Actually that was your argument when you said "I should get extra points because my AC sock puppets agree"... But whatever.
As to your argument that I am making a logical fallacy because I am citing that experts and proven financial successes are avoiding the project... that is not a logical fallacy. IF that were a logical fallacy then the argument that "X doctors agree that a given procedure is not medically viable" would be a fallacy as well. Saying "experts disagree" is a relevant argument while saying "some AC sock puppets agree" is not.
As to listening, I've always been listening... you have yet to make an argument... Lets see if you make one...
Reads through the rest... nope. You made no argument in there anywhere. So I called it. You were all bluster. You had nothing.
It would be funny if it weren't so fucking predictable. Kill yourself.
As to ACs... no, I just dismiss the fallacy that because "x number of fuckwit ACs hold a position it must be valid"... You're arguing a literal logical fallacy.
Kill yourself.
As to your citation that you know more about economics for no reason... great argument there... he said sarcastically.... which is pointed out because you're stupid and might miss that otherwise.
If you'd like to make an argument based more on wishful thinking or some circle jerk of idiots... I am listening. However, as I have quite a lot of experience dealing with ACs on this forum... I'm guessing you have nothing. Which is part of the reason I have such contempt for you wastes of bandwidth. Regular users are occasionally stupid. But ACs pretty much are exclusively wastes of biomass.
And yet despite how easy it would be to sock puppet with multiple email addresses, you were too lazy to do even that so you instead use an AC account.
Look... that's fine... use an AC account, but there is a price for it. And the first one is that you don't get to say "look at me" or "look at that other AC"... Your ad populum, ad hominem, etc arguments are irrelevant to me because you're so anonymous that its a literally fuckwitted reference. Now if you log in, then I might take some of that seriously because I'd at least have some knowledge as to who was being referenced. I recognize the names of recurring commenters on this forum.
However, you're an AC... your record could literally be "advocate of child molestation" and I'd have no way of knowing that. So... No. Citing other Anons as backing you up is utterly and completely rejected. For all I know... you're just all the same fucktard.End of subject.
As to facebook being an economic loser... the IPO of facebook was what you miserable waste of biomass? You're literally so stupid with these arguments that I am feeling sorry for your parents now. That or I'm getting mad at your mother...
As to the Personal computer... so stupid that IBM etc all made giant ventures into it.... I mean... Kill yourself.
As to the Internal combustion engine, the instant it worked it was hugely invested in by many companies and investors... prior to that point... you are right... it was not invested in... because it didn't work. One could argue using your newest retarded argument that Intel should invest in Warp Drive because in 1000 years we discover the physics that make it work properly. Which is of course typically stupid.
You know NOTHING about economics. It isn't enough for something to be a good idea under some future conditions that don't exist. It has to be a good idea... NOW. Otherwise you lose money. Investing in the internal combustion engine in 200 AD would have been a pretty stupid idea. And yet by your logic that would have been the winning move.
Are you in an assisted living program? Are you just sitting there with a football helmet on your head banging into the keyboard while drooling pudding all over the place? Why do you people have internet access? Did they run out of water colors and chewed on jigsaw puzzles?
The fuck is wrong with you?
As to my citation of Europe and Africa trading with each other... You now think taking me out of context is a rebuttal? The point was that indifferent to that the Europeans do not invest in the North Africans for projects like this because it is known to be a waste of money. Your response is that because trade is happening any economic venture that happens there is a good idea so long as it conforms with your childish ideology. Astounding.
As to you taking me out of context again here... I was citing things the North Africans had in their favor on THIS issue... not ANY issue... I mean, you want me to talk about Olive Trees or Wheat production or Cotton production in this context? Because last time I heard, agricultural output and solar power output =/= the same thing.
But what do I know... I only have a functional brain stem and you have a massive head injury from when your mother grabbed you by the toes and swung your head into pole until your head resembled an ironing board.
You can't cite OTHER ACs as supporting you since for all I know you're all the same idiot.
As to setting up panels being a good idea, there is literally nothing behind that supposition.
As to the conflicts in the region being about poverty, were this the case poverty and that kind of violence would be linked. However there are many regions of the world that are poorer that have less violence and as we can see in the middle east there are many places with vastly more resources where there are bigger problems.
The socialist notion that the cause of all social ills is wealth inequality has been debunked repeatedly and citing it at this point is little more than either a declaration of personal ignorance or a sad attempt at deceit. Not only does poverty not cause violence of this kind but neither is it strictly correlative. If you can't grasp that you neither have cause nor correlation... and that lacking both you literally cannot sustain that argument... then I can't help you. You're literally too stupid at that point to even have this conversation.
As to creating a new economy by installing some panels... an economy requires a consistent exchange. The only thing people in that region in this situation have of value is cheap real estate and sunny days. That's it. Their labor, their industry, etc... these are not local assets. The primary beneficiary will actually be the Chinese since they'll provide your panels. And the primary loser will be the Europeans because they'll be the ones paying for everything. The people in North Africa will at best likely not even notice. And at worst, they'll threaten to blow these things up extorting the europeans into concessions.
Learn from the Gasprom/Russia mistake. To go from that to this speaks of a depth of idiocy so profound you should probably be chemically sterilized simply to avoid contaminating the gene pool.
As to unreliable people... you do know that European and North Africa has been trading with each other for thousands of years right? I mean... you have to know that. And yet you realize that European investments in North Africa are routinely confiscated on specious grounds or blown up or stolen... right? There are consistent issues with that which is why investment into the region is lax.
You really know nothing. Your ideas are worthless. Your opinion is worthless. Your economic contribution to the issue is worthless.
You want other people that are smarter than you, wiser than you, and better educated than you to contribute their resources to a venture that you don't understand and that they know to be foolish.
The only way this is going to happen is if you squander tax money on feel good idiocy. And should you do that, the only people that will profit are some multinationals that will cash your check to put the program in motion, some chinese industry, and possibly some Jawas that will steal your shit.
Do what you what you want. The fact that the people with money refuse to personally invest in your stupid program proves it is an economic loser. Anyone with a clue can spot that immediately.
1. It isn't just my opinion. It is the opinion of pretty much everyone that has both MONEY and EXPERIENCE in the matter. You can tell because none of them are jumping at this "opportunity". Its a dumb idea.
2. As to intents, a child can intend to go to the moon by building a rocket ship in his backyard out of cardboard and imagination... intents absent skill, discipline, and reason are of little value if you actually want to accomplish anything.
3. As to the wealthy not understanding your genius plan... Bro, as a fool and his money are soon parted, a wise man and an opportunity never long to be kept from each other. The reality is that your concept is a bad investment. Most large solar projects are not viable commercial operations once you subtract subsidies. If you want to throw a lot of money at some mega corps to build you a stupid boondoggle that will accomplish nothing... I'm sure the mega corps will take your money. But that's all you're doing here. You're a patsy for someone else's profit.
4. As to irony... there is no irony in my presumption of superiority. You're obviously and demonstrably inferior in your knowledge of these things. You've also made the cardinal error of allowing your ideology to cloud your sense of what is and is not a good investment. To then get salty with me when the obvious is pointed out is merely childishness on your part. Quit now... further peevishness will only render you more pathetic.
5. As to your suggestion that I be like the ponzi schemers... I point out that your scheme is idiotic and you retort that I should feed on you like others feed on you. The error here is that the only people that really win that game are the mega rich... of which you are an unwitting pawn. The feeding frenzy happens mostly as the expense of the middle class of which I am a part. So I would at best be feeding on myself. Your stupid idea would come out of taxes that the middle class would principally pay... so I'll have to decline yet another stupid suggestion from you.
6. As to your claim that I'm not perceptive... okay... I'll bite... tell me what I didn't see. Act mysterious on this point and I'll have to conclude this is just more pathetic bluster on your part.
Capitalism is a question of capital investment to increase wealth through production etc. Building a bunch of boondoggles in north africa in areas in semi civil war will do nothing but waste finite resources.
A great way of proving the lack of wisdom in your frankly idiotic idea is the fact that people with wealth and some proven ability to make it are not jumping on this idea.
You talk a big game... say you know something about capital investment and wealth... but you know nothing. And the only people pushing this idea are people pushing it with OTHER people's money.
Tell you what, fucktard... I'll say yes to this if you spend YOUR money and I profit from it. Because that way even when it fails horribly... and it will... I'll at least get something out of your fuckwitted moronic concept. Otherwise... you spend YOUR money on it... and I laugh at you when you go broke. The only people pushing this for profit at this point are the people that want to parasite off a bad over priced government contract.
installing a solar panel made in china from a store is teaching a man to fish?... I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Apparently just going to a store and buying something that you don't understand or know how to build or know where it came from... is teaching a man to fish...
Just... amazing.
Anyway, install whatever next to the jihadis... I've got the popcorn and Vaseline waiting.
Enough with this... If people want to get ultra sensitive about gender then we can point out that women are often insensitive to male behavior patterns. Do we want to go over that or is this only a problem when men don't automatically take their coats off and let the ladies walk over puddles?
Look at any politically contentious issue on wikipedia and generally they choose a side and censor the other. Ideally what should be done is to cite that there is controversy and allow BOTH or as many sides exist on the matter to have their own section of the entry.
What they do instead is they just remove the alternate view points in many cases entirely.
This renders wikipedia politically biased on many issues and thus not trustworthy.
Wikipedia must be neutral and it is not.
Here someone likely that politically profits from this situation will say "you only don't like it because your faction doesn't profit"... Lets say that is true for the sake of argument... you just admitted I was right that there is bias. Lets see if anyone is dumb enough to make that argument anyway... from what I've seen around here lately... I should get a bite. The tragedy there being that I can't pull the stupid beast onto my boat, knock its tiny brains out, skin, and eat the fool.
A solar installation like that would be very large and impossible to protect from the locals. And honestly why would we have any interest in the project? The Europeans can source power from the east if they really need it. Though nuclear power does seem the most reasonable power source for them regardless. But if they must get power, get it from the east. And the US has no need for such a thing.
The only people that might want/need such a thing are the north africans... and they're basically descending into general civil war at this point so I don't see why this would be seen as a good idea.
1. The guy is running for president which for Americans is news. So you're just factually in error right out of the gate. 2. As to attacking populists... that would mean you're going to block Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc because they're mostly populists right now. You're not doing that though which either means you're being dishonest or don't know what the word populist means. 3. As to safe spaces, that is literally the point of the stupid program. Its a cyber safe space. We've seen this with the Twitter blocklists for awhile. Claiming they're not related is merely ignorance on your part. 4. As to origins of the term... Doing further research on it... it appears to go back to corporate leadership training... and the concept used to mean a place where people could spit ball ideas without getting shouted down. Which is ironic because the aforementioned dishonest hipster idiots use it these days to mean "a place where I only run into puppies and love"... and the scale of this "place appears to be constantly expanding in all directions.
As to what bothers me... pull out your own eyes if that is what you want to do. Put on the desired shade of glasses to change the tint of things. But, do not presume that the Sun will not rise in the east or west. The world is what the world is. And if you render yourself ignorant of it then do not be surprised when things you couldn't see anymore surprise you by TOUCHING you. Because that's what going to happen if you keep that nonsense up.
Really? So you don't know what ISIS believes? You haven't heard of their atrocities?
Very well... sounds like you've got the whole world filtered through some pretty thick rose colored glasses.
Good to know. Please excuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy or world events. You've retarded your knowledge of everything to such an extent that you do not have a credible opinion on anything touching those issues.
I'm sure that what i just said itself won't make it through your filters. It will probably be translated into:
"This guy is a meanie head that didn't say you look amazing in your new jeans. Go back to sleep and pay no attention to anything."
Nothing I can do for you when you reinforce your cognitive dissonance into outright willful ignorance.
Not as tired as the old strawman of "I know you said X but let me see if people are stupid enough to not realize I'm arguing against Y fallacy".
I didn't say Trump was not worthy of being annoyed by... be annoyed by what you like. However, if Trump is so psychically painful to your fragile mind that you need to use a bot to scrub him from the internet... precisely how do you look at ISIS? And if you scrub out all those things... what is left and what do you see with any accuracy?
The safe space concept is for the mentally handicapped. Please enable your bot and declare your infirmity.
... Who is blocking trump but not blocking ISIS? Who would sit there and say "I can deal with people that nail children to the wall while their mothers are raped behind them... but Trump... Too much."... Who does that?
The term "safe space" referred to offering a safe harbor to emotionally unstable people so they could calm down and then go back out and deal with the real world. The term has been coopted largely by dishonest hipster idiots that think they can apply the term to anything.
The world is the way the world is... Trump is admittedly very unusual and quite obnoxious. But on the grand scale of shit in this world... if you need a safe space from him... then you're not ready to leave your parents basement.
... In a nobler era you would be expected to fall on your sword in disgrace.
You have brought great shame on your ancestors!
I followed that statement with this:
"" And because I'm sure you're going to presume to nitpick me here and thus miss the entire point... let me be very clear... sure, you can run an experiment to test something and have that test come out negative and that is still science. However, the point with both cargo cult science and cargo cults is that they didn't stop. They had "faith"... and that faith made it not science because when the evidence came back that the hypothesis was bunk... they just doubled down.
What you see in pseudo science is the same thing... they start saying things like "well we can't get that evidence so we don't need it" or "well other people agree with us so we don't need evidence" or some other excuse as to why evidence isn't needed or even contrary evidence should be ignored.
No. You either have the evidence or you have no evidence. That is the tautology of that situation. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. End of story. Period. Good day, sir. ""
*waits for anon to get on his knees, disembowel himself, and then out of mercy... I will swing the great killing sword to remove his silly head.*
One on ONE you can... but if you know nothing about someone then you can't trust them to just fill this out accurately. People interpret questions differently than the author all the time. Then you have people that lie because they find a question aspirational or shameful. And then you have people not taking things seriously... And there are issues beyond that.
But the point is that you MUST conduct psychological evaluations one on one. You can't just hand some forms out and understand what is going on in everyone's minds... that fucking stupid. You're going to get back crap.
What is more, they're defining "Narcissism" as "wanting to be at the center of attention"... That's like defining "pathological greed" as "liking money".
Another bullshit study from our psychology departments.
Not how elections work...2/3rds of those that showed up to vote is fine.
And before people say "everyone should vote"... sure.. everyone should. But to do that you have to care enough to do it. And if you don't, then I actually don't want you to make decisions because when push comes to shove you didn't care enough to even show up.
Just having more people that don't care and likely know less on average than the average actual voter would at best dilute what little sense the voting pool currently has to the lowest common denominator.
Frankly, the eligiable voting pool is already too large in my opinion. Too many people voting on OTHER people's money. Lets raise taxes says the guy on welfare. Lets go to war says the childless man/woman over 50. Lets zone this huge amount of land as a national park says the guy that lives 1000 miles from it and knows nothing about the area. Why not allow tree bark and asphalt in food says the guy that doesn't eat cheap food. Lets put regulations on this drug or that which I don't take or don't need says another man.
And so on.
Frankly... I think a lot of laws should be limited to those that will have to bear the consequences of them. Which does not mean those that profit from the decision... rather those that will pay for it. And that is not merely rich people that pay the big taxes but also the people that happen to be there at ground level when one thing or another comes down the pipe.
Too much is bastardized by national politics, indifferent centralized bureaucracies, or the petty interests of people that can't see beyond their own interests and consider any one else's to be an irrelevance.
First you have the technical problems. If everything is on the internet then anyone that hacks the system could effectively change US law. A very serious issue. Beyond that, I can assure you that people are going to say stuff like "well how will poor people vote"... or something so you'll have to deal with that. Really the technical issues are many... but assuming you were able to address everything... there is the second issue...
Second, direct true democracies kill themselves. We've had a lot of experience with them and what happens is you get a mob mentality. Now we could address this by having Tiers of laws just as we do now. Constitutional laws etc. And I think we could control the excesses of true democracy by saying that certain laws take certain majorities to overturn... so... the US constitution is roughly a 75 percent majority barrier. I could see tiers for 60 or 80 or 90 in addition to that. Or just make it so that if a law was passed with X percentage of the vote it takes that percentage to overturn it. That would contain most fly by night rules from taking effect. In addition, we might require a minimum amount of time any permanent law had to be offered up for before it could be voted upon. So something that is temporary could possibly pass quickly... but if something is going into effective law... perhaps require that it be offered up for everyone to read for 30 days minimum BEFORE a vote happens. And possibly if we go with that tier system we might have different waiting periods for each tier. A high tier law might require three months or six months of open exposure and debate before it could be voted upon.
Stuff like that.
Deal with the technical problems and then deal with the issues with true democracy and the idea seems viable.
Watch the video again. Cargo cult science "looks" like science... only it doesn't work.
You can't get around that. This is what ultimately stopped sophists from dominating western philosophy. Stoic Empiricism.
It. Does. Not. Work.
You can spin your theories till your head spins off... it won't work if you don't do it properly. And if you don't do it properly then it isn't science.
And because I'm sure you're going to presume to nitpick me here and thus miss the entire point... let me be very clear... sure, you can run an experiment to test something and have that test come out negative and that is still science. However, the point with both cargo cult science and cargo cults is that they didn't stop. They had "faith"... and that faith made it not science because when the evidence came back that the hypothesis was bunk... they just doubled down.
What you see in pseudo science is the same thing... they start saying things like "well we can't get that evidence so we don't need it" or "well other people agree with us so we don't need evidence" or some other excuse as to why evidence isn't needed or even contrary evidence should be ignored.
No. You either have the evidence or you have no evidence. That is the tautology of that situation. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. End of story. Period. Good day, sir.
There are a lot of pseudo scientists out there and it is not helped by masses of typically arrogant people that think they know what science is in the first place.
People confuse POLITICS with science. Bring up something about science and they'll say stupid things like "well X number of people agree with me" which isn't science. That is politics. Or you'll see something along the lines of "look at my nifty idea... all the numbers add up"... great... still not science... not unless you want to include Dungeons and Dragons min max builds in "science"... because there is a tautology in any formal logic that doesn't root itself in empirical evaluation. And then you get people that say "well, I can't provide evidence because its really hard... so I don't have to."... Not my problem.
Point being... ANYTHING that can't be tested is merely a hypothesis and that is fine... have your hypothesizes... that's super. It remains not science until its been tested with methodology that is pessimistic, cynical, skeptical, and exhaustive. That is... you propose a hypothesis... then you try to disprove it. DISPROVE. When you FAIL to disprove it... look for any fallacy in your position with the intent to find one. If you can neither disprove the position nor find a fallacy in your argument... THEN you submit it for peer review giving your peers full access to everything you did and how you did it so they can find problems if they exist.
When it has surpassed all that... you pretty much have science.
What we often get is nothing resembling that which is why it isn't science.
Pretty math? Sure... slow clap for that. But the reason this sort of science generally never does anything useful is because as Richard Feynman said... "It looks like science except it doesn't work". That is the issue here.
This thing is less powerful than other youtube handheld rail guns... and the design while funny is not especially practical. Obviously the capacitors need to be mounted on your back or something to distribute the weight more effectively on the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that was your argument when you said "I should get extra points because my AC sock puppets agree"... But whatever.
As to your argument that I am making a logical fallacy because I am citing that experts and proven financial successes are avoiding the project... that is not a logical fallacy. IF that were a logical fallacy then the argument that "X doctors agree that a given procedure is not medically viable" would be a fallacy as well. Saying "experts disagree" is a relevant argument while saying "some AC sock puppets agree" is not.
As to listening, I've always been listening... you have yet to make an argument... Lets see if you make one...
Reads through the rest... nope. You made no argument in there anywhere. So I called it. You were all bluster. You had nothing.
It would be funny if it weren't so fucking predictable. Kill yourself.
As to ACs... no, I just dismiss the fallacy that because "x number of fuckwit ACs hold a position it must be valid"... You're arguing a literal logical fallacy.
Kill yourself.
As to your citation that you know more about economics for no reason... great argument there... he said sarcastically.... which is pointed out because you're stupid and might miss that otherwise.
If you'd like to make an argument based more on wishful thinking or some circle jerk of idiots... I am listening. However, as I have quite a lot of experience dealing with ACs on this forum... I'm guessing you have nothing. Which is part of the reason I have such contempt for you wastes of bandwidth. Regular users are occasionally stupid. But ACs pretty much are exclusively wastes of biomass.
And yet despite how easy it would be to sock puppet with multiple email addresses, you were too lazy to do even that so you instead use an AC account.
Look... that's fine... use an AC account, but there is a price for it. And the first one is that you don't get to say "look at me" or "look at that other AC"... Your ad populum, ad hominem, etc arguments are irrelevant to me because you're so anonymous that its a literally fuckwitted reference. Now if you log in, then I might take some of that seriously because I'd at least have some knowledge as to who was being referenced. I recognize the names of recurring commenters on this forum.
However, you're an AC... your record could literally be "advocate of child molestation" and I'd have no way of knowing that. So... No. Citing other Anons as backing you up is utterly and completely rejected. For all I know... you're just all the same fucktard.End of subject.
As to facebook being an economic loser... the IPO of facebook was what you miserable waste of biomass? You're literally so stupid with these arguments that I am feeling sorry for your parents now. That or I'm getting mad at your mother...
As to the Personal computer... so stupid that IBM etc all made giant ventures into it.... I mean... Kill yourself.
As to the Internal combustion engine, the instant it worked it was hugely invested in by many companies and investors... prior to that point... you are right... it was not invested in... because it didn't work. One could argue using your newest retarded argument that Intel should invest in Warp Drive because in 1000 years we discover the physics that make it work properly. Which is of course typically stupid.
You know NOTHING about economics. It isn't enough for something to be a good idea under some future conditions that don't exist. It has to be a good idea... NOW. Otherwise you lose money. Investing in the internal combustion engine in 200 AD would have been a pretty stupid idea. And yet by your logic that would have been the winning move.
Are you in an assisted living program? Are you just sitting there with a football helmet on your head banging into the keyboard while drooling pudding all over the place? Why do you people have internet access? Did they run out of water colors and chewed on jigsaw puzzles?
The fuck is wrong with you?
As to my citation of Europe and Africa trading with each other... You now think taking me out of context is a rebuttal? The point was that indifferent to that the Europeans do not invest in the North Africans for projects like this because it is known to be a waste of money. Your response is that because trade is happening any economic venture that happens there is a good idea so long as it conforms with your childish ideology. Astounding.
As to you taking me out of context again here... I was citing things the North Africans had in their favor on THIS issue... not ANY issue... I mean, you want me to talk about Olive Trees or Wheat production or Cotton production in this context? Because last time I heard, agricultural output and solar power output =/= the same thing.
But what do I know... I only have a functional brain stem and you have a massive head injury from when your mother grabbed you by the toes and swung your head into pole until your head resembled an ironing board.
You can't cite OTHER ACs as supporting you since for all I know you're all the same idiot.
As to setting up panels being a good idea, there is literally nothing behind that supposition.
As to the conflicts in the region being about poverty, were this the case poverty and that kind of violence would be linked. However there are many regions of the world that are poorer that have less violence and as we can see in the middle east there are many places with vastly more resources where there are bigger problems.
The socialist notion that the cause of all social ills is wealth inequality has been debunked repeatedly and citing it at this point is little more than either a declaration of personal ignorance or a sad attempt at deceit. Not only does poverty not cause violence of this kind but neither is it strictly correlative. If you can't grasp that you neither have cause nor correlation... and that lacking both you literally cannot sustain that argument... then I can't help you. You're literally too stupid at that point to even have this conversation.
As to creating a new economy by installing some panels... an economy requires a consistent exchange. The only thing people in that region in this situation have of value is cheap real estate and sunny days. That's it. Their labor, their industry, etc... these are not local assets. The primary beneficiary will actually be the Chinese since they'll provide your panels. And the primary loser will be the Europeans because they'll be the ones paying for everything. The people in North Africa will at best likely not even notice. And at worst, they'll threaten to blow these things up extorting the europeans into concessions.
Learn from the Gasprom/Russia mistake. To go from that to this speaks of a depth of idiocy so profound you should probably be chemically sterilized simply to avoid contaminating the gene pool.
As to unreliable people... you do know that European and North Africa has been trading with each other for thousands of years right? I mean... you have to know that. And yet you realize that European investments in North Africa are routinely confiscated on specious grounds or blown up or stolen... right? There are consistent issues with that which is why investment into the region is lax.
You really know nothing. Your ideas are worthless. Your opinion is worthless. Your economic contribution to the issue is worthless.
You want other people that are smarter than you, wiser than you, and better educated than you to contribute their resources to a venture that you don't understand and that they know to be foolish.
The only way this is going to happen is if you squander tax money on feel good idiocy. And should you do that, the only people that will profit are some multinationals that will cash your check to put the program in motion, some chinese industry, and possibly some Jawas that will steal your shit.
Do what you what you want. The fact that the people with money refuse to personally invest in your stupid program proves it is an economic loser. Anyone with a clue can spot that immediately.
End of argument. Fucking ACs.
1. It isn't just my opinion. It is the opinion of pretty much everyone that has both MONEY and EXPERIENCE in the matter. You can tell because none of them are jumping at this "opportunity". Its a dumb idea.
2. As to intents, a child can intend to go to the moon by building a rocket ship in his backyard out of cardboard and imagination... intents absent skill, discipline, and reason are of little value if you actually want to accomplish anything.
3. As to the wealthy not understanding your genius plan... Bro, as a fool and his money are soon parted, a wise man and an opportunity never long to be kept from each other. The reality is that your concept is a bad investment. Most large solar projects are not viable commercial operations once you subtract subsidies. If you want to throw a lot of money at some mega corps to build you a stupid boondoggle that will accomplish nothing... I'm sure the mega corps will take your money. But that's all you're doing here. You're a patsy for someone else's profit.
4. As to irony... there is no irony in my presumption of superiority. You're obviously and demonstrably inferior in your knowledge of these things. You've also made the cardinal error of allowing your ideology to cloud your sense of what is and is not a good investment. To then get salty with me when the obvious is pointed out is merely childishness on your part. Quit now... further peevishness will only render you more pathetic.
5. As to your suggestion that I be like the ponzi schemers... I point out that your scheme is idiotic and you retort that I should feed on you like others feed on you. The error here is that the only people that really win that game are the mega rich... of which you are an unwitting pawn. The feeding frenzy happens mostly as the expense of the middle class of which I am a part. So I would at best be feeding on myself. Your stupid idea would come out of taxes that the middle class would principally pay... so I'll have to decline yet another stupid suggestion from you.
6. As to your claim that I'm not perceptive... okay... I'll bite... tell me what I didn't see. Act mysterious on this point and I'll have to conclude this is just more pathetic bluster on your part.
Capitalism is a question of capital investment to increase wealth through production etc. Building a bunch of boondoggles in north africa in areas in semi civil war will do nothing but waste finite resources.
A great way of proving the lack of wisdom in your frankly idiotic idea is the fact that people with wealth and some proven ability to make it are not jumping on this idea.
You talk a big game... say you know something about capital investment and wealth... but you know nothing. And the only people pushing this idea are people pushing it with OTHER people's money.
Tell you what, fucktard... I'll say yes to this if you spend YOUR money and I profit from it. Because that way even when it fails horribly... and it will... I'll at least get something out of your fuckwitted moronic concept. Otherwise... you spend YOUR money on it... and I laugh at you when you go broke. The only people pushing this for profit at this point are the people that want to parasite off a bad over priced government contract.
installing a solar panel made in china from a store is teaching a man to fish?... I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Apparently just going to a store and buying something that you don't understand or know how to build or know where it came from... is teaching a man to fish...
Just... amazing.
Anyway, install whatever next to the jihadis... I've got the popcorn and Vaseline waiting.
Enough with this... If people want to get ultra sensitive about gender then we can point out that women are often insensitive to male behavior patterns. Do we want to go over that or is this only a problem when men don't automatically take their coats off and let the ladies walk over puddles?
Look at any politically contentious issue on wikipedia and generally they choose a side and censor the other. Ideally what should be done is to cite that there is controversy and allow BOTH or as many sides exist on the matter to have their own section of the entry.
What they do instead is they just remove the alternate view points in many cases entirely.
This renders wikipedia politically biased on many issues and thus not trustworthy.
Wikipedia must be neutral and it is not.
Here someone likely that politically profits from this situation will say "you only don't like it because your faction doesn't profit"... Lets say that is true for the sake of argument... you just admitted I was right that there is bias. Lets see if anyone is dumb enough to make that argument anyway... from what I've seen around here lately... I should get a bite. The tragedy there being that I can't pull the stupid beast onto my boat, knock its tiny brains out, skin, and eat the fool.
Who knows... retard could be good eating.
A solar installation like that would be very large and impossible to protect from the locals. And honestly why would we have any interest in the project? The Europeans can source power from the east if they really need it. Though nuclear power does seem the most reasonable power source for them regardless. But if they must get power, get it from the east. And the US has no need for such a thing.
The only people that might want/need such a thing are the north africans... and they're basically descending into general civil war at this point so I don't see why this would be seen as a good idea.
1. The guy is running for president which for Americans is news. So you're just factually in error right out of the gate.
2. As to attacking populists... that would mean you're going to block Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc because they're mostly populists right now. You're not doing that though which either means you're being dishonest or don't know what the word populist means.
3. As to safe spaces, that is literally the point of the stupid program. Its a cyber safe space. We've seen this with the Twitter blocklists for awhile. Claiming they're not related is merely ignorance on your part.
4. As to origins of the term... Doing further research on it... it appears to go back to corporate leadership training... and the concept used to mean a place where people could spit ball ideas without getting shouted down. Which is ironic because the aforementioned dishonest hipster idiots use it these days to mean "a place where I only run into puppies and love"... and the scale of this "place appears to be constantly expanding in all directions.
As to what bothers me... pull out your own eyes if that is what you want to do. Put on the desired shade of glasses to change the tint of things. But, do not presume that the Sun will not rise in the east or west. The world is what the world is. And if you render yourself ignorant of it then do not be surprised when things you couldn't see anymore surprise you by TOUCHING you. Because that's what going to happen if you keep that nonsense up.
Do as you will. Your life. Your fate.
Really? So you don't know what ISIS believes? You haven't heard of their atrocities?
Very well... sounds like you've got the whole world filtered through some pretty thick rose colored glasses.
Good to know. Please excuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy or world events. You've retarded your knowledge of everything to such an extent that you do not have a credible opinion on anything touching those issues.
I'm sure that what i just said itself won't make it through your filters. It will probably be translated into:
"This guy is a meanie head that didn't say you look amazing in your new jeans. Go back to sleep and pay no attention to anything."
Nothing I can do for you when you reinforce your cognitive dissonance into outright willful ignorance.
Not as tired as the old strawman of "I know you said X but let me see if people are stupid enough to not realize I'm arguing against Y fallacy".
I didn't say Trump was not worthy of being annoyed by... be annoyed by what you like. However, if Trump is so psychically painful to your fragile mind that you need to use a bot to scrub him from the internet... precisely how do you look at ISIS? And if you scrub out all those things... what is left and what do you see with any accuracy?
The safe space concept is for the mentally handicapped. Please enable your bot and declare your infirmity.
Do so now.
... Who is blocking trump but not blocking ISIS? Who would sit there and say "I can deal with people that nail children to the wall while their mothers are raped behind them... but Trump... Too much."... Who does that?
The term "safe space" referred to offering a safe harbor to emotionally unstable people so they could calm down and then go back out and deal with the real world. The term has been coopted largely by dishonest hipster idiots that think they can apply the term to anything.
The world is the way the world is... Trump is admittedly very unusual and quite obnoxious. But on the grand scale of shit in this world... if you need a safe space from him... then you're not ready to leave your parents basement.
Just let it go.
... In a nobler era you would be expected to fall on your sword in disgrace.
You have brought great shame on your ancestors!
I followed that statement with this:
""
And because I'm sure you're going to presume to nitpick me here and thus miss the entire point... let me be very clear... sure, you can run an experiment to test something and have that test come out negative and that is still science. However, the point with both cargo cult science and cargo cults is that they didn't stop. They had "faith"... and that faith made it not science because when the evidence came back that the hypothesis was bunk... they just doubled down.
What you see in pseudo science is the same thing... they start saying things like "well we can't get that evidence so we don't need it" or "well other people agree with us so we don't need evidence" or some other excuse as to why evidence isn't needed or even contrary evidence should be ignored.
No. You either have the evidence or you have no evidence. That is the tautology of that situation. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. End of story. Period. Good day, sir.
""
*waits for anon to get on his knees, disembowel himself, and then out of mercy... I will swing the great killing sword to remove his silly head.*
One on ONE you can... but if you know nothing about someone then you can't trust them to just fill this out accurately. People interpret questions differently than the author all the time. Then you have people that lie because they find a question aspirational or shameful. And then you have people not taking things seriously... And there are issues beyond that.
But the point is that you MUST conduct psychological evaluations one on one. You can't just hand some forms out and understand what is going on in everyone's minds... that fucking stupid. You're going to get back crap.
What is more, they're defining "Narcissism" as "wanting to be at the center of attention"... That's like defining "pathological greed" as "liking money".
Another bullshit study from our psychology departments.
*slow clap*
Not how elections work...2/3rds of those that showed up to vote is fine.
And before people say "everyone should vote"... sure.. everyone should. But to do that you have to care enough to do it. And if you don't, then I actually don't want you to make decisions because when push comes to shove you didn't care enough to even show up.
Just having more people that don't care and likely know less on average than the average actual voter would at best dilute what little sense the voting pool currently has to the lowest common denominator.
Frankly, the eligiable voting pool is already too large in my opinion. Too many people voting on OTHER people's money. Lets raise taxes says the guy on welfare. Lets go to war says the childless man/woman over 50. Lets zone this huge amount of land as a national park says the guy that lives 1000 miles from it and knows nothing about the area. Why not allow tree bark and asphalt in food says the guy that doesn't eat cheap food. Lets put regulations on this drug or that which I don't take or don't need says another man.
And so on.
Frankly... I think a lot of laws should be limited to those that will have to bear the consequences of them. Which does not mean those that profit from the decision... rather those that will pay for it. And that is not merely rich people that pay the big taxes but also the people that happen to be there at ground level when one thing or another comes down the pipe.
Too much is bastardized by national politics, indifferent centralized bureaucracies, or the petty interests of people that can't see beyond their own interests and consider any one else's to be an irrelevance.
First you have the technical problems. If everything is on the internet then anyone that hacks the system could effectively change US law. A very serious issue. Beyond that, I can assure you that people are going to say stuff like "well how will poor people vote"... or something so you'll have to deal with that. Really the technical issues are many... but assuming you were able to address everything... there is the second issue...
Second, direct true democracies kill themselves. We've had a lot of experience with them and what happens is you get a mob mentality. Now we could address this by having Tiers of laws just as we do now. Constitutional laws etc. And I think we could control the excesses of true democracy by saying that certain laws take certain majorities to overturn... so... the US constitution is roughly a 75 percent majority barrier. I could see tiers for 60 or 80 or 90 in addition to that. Or just make it so that if a law was passed with X percentage of the vote it takes that percentage to overturn it. That would contain most fly by night rules from taking effect. In addition, we might require a minimum amount of time any permanent law had to be offered up for before it could be voted upon. So something that is temporary could possibly pass quickly... but if something is going into effective law... perhaps require that it be offered up for everyone to read for 30 days minimum BEFORE a vote happens. And possibly if we go with that tier system we might have different waiting periods for each tier. A high tier law might require three months or six months of open exposure and debate before it could be voted upon.
Stuff like that.
Deal with the technical problems and then deal with the issues with true democracy and the idea seems viable.
Except it doesn't work.
Watch the video again. Cargo cult science "looks" like science... only it doesn't work.
You can't get around that. This is what ultimately stopped sophists from dominating western philosophy. Stoic Empiricism.
It. Does. Not. Work.
You can spin your theories till your head spins off... it won't work if you don't do it properly. And if you don't do it properly then it isn't science.
And because I'm sure you're going to presume to nitpick me here and thus miss the entire point... let me be very clear... sure, you can run an experiment to test something and have that test come out negative and that is still science. However, the point with both cargo cult science and cargo cults is that they didn't stop. They had "faith"... and that faith made it not science because when the evidence came back that the hypothesis was bunk... they just doubled down.
What you see in pseudo science is the same thing... they start saying things like "well we can't get that evidence so we don't need it" or "well other people agree with us so we don't need evidence" or some other excuse as to why evidence isn't needed or even contrary evidence should be ignored.
No. You either have the evidence or you have no evidence. That is the tautology of that situation. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. End of story. Period. Good day, sir.
There are a lot of pseudo scientists out there and it is not helped by masses of typically arrogant people that think they know what science is in the first place.
People confuse POLITICS with science. Bring up something about science and they'll say stupid things like "well X number of people agree with me" which isn't science. That is politics. Or you'll see something along the lines of "look at my nifty idea... all the numbers add up"... great... still not science... not unless you want to include Dungeons and Dragons min max builds in "science"... because there is a tautology in any formal logic that doesn't root itself in empirical evaluation. And then you get people that say "well, I can't provide evidence because its really hard... so I don't have to."... Not my problem.
Point being... ANYTHING that can't be tested is merely a hypothesis and that is fine... have your hypothesizes... that's super. It remains not science until its been tested with methodology that is pessimistic, cynical, skeptical, and exhaustive. That is... you propose a hypothesis... then you try to disprove it. DISPROVE. When you FAIL to disprove it... look for any fallacy in your position with the intent to find one. If you can neither disprove the position nor find a fallacy in your argument... THEN you submit it for peer review giving your peers full access to everything you did and how you did it so they can find problems if they exist.
When it has surpassed all that... you pretty much have science.
What we often get is nothing resembling that which is why it isn't science.
Pretty math? Sure... slow clap for that. But the reason this sort of science generally never does anything useful is because as Richard Feynman said... "It looks like science except it doesn't work". That is the issue here.
Cargo Cult Science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not science anymore than a guy with coconuts on his head is a tower control operator.
5k joules... mistyped it.
misspoke... i mean 5k joules... look them up.
This thing is less powerful than other youtube handheld rail guns... and the design while funny is not especially practical. Obviously the capacitors need to be mounted on your back or something to distribute the weight more effectively on the user.
*drops mic and walks*
Hey bingo... I missed you too. :)
They should have stuck to very very simple questions if they were talking to a low information survey pool.
Questions like:
Do you want the government reading everyone's email?
Do you mind if corporations know your every activity on the internet?
Avoid the technical crap. Just keep it very very simple.
*drops mic and walks*