They support the legal structure that allows this to happen. They say "Oh but we'll do compassionate programs to make it OK!" instead of actually not behaving like assholes in the first place.
You're arguing something completely different. We don't have the resources to continue population growth, but that has nothing to do with how long we work during the week. People still fuck on the weekend. The solution to population growth isn't poverty, its education.
Your mistake here is in assuming you're replying to someone who identifies all sex as objectifying. Chirs is responding to an AC who spoke of why they like sex in entirely selfish terms. "I like it, it is in my nature." AC chose not to, or neglected to, mention whether they enjoy giving pleasure to their partners, which would be a more altruistic (except in a very cynical sense) reason for liking sex. Chirs is just identifying this as potentially being a sign of objectification.
If AC had said "A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too." then Chirs would have been unreasonable in saying what they did.
You're mistaking pursuit of happiness for idleness.
No one is claiming that a fundamental shift in how society is structured isn't required for a high-"leisure" mechanized society. Far from it. Is there a dearth of volunteerism in your community? Guess what might solve that!
The issue here is that people are touchy about having their mediocrities pointed out, even when we have chosen to keep those things mediocre because we've focused on other things in our lives. It's not shameful to have a mediocre understanding of climate science when you're a computer programmer, or a businessperson. And it's not insulting for a professional to point out that most people in a particular industry are not proficient in a completely separate field.
His statement is not controversial if you aren't self-conscious.
I back the other dude. First responder's statement would only be fallacious if they mean to say that graphene WILL be viable some day, rather than MAY be viable some day.
The suggestion is that if everyone has a suitable income / level of wealth, there'll be no need for gentrification, and no need to run for the hills before you get bled dry in the home you've lived in for years.
You're also aware that renters generally cannot sell their houses right? Jesus, are you not even trying to reason this out?
lol
You're ridiculous.
WHY DIDN'T THE POOR FIX IT? IF THEY WANTED IT IMPROVED THEY'D HAVE SPENT WHAT LITTLE MONEY THEY HAD TO MAKE IT BETTER SO THAT GENTRIFICATION COULD DRIVE THEM OUT EVEN FASTER.
My intention IS to convey yelling, Slashdot. Thanks though. I wonder how much I have to do to counter this obnoxious filter. Are we somehow under the impression that caps inherently make something less civil than say, gross disrespect? Can I call people names? Is that acceptable? I guess I haven't tried that enough.
That's actually what the free market would say, no? If we're having a shortage, and consuming so much we're driving production into deficit... chocolate should be more expensive. Something (existing supplies) may be keeping price down now, but things will re-adjust.
Uh, you do realize people can search for your private things using your real name, right? If your privacy settings aren't iron-clad, as well as everyone you're friends with, your private life leaks out.
The point is that you have a right to identify yourself as you see fit, and sometimes the only way you can exercise your free speech (yes, I get it, private network) without great cost is by using a pseudonym.
They have a right to ask people to use real names, but they *should not* because it is harmful to marginalized groups.
Once electric cars become predominant, we'll agitate to make gasoline powered cars illegal. And we'll be right to do so.
If you could ensure the resulting pollution to your own personal property, then you would arguably be entitled to polluting technology, but you can't. Since the results will be forced on everyone else on the planet, they have a legitimate rights-based argument for limiting your personal right to be a selfish douchebag.
Antiques might get a pass, but they would also be arguably the cause of civil damages, and as such be legitimately subjected to usage/ownership levies/tariffs/whatever to offset the pollutants.
So you might get to keep it, but you'll eventually be paying a pretty premium.
Your last big paragraph is filled with illogic. Has there ever been great climate change during a time in the historical record to compare with? (You even mention economic decisions, suggesting this "never seen long term famine" observation is exceedingly modern.) The fact that LA was once under sea water naturally doesn't mean that human action can't put it back under. (And by extension, act otherwise to prevent it from happening.) Ancient CO2 levels are also not particularly relevant considering how drastically different our climate is from then. The threat of global warming is not that the globe will become uninhabitable (unlike global thermonuclear war, that is not a claim made) but rather that the changes in the climate will create havoc: extreme and damaging weather, species may die out, areas which once grew one thing may no longer be suitable or ideal for that growth, desertification may occur in some areas, etc. Sure, perhaps some areas that were non-ideal (for habitation, agriculture, etc.) will become ideal, but we are not poised to take advantage of that... it will be a slow learning process.
The projected impact is very much economic, which is funny because you suggest the power of economics and then disregard it. Do you think that with the interconnectedness of our economies we would really weather such chaos well?
I opened the PDF I got with SumatraPDF, which I'm pretty sure means it has no DRM. I still haven't found a MOBI or EPUB client that doesn't make me want to spit fire, so I'm not sure if either of those are DRM (can they even be DRM?).
Slashdot Mirror
Bookmarks are not viable for how I use browsers.
They support the legal structure that allows this to happen. They say "Oh but we'll do compassionate programs to make it OK!" instead of actually not behaving like assholes in the first place.
Which is why this behaviour makes me wish there was a way to just seize the rights.
So the headline should read "In study [...] was 100% effective", not IS.
You're arguing something completely different. We don't have the resources to continue population growth, but that has nothing to do with how long we work during the week. People still fuck on the weekend. The solution to population growth isn't poverty, its education.
Your mistake here is in assuming you're replying to someone who identifies all sex as objectifying. Chirs is responding to an AC who spoke of why they like sex in entirely selfish terms. "I like it, it is in my nature." AC chose not to, or neglected to, mention whether they enjoy giving pleasure to their partners, which would be a more altruistic (except in a very cynical sense) reason for liking sex. Chirs is just identifying this as potentially being a sign of objectification. If AC had said "A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too." then Chirs would have been unreasonable in saying what they did.
I'm guessing you tested out successfully because you had very good humanities trained humanities teachers in your elementary years.
You're mistaking pursuit of happiness for idleness. No one is claiming that a fundamental shift in how society is structured isn't required for a high-"leisure" mechanized society. Far from it. Is there a dearth of volunteerism in your community? Guess what might solve that!
The issue here is that people are touchy about having their mediocrities pointed out, even when we have chosen to keep those things mediocre because we've focused on other things in our lives. It's not shameful to have a mediocre understanding of climate science when you're a computer programmer, or a businessperson. And it's not insulting for a professional to point out that most people in a particular industry are not proficient in a completely separate field. His statement is not controversial if you aren't self-conscious.
I back the other dude. First responder's statement would only be fallacious if they mean to say that graphene WILL be viable some day, rather than MAY be viable some day.
The solution might be to actually run your updates before you generally shut down.
They're called First Nations in Canada! I bet that'd pop that zit you call a head clear off.
The suggestion is that if everyone has a suitable income / level of wealth, there'll be no need for gentrification, and no need to run for the hills before you get bled dry in the home you've lived in for years. You're also aware that renters generally cannot sell their houses right? Jesus, are you not even trying to reason this out?
lol You're ridiculous. WHY DIDN'T THE POOR FIX IT? IF THEY WANTED IT IMPROVED THEY'D HAVE SPENT WHAT LITTLE MONEY THEY HAD TO MAKE IT BETTER SO THAT GENTRIFICATION COULD DRIVE THEM OUT EVEN FASTER. My intention IS to convey yelling, Slashdot. Thanks though. I wonder how much I have to do to counter this obnoxious filter. Are we somehow under the impression that caps inherently make something less civil than say, gross disrespect? Can I call people names? Is that acceptable? I guess I haven't tried that enough.
That's actually what the free market would say, no? If we're having a shortage, and consuming so much we're driving production into deficit... chocolate should be more expensive. Something (existing supplies) may be keeping price down now, but things will re-adjust.
They disagreed. They do want to continue recording lists of expert witnesses while not disclosing the information publicly.
Did you read that? They announced it without awareness of his death and stuck to it. It's not like they can pretend they don't know Gandhi's dead.
Paranoia and conspiracy accusations are EXACTLY what I see present in "critics of climate change hyperbole".
Yes, you can. It's low risk, but it's possible, especially if there's any cuts in the mouth. http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-se...
Uh, you do realize people can search for your private things using your real name, right? If your privacy settings aren't iron-clad, as well as everyone you're friends with, your private life leaks out. The point is that you have a right to identify yourself as you see fit, and sometimes the only way you can exercise your free speech (yes, I get it, private network) without great cost is by using a pseudonym. They have a right to ask people to use real names, but they *should not* because it is harmful to marginalized groups.
The problem is the whole "everyone who buys one early becomes a bajillionaire" thing.
Once electric cars become predominant, we'll agitate to make gasoline powered cars illegal. And we'll be right to do so.
If you could ensure the resulting pollution to your own personal property, then you would arguably be entitled to polluting technology, but you can't. Since the results will be forced on everyone else on the planet, they have a legitimate rights-based argument for limiting your personal right to be a selfish douchebag.
Antiques might get a pass, but they would also be arguably the cause of civil damages, and as such be legitimately subjected to usage/ownership levies/tariffs/whatever to offset the pollutants.
So you might get to keep it, but you'll eventually be paying a pretty premium.
Your last big paragraph is filled with illogic. Has there ever been great climate change during a time in the historical record to compare with? (You even mention economic decisions, suggesting this "never seen long term famine" observation is exceedingly modern.) The fact that LA was once under sea water naturally doesn't mean that human action can't put it back under. (And by extension, act otherwise to prevent it from happening.) Ancient CO2 levels are also not particularly relevant considering how drastically different our climate is from then. The threat of global warming is not that the globe will become uninhabitable (unlike global thermonuclear war, that is not a claim made) but rather that the changes in the climate will create havoc: extreme and damaging weather, species may die out, areas which once grew one thing may no longer be suitable or ideal for that growth, desertification may occur in some areas, etc. Sure, perhaps some areas that were non-ideal (for habitation, agriculture, etc.) will become ideal, but we are not poised to take advantage of that... it will be a slow learning process.
The projected impact is very much economic, which is funny because you suggest the power of economics and then disregard it. Do you think that with the interconnectedness of our economies we would really weather such chaos well?
Sorry, I pretty clearly misread you. My bad.
I opened the PDF I got with SumatraPDF, which I'm pretty sure means it has no DRM. I still haven't found a MOBI or EPUB client that doesn't make me want to spit fire, so I'm not sure if either of those are DRM (can they even be DRM?).