house.
Los Angeles, the US's biggest port, runs on little more than clipboards and notecards. Computers? NEVER - to implement them would cost jobs. In terms of port productivity, it takes HOURS in Los Angeles to complete the loading/unloading of a container that in the more-highly-automated ports of the Eastern Pacific or Europe complete in tens of minutes.
The longshoremens' unions are an example of the WORST
I think people should freely be allowed to unionize, but people should also be allowed to NOT be part of the unions if they don't want to be: it's their economic choice, really.
However, I do believe that if a union interposes itself as the collective-bargaining agent for a number of workers, then the union logically should be legally held liable for the conduct of the workers it's representing: ie if productivity falls below normal, etc, the union should be liable to compensate the firm for lost income.
...I thought the goal was to have "more women in tech"?
I'm going to guess that whereas the humanity within conventions was 80/20 male/female, it's probably dropped to 90/10 or further.
I don't *have* a FB account.
That one?
Someone must have put that up about me, but I certainly didn't.
Yes, please, waterboard me for my alleged Facebook password.
"Earth changes, sometimes these charges are not great for the seething mass of 7 billion hairless apes that think they're all that. News at 11."
...you shouldn't gimp your games with shit controllers?
...is that you know at every one of those companies, people got the "I'm sorry, I know you work hard and do a good job, you really do, but we simply can't afford to give you that $3000/year raise you're asking for" while they paid these celebrity "employees" hundreds of thousands.
I get it, it's more like a marketing cost than a salary, but that's bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Trevor Moore the ballad of Billy John.
And of course:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...
Greater internet ****wad theory.
"The researchers cautioned that the output and productivity growth they noted when the number of IP address increased was correlation rather than causation."
I'm torn between being sad that they actually felt it was necessary to say this, and being glad that they did to preclude democrats proposing a new program to help the impoverished by handing out ip addresses.
I know "fake news" is getting us all worked up right now, but
"...fake news did not change the result 2016 presidential election, according to a study by researchers at Stanford and New York University released Thursday. ..."
Story: http://thehill.com/homenews/me...
Study: https://web.stanford.edu/~gent...
Like the "Russia hacked the election" story the original threat being discussed was specifically hacking of electronic voting machines. When that was proved ridiculous, the phrase was re-framed to something more vague, saying that Russia "manipulated" the results by media...you know, exactly like the Martin Sheen "dump Trump" video attempted to do (and failed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Cause doesn't matter, only the effect." /have/ to have SOME idea what the problem is.
And this is incredibly myopic, if you actually plan to take corrective action, instead of amelioratory action.
If your engine is breaking down, an amelioritory action would be to slow down and turn it off to prevent more damage. To try to FIX it - as we assert we're trying to do with AGW - you
If you want to see a list of 10 things more important and solvable than climate change, here you go - it's a great talk.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bjor...
10 items that are all known, understood, and at much lower investments will have more substantial, tangible, immediate, and significant benefits for more people.
Here's the gist, in short:
- NO city will last forever
- NO 'current beautiful vacation spots' will last forever
What about me?
I believe the climate is changing. It's always BEEN changing, but yeah, it seems like it's warming.
I believe that humans are likely making it worse.
I believe that the 'science' of climate change is about as 'science' as psychology: observations, reasonable inferences, but no replication, no null hypothesis. I believe that the FUD about global warming have led to a truly ridiculous universality (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html) to the point of uselessness as a theory.
I believe many people are supporting or refuting AGW based purely on politics, and it's nearly impossible to find any data today that isn't tainted by true-believerism one way or another.
I recognize that the "97% of climate scientists agree" is neither persuasive (there are many times in history where 'experts' have widely agreed on something totally wrong) nor even mathematically true (the '97%' comes from a review of climatological papers THAT EXPRESSED AN OPINION, which were themselves a small fraction of the papers), It's also easy to mistake the loudest voices for consensus. I believe there's probably a moderate majority of climate scientists who agree on the subject.
According to the most objective data I can find, I see that there are 'pulses' of sudden, increased & substantial warming about every 120-140k years, for (at least) the last 3+ million years.
The last such pulse was about 120k years ago, so we're due. I wonder how we would discern such an event in the midst of it and, in our natural Ptolemaic human conceit, would we assume that this MUST BE our fault?
If an event happens more-or-less cyclically every 120k years or so for millions of years, yet someone is asserting that THIS TIME the event is caused by another mechanism, then they bear the burden of proof to show:
- how this mechanism could work (I think we've done that)
- how the OTHER previous mechanism somehow stopped working (I don't see *any* effort on that)
(as well as, for humanity's sake) - how whatever corrective mechanism has historically ended such peaks works, and how it purportedly WON'T work this time.
I don't think I'm totally stupid (my wife's opinion notwithstanding). I don't have a problem changing my already pretty-environmentally-conscious way of life, and I clearly am not making any $ by refuting it. In reality, standing up as someone who has doubts is a FUCKTON more annoying than just 'going along' with consensus would be.
I also, admittedly, tend to react negatively to FUD and it's pretty clear that much of the climate debate - starting with Mr Gore's terrible movie - is driven by emotion and histrionics.
I don't see *any* recognition that climate warming would, in some cases, benefit some peoples.
I see strident climate claims that don't even begin to pass the logic test: for example, articles every day that claim 'corals are dying'. Corals are one of the OLDEST forms of life on this planet, and have tolerated (and frankly flourished) in not only substantially warmer conditions, but (for those claiming that this climate change is too fast for them to adapt) have likewise cheerfully survived massive meteorite impacts that changed our climate MUCH more radically in a MUCH shorter period of time. SOME corals are dying, unquestionably. But to thus extrapolate the demise of perhaps one of the hardiest forms of life on the planet? No, that's just not believable to anyone who isn't already in the choir.
I believe it's important that we take care of our environment. I believe it's stupid to shit where you sleep. But resources are finite, and if we're talking about doing the greatest good for the investment of these finite resources, I believe that the $billions it would take to avert 0.5 C warming could substantially improve life globally in many, higher-multiplier ways. PARTICULARLY when the science seems uncertain enough that 0.5C is within the error-bars of even the best predictions.
So where, in your simplistic list, do I fit?
The link in the slashdot story leads to...https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/01/29/1942208/mashable.com/2017/01/25/tostitos-breathalyzer-bag-super-bowl/...the slashdot story itself.
Brilliant recursive clickthrough ad-revenue perpetual motion?
Or, perhaps the poster was drunk?
Oh bullshit.
It would be one thing if I was told to produce a report and then told to lie. Of course. That's a different context and a frankly bad analogy.
It would be another thing ENTIRELY if I started voluntarily posting embarrassing information contradictory to my CEOs pronouncements.
And yes, the president is 'a public servant' - he's not a 'servant' to his *employees*.
Please let me know when the Middle East hasn't been an unstable, violent, shithole.
Our first involvement with the region as a state was when Barbary Pirates captured and enslaved US sailors. One might say that everything after that is karma.
"Yeah, it is easy to see why the West in general and the US in particular are so often despised in those countries. "
Could it be 70 years of hate-America propaganda promulgated by the ceaseless parade of dictators and crazy-nutter-religious leaders that have inhabited that part of the world since the Ottomans left?
Could it be because the US *didn't* agree with simply letting the Arabs genocide the Israelis? Crazy, I know!
Thank you - I've found Twilight does it now.
Night Filter - like so many others - seems to only want to filter out the blue, leaving everything a yellow-tint which is fine but still negatively impacts night vision.
Thanks!
One example? Sure:
I think the posting of the pictures of the mall with the smaller Trump crowds by the Dept of the Interior is a perfect example of a fact-based shitpost.
Trump was full of crap. His crowds were smaller. No question. ...so really, Trump's crowds were very comparable to those of previous Republicans, and in fact comparable to 5/7 of previous inaugurations of ANY party.
Then again, the comparison was to 2009's inauguration, why? Because 2009 was a RECORD SETTING crowd?
according to politifact:
Barack Obama, 2013: 1 million
Barack Obama, 2009: 1.8 million (generally considered a record for people on the National Mall)
George W. Bush, 2005: 400,000
George W. Bush, 2001: 300,000
Bill Clinton, 1997: 250,000
Bill Clinton, 1993: 800,000
George H.W. Bush, 1989: 300,000
So, yes: it was factually true. Posting it in the midst of the controversy *verged* on being a shitpost anyway. Specifically comparing it not to the previous inaugural (but instead to the single highest count of people ever seen on the mall by nearly a factor of 80%), or mentioning that it was comparable to any other Republican president, THOSE are the facts that made it clearly a shitpost, *intended* to embarrass.
And where I work, if I posted something deliberately meant to embarrass my CEO, I'd get my ass fired. Most people in normal jobs would.
The BAS has *always* been a purveyor of FUD (or as they themselves characterize their tone: Failure, Peril, and Fear): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Their Doomsday Clock has been a meaningless bit of political theater that only is publicized when Left-Leaning media need to attack a (generally Right-leaning) president, congress, or leader for something they don't like. They were casting about around the end of the Cold War in fear of their sudden irrelevancy, but fortunately (coincidentally, I'm sure) Global Warming has a taken its place as a new 'sky' they can confidently predict is 'falling'.
It is, literally, nothing.
One might define introvert as "someone who spends their time taking personality inventories online"...
Didn't you hear? Meritocracy is simply camouflaged racism.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/0...
I imagine you might even think you're not ultimately paying for it.
So perhaps you're not getting much of an education, then?
...how hard it is to find a (free) red-wash theme that I could install for my (android) phone for use after dark.
The bright android screen (and even when dimmed, tends toward the blue-white color temp) is TERRIBLE for night vision.
Maybe it has something to do with partisans of the former administration being unable to simply DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS without smarmy anti-Trump shitposting?
3rd grade level "It's just facts, it's not a shitpost"....no, it's still a shitpost and its unprofessional.
Or did you think Trump wouldn't notice?
You want to "Resist Every Day"? Fine, that's your right. But you're not entitled to a public-paid job to push your politics.