Looks like every category is at or below sustainable consumption rate except for carbon. Can't let that spoil the narrative, so they peg the sustainable level of carbon emissions at zero so that they can use the whole carbon value to swamp the entire rest of the data set. Why is this framed as a global resources report and not a carbon consumption report? Also I'd like to see the justification for pegging the global sustainable carbon usage at zero.
Also for the TLDR crowd, fresh water is not included in the report.
1. Gather a bunch of resource usage stats. 2. Notice that most of the data is not alarming. 3. Massage the units so that the one alarming data point swamps all the others in a simple sum. 4. Pretend that all the resources are being used at an alarming rate. 5. Publish 6. Profit !!!
A highly competitive university that gets applicants almost exclusively from the top 1% of ACT/SAT scoring students says that ACT/SAT scores don't predict success in their institution.
Would the correlation perhaps be higher if they accepted students randomly from every quartile of ACT/SAT scoring students?
Recycling often costs more than manufacturing the same item from scratch. Labor obviously is a part of that, but only part. You still have to pay for recycled materials collection, fuel, electricity, land, water, etc.
The article Wired seems to be criticizing the politifact article because it's old but the article is still valid. Current articles are also quoting the same source, using the same stats to paint the same misleading picture. Just because Everytown for Gun Safety has published new statistics since the critical article was published does not mean their updated stats are any better.
From a recent CNBC article on the Florida shooting entitled "17 school shootings in 45 days — Florida massacre is one of many tragedies in 2018",
"Everytown has been tracking shootings in schools and universities since 2013. It reports any time a firearm is discharged within a school building or on campus, whether accidentally or intentionally and whether or not anyone has been harmed."
Is that what you think of when you see a headline that says "17 school shootings in 45 days " ?
You can find a breakdown of the types of shootings included in the Everytown data in the aforementioned old article at politifact.
Looking at the sources linked in the article there were 57 tweets linked to Russian backed accounts with the hashtag #guncontrolnow.
57 tweets? Seriously?
All that from only 600 tracked accounts. I hope the bots get a day off because that is some serious tweeting. I think Wired might want to review the definition of the word "flood". The bots have learned the lessons of communism well, Russia pretends to pay the bots and the bots pretend to work.
"The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat. Reducing ingredients such as cheese and meat would also reduce the amount of calories eaten, contributing towards healthier lifestyles."
They have a funny definition of a sandwich if omitting lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat, seems like a reasonable recommendation for a sandwich .
Also, caloric fundamentalism is out of style. Did they not get the memo? Bread is "bad for you", yet that seems to be the only thing the environmentalist "scientists" want to allow us to eat. Perhaps the true agenda is to cause widespread human extinction due to obesity caused by bread-only diets. This would certainly reduce the impact of humans on the environment.
Perhaps we can come to a compromise. We can pay for women who otherwise would have had an abortion to pop their fetuses into these artificial wombs. Everyone is happy at this point I assume. Then we can all get on with our lives, charitably or otherwise. Sarcasm aside, I assume you already know that the hateful conservatives you are deriding are actually more likely to adopt children than the loving liberals you are defending.
At some point we can ask these post-birth fetuses whether they would like to continue living or if they would rather be aborted. I imagine around the age of 12 years the fetus would know whether their adopted/foster/gulag living arrangement is sufficiently pleasant to make further life worth while. If the answer is no they can be easily aborted at that stage.
You are conflating two different things. A fetus is just a baby in a certain stage in prenatal development that starts around 11 weeks and ends at birth. I assume that when you worry about the slippery slope you are against the forced use of this technology to save a life that would otherwise be aborted at the sole discretion of the mother. The current legal line between a baby with no rights and a baby with the right to life independent of the mothers wishes is the moment of birth. The majority of states require only a second physician to either consent or be present at the procedure even after 20 weeks.
No technology is required to blur that line. I don't see how anyone can argue from a biological perspective that the moment of birth is a biologically trans-formative event. I'm not sure how the moment of birth is an ethically trans-formative event either. In what way is the baby 1 day pre-birth different from an ethical perspective than a baby 1 day post birth? A physician can freely kill that baby the day or the second before birth, but if he/she were to kill the baby after birth it would legally be murder.
For the 18 or so states that have a viability test for the increased rights of the unborn, this technology may indeed blur the legal line, but the ethical and biological line is already pretty murky.
That question is equivalent to "What charges should be brought against hospice centers when terminal cancer patients die under their care?"
To which the obvious answer is none.
We don't charge parents when their child dies of natural causes, and charging them in accidental death is a cruelty fit for only the most vindictive societies imaginable. Charging parents for death caused directly by neglect is defensible.
Your argument is a good one if you are in favor of defining person-hood using the test of viability. In that case mothers who miscarry are safe from prosecution. Third trimester abortions on the other hand would often fail that test. If we as a society were to define a fetus as a person at the moment of viability we would need to outlaw abortions of healthy babies that reasonable physicians might conclude are viable outside the womb.
And yet words do mean things independent of the imagined motivation of the opposition. Arguments are not invalidated by the life choices of the arguer. You might almost imagine an argument as a means of arriving at a truth that is independent of political or societal norms.
The courts have ruled that the fetus is not a person. It may be killed for any reason up to the arbitrary line of the end of the second trimester. It may be killed after that point up to the moment of birth if the state with jurisdiction decides not to forbid it.
Once the baby is born, sticking sharp objects into its brain for the purposes of ending its life is murder under the law. And yet it is not necessarily murder if you do it five minutes earlier.
Is it so hard to imagine that even reasonable people with no desire to cause harm to anyone might have ethical questions about whether this current legal regime is ethically sound?
Ad-hominem attacks are where it's at. I'm with you there. But I can't help but think you might have missed the point of the debate. Person-hood trumps privacy. The only way to argue that killing a fetus is OK in order to protect a woman's privacy is to also argue that the fetus is not a person under the law. And that is absolutely what the law says. The debate is about whether that is the right thing ethically.
The fetus is obviously human, and it is alive. At what point is it a person? I can see several stages of development being the deciding factor myself. Brain activity might be one, heartbeat might be one, viability might be another. You'll have to be careful about viability though because that keeps creeping back earlier and earlier. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure it's not the instant before birth.
You don't have to be a Christian, or white, or male to wonder about when a fetus becomes a person. Ranting about the motivations of the other side doesn't invalidate the basic question.
I'm with you! And don't get me started on these newfangled horseless carriages. I spent all morning beating mine with the buggy whip and it didn't budge an inch!
In my opinion the first few years of school are a decent time to homeschool. There is no way to say what's best for any one kid/family, but there is a very small skill set taught in the first few years. The major subject is reading. This is a subject where one on one time is highly productive and group activities tend to be not as effective. As an example I have an aunt that didn't learn to read till she was in 4th or 5th grade. She got by through memorization of the story books as they were read to the class. When it came time for her 5 minutes with the teacher she could spout the story back and pretend to be reading. If it was a book that she hadn't seen she would look at the pictures and guess. None of her teachers figured out she couldn't read till she was almost done with elementary school. This doesn't happen if mom is spending hours per day, one on one with her child.
As for socialization, I can't tell you how many times my bully avoidance skills have saved me from a near certain pounding at the office. I went to public school and ended up as a physicist, so obviously there is absolutely no socialization benefit to attending public school. (How's that for anecdote.)
In fact tell us who requested data and which users data was requested. It's just metadata. As long as we don't know what the actual user data is then there can't be any harm in it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I dissagree. Altruism itself is by definition not a profit motive, but only a very simple robot or a computer could possibly be driven by a single pure motivation (seek light, or some such.). I am always motivated by multiple things. Greed, desire to do good, desire to be seen doing good, laziness, boredom, desire to learn something new, fun seeking, thrill seeking, etc. all play a part in what I choose to do at any one moment. Even if it's 90% profit motive and 10% charitable motive, perhaps the project would have been ignored without that other 10%. And even that is too simplistic. If they are even remotely human I would guess you could easily add in, desire to be admired, desire to solve a difficult problem, ego, adventure, and a long list of other motivations for this single project alone.
I'm not sure why we need to split the entire world into a series of false dichotomies. Couldn't they be altruistic and at the same time motivated by profit? What is the point of the constant adversarial split for every stupid little issue? Is Slashdot interested in news for nerds for the purpose of enlightening its user base or is it simply a money hungry capitalistic shill for the corporate powers that be?
I thought this subject was dead yesterday when the first story was published. How is it still viable? Why is it still kicking? Aren't we just beating a dead horse at this point? Why oh why won't it die!?
Reading the summary I thought "No big deal, so some contaminated dirt is out there and someone might refine it for a few grams of plutonium residue."
But then I decided to read the article. It was slashdotted of course so I went on Google and found the article at a non-slashdotted site. (I know, not really the slashdot way.) All I can say is, HOLY PLUTONIUM Batman! Not residue from tests, but hundreds of pounds of plutonium metal in useable form. Enough for dozens of nuclear bombs. And they capped it and left it there! And now they are telling the world where it is. I'm speechless. (Other than the preceding text of course.)
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like every category is at or below sustainable consumption rate except for carbon. Can't let that spoil the narrative, so they peg the sustainable level of carbon emissions at zero so that they can use the whole carbon value to swamp the entire rest of the data set. Why is this framed as a global resources report and not a carbon consumption report? Also I'd like to see the justification for pegging the global sustainable carbon usage at zero.
Also for the TLDR crowd, fresh water is not included in the report.
1. Gather a bunch of resource usage stats.
2. Notice that most of the data is not alarming.
3. Massage the units so that the one alarming data point swamps all the others in a simple sum.
4. Pretend that all the resources are being used at an alarming rate.
5. Publish
6. Profit !!!
A highly competitive university that gets applicants almost exclusively from the top 1% of ACT/SAT scoring students says that ACT/SAT scores don't predict success in their institution.
Would the correlation perhaps be higher if they accepted students randomly from every quartile of ACT/SAT scoring students?
https://abcnews.go.com/Technol...
Looks like part of the explanation could be artificial score inflation.
1. Allow applicants to omit SAT/ACT scores
2. Applicants with lower scores omit
3. Your average applicant score goes up
4. ???
5. Profit!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/s...
Recycling often costs more than manufacturing the same item from scratch. Labor obviously is a part of that, but only part. You still have to pay for recycled materials collection, fuel, electricity, land, water, etc.
TANSTAAFL
The article Wired seems to be criticizing the politifact article because it's old but the article is still valid. Current articles are also quoting the same source, using the same stats to paint the same misleading picture. Just because Everytown for Gun Safety has published new statistics since the critical article was published does not mean their updated stats are any better.
From a recent CNBC article on the Florida shooting entitled "17 school shootings in 45 days — Florida massacre is one of many tragedies in 2018",
"Everytown has been tracking shootings in schools and universities since 2013. It reports any time a firearm is discharged within a school building or on campus, whether accidentally or intentionally and whether or not anyone has been harmed."
Is that what you think of when you see a headline that says "17 school shootings in 45 days " ?
You can find a breakdown of the types of shootings included in the Everytown data in the aforementioned old article at politifact.
Looking at the sources linked in the article there were 57 tweets linked to Russian backed accounts with the hashtag #guncontrolnow.
57 tweets? Seriously?
All that from only 600 tracked accounts. I hope the bots get a day off because that is some serious tweeting. I think Wired might want to review the definition of the word "flood". The bots have learned the lessons of communism well, Russia pretends to pay the bots and the bots pretend to work.
It's not a slippery slope argument if you are talking about current conditions.
This would be less troublesome if Hate had not become synonymous with
Conservative opinion
Religious opinion
Liberal opinion
Biology
Logic
Statistics
Independent thought
The only thing you can say these days that is not considered hate speech is up-to-the-nanosecond left wing (not liberal) PC group-speak.
From the article:
"The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat. Reducing ingredients such as cheese and meat would also reduce the amount of calories eaten, contributing towards healthier lifestyles."
They have a funny definition of a sandwich if omitting lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat, seems like a reasonable recommendation for a sandwich .
Also, caloric fundamentalism is out of style. Did they not get the memo? Bread is "bad for you", yet that seems to be the only thing the environmentalist "scientists" want to allow us to eat. Perhaps the true agenda is to cause widespread human extinction due to obesity caused by bread-only diets. This would certainly reduce the impact of humans on the environment.
The ridiculous reaction to his memo ensures that someone more eloquent will be far less likely to dare to make the point properly.
Perhaps we can come to a compromise. We can pay for women who otherwise would have had an abortion to pop their fetuses into these artificial wombs. Everyone is happy at this point I assume. Then we can all get on with our lives, charitably or otherwise. Sarcasm aside, I assume you already know that the hateful conservatives you are deriding are actually more likely to adopt children than the loving liberals you are defending.
At some point we can ask these post-birth fetuses whether they would like to continue living or if they would rather be aborted. I imagine around the age of 12 years the fetus would know whether their adopted/foster/gulag living arrangement is sufficiently pleasant to make further life worth while. If the answer is no they can be easily aborted at that stage.
You are conflating two different things. A fetus is just a baby in a certain stage in prenatal development that starts around 11 weeks and ends at birth. I assume that when you worry about the slippery slope you are against the forced use of this technology to save a life that would otherwise be aborted at the sole discretion of the mother. The current legal line between a baby with no rights and a baby with the right to life independent of the mothers wishes is the moment of birth. The majority of states require only a second physician to either consent or be present at the procedure even after 20 weeks.
No technology is required to blur that line. I don't see how anyone can argue from a biological perspective that the moment of birth is a biologically trans-formative event. I'm not sure how the moment of birth is an ethically trans-formative event either. In what way is the baby 1 day pre-birth different from an ethical perspective than a baby 1 day post birth? A physician can freely kill that baby the day or the second before birth, but if he/she were to kill the baby after birth it would legally be murder.
For the 18 or so states that have a viability test for the increased rights of the unborn, this technology may indeed blur the legal line, but the ethical and biological line is already pretty murky.
That question is equivalent to
"What charges should be brought against hospice centers when terminal cancer patients die under their care?"
To which the obvious answer is none.
We don't charge parents when their child dies of natural causes, and charging them in accidental death is a cruelty fit for only the most vindictive societies imaginable. Charging parents for death caused directly by neglect is defensible.
Your argument is a good one if you are in favor of defining person-hood using the test of viability. In that case mothers who miscarry are safe from prosecution. Third trimester abortions on the other hand would often fail that test. If we as a society were to define a fetus as a person at the moment of viability we would need to outlaw abortions of healthy babies that reasonable physicians might conclude are viable outside the womb.
And yet words do mean things independent of the imagined motivation of the opposition. Arguments are not invalidated by the life choices of the arguer. You might almost imagine an argument as a means of arriving at a truth that is independent of political or societal norms.
The courts have ruled that the fetus is not a person. It may be killed for any reason up to the arbitrary line of the end of the second trimester. It may be killed after that point up to the moment of birth if the state with jurisdiction decides not to forbid it.
Once the baby is born, sticking sharp objects into its brain for the purposes of ending its life is murder under the law. And yet it is not necessarily murder if you do it five minutes earlier.
Is it so hard to imagine that even reasonable people with no desire to cause harm to anyone might have ethical questions about whether this current legal regime is ethically sound?
Ad-hominem attacks are where it's at. I'm with you there. But I can't help but think you might have missed the point of the debate. Person-hood trumps privacy. The only way to argue that killing a fetus is OK in order to protect a woman's privacy is to also argue that the fetus is not a person under the law. And that is absolutely what the law says. The debate is about whether that is the right thing ethically.
The fetus is obviously human, and it is alive. At what point is it a person? I can see several stages of development being the deciding factor myself. Brain activity might be one, heartbeat might be one, viability might be another. You'll have to be careful about viability though because that keeps creeping back earlier and earlier. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure it's not the instant before birth.
You don't have to be a Christian, or white, or male to wonder about when a fetus becomes a person. Ranting about the motivations of the other side doesn't invalidate the basic question.
A rock is a larger more masculine form of a rockette.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm with you! And don't get me started on these newfangled horseless carriages. I spent all morning beating mine with the buggy whip and it didn't budge an inch!
In my opinion the first few years of school are a decent time to homeschool. There is no way to say what's best for any one kid/family, but there is a very small skill set taught in the first few years. The major subject is reading. This is a subject where one on one time is highly productive and group activities tend to be not as effective. As an example I have an aunt that didn't learn to read till she was in 4th or 5th grade. She got by through memorization of the story books as they were read to the class. When it came time for her 5 minutes with the teacher she could spout the story back and pretend to be reading. If it was a book that she hadn't seen she would look at the pictures and guess. None of her teachers figured out she couldn't read till she was almost done with elementary school. This doesn't happen if mom is spending hours per day, one on one with her child.
As for socialization, I can't tell you how many times my bully avoidance skills have saved me from a near certain pounding at the office. I went to public school and ended up as a physicist, so obviously there is absolutely no socialization benefit to attending public school. (How's that for anecdote.)
It's just metadata.
In fact tell us who requested data and which users data was requested. It's just metadata. As long as we don't know what the actual user data is then there can't be any harm in it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I dissagree. Altruism itself is by definition not a profit motive, but only a very simple robot or a computer could possibly be driven by a single pure motivation (seek light, or some such.). I am always motivated by multiple things. Greed, desire to do good, desire to be seen doing good, laziness, boredom, desire to learn something new, fun seeking, thrill seeking, etc. all play a part in what I choose to do at any one moment. Even if it's 90% profit motive and 10% charitable motive, perhaps the project would have been ignored without that other 10%. And even that is too simplistic. If they are even remotely human I would guess you could easily add in, desire to be admired, desire to solve a difficult problem, ego, adventure, and a long list of other motivations for this single project alone.
I'm not sure why we need to split the entire world into a series of false dichotomies. Couldn't they be altruistic and at the same time motivated by profit? What is the point of the constant adversarial split for every stupid little issue? Is Slashdot interested in news for nerds for the purpose of enlightening its user base or is it simply a money hungry capitalistic shill for the corporate powers that be?
I thought this subject was dead yesterday when the first story was published. How is it still viable? Why is it still kicking? Aren't we just beating a dead horse at this point? Why oh why won't it die!?
Reading the summary I thought "No big deal, so some contaminated dirt is out there and someone might refine it for a few grams of plutonium residue."
But then I decided to read the article. It was slashdotted of course so I went on Google and found the article at a non-slashdotted site. (I know, not really the slashdot way.) All I can say is, HOLY PLUTONIUM Batman! Not residue from tests, but hundreds of pounds of plutonium metal in useable form. Enough for dozens of nuclear bombs. And they capped it and left it there! And now they are telling the world where it is. I'm speechless. (Other than the preceding text of course.)
http://xkcd.com/605/
Yes, and I think it was missunderstood. I should have gone for something more obvious. How about
Scientist spends $375,000 beating meat in his lab. He says it's cultured.
or
Scientist spends $375,000 trying to beat meat in his lab.