plankton is a mix of types of life. all microscopic. some is animal in type (super micro crustaceans), but a lot of it more akin to plant or bacteria, and as such it takes its energy directly from the sun. that's one reason its mainly found in the upper layers of the ocean.
and its the reason this line is questioning is important. we know that water clarity can impact the amount of plankton biomass (as well as other submarine ecosystems such as coral reefs). this question is basically heading towards finding hte point at which harm can be done to the plankton. does it start witht he very smallest particles in the very very uppermost top 1mm of the ocean? or does it require more than that?
but if it does affect the plankton, that most definitely IS a Very Bad Thing (tm). We already have science showing decreasing plankton biomass, though there hasnt yet been much alarm about it. But if the plankton does go away, yes that actually is an End of (nearly) All Life scenario. All O2 breathing life anyway.
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
some of the people decrying the human impact on the world may be alarmist or overreacting, but they are far less dangerous than those who try to say that there's no impact, nothing is wrong, and everything is/will be fine, so stop worrying.
you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters. in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.
in this new avenue of research the science doesnt say a whole lot yet. its only just started to ask the question, the question being, paraphrased, "is there potential harm here to plankton from particulates in the very top most layer?". there's already been questions asked about the micro-plastics we flush into the water daily (espcially the new fad of plastic microbeads in soaps) that can make it through water treatment plants into the rivers or lakes or oceans, and evidence found that they can buildup in and eventually block fish gills. so this is then related to that line of thinking, but is a new question itself. and it's a good question because plankton is one of the most important (if not THE most important) classes of life on Earth. its the very first link in the food chain for a majority of life on Earth. Further its also the primary producer of oxygen, both atmospheric and water-dissolved, which is fairly important too.
no, but seriously: the answer is "sorta". the leaders in China aren't stupid. they saw how Russia turned out (ad no, Russia wasn't a proper communist country either). and theyve taken steps to harness the power of capitalism and markets while still holding the name "communist".
in a sense, they are approaching the problem from the opposite end as compared to the western world, slowly arriving at the same conclusion: capitalism and free markets are great, but must be controlled, else they tend to burn out and self-destruct. at some future point the two approaches will meet in the middle, though we're not yet at that point, and I believe the western world is closer to that "middle".
No. Fallacies are not automatically incorrect. They are, in most cases, only *potentially* incorrect.
In the case of Appeal to Authority, the phrasing itself is misleading, because the actually fallacy, the actual problem, using comes from citing a non-authority as an authority. IE, its really an Appeal to an Inappropriate Authority.
and just so I can be especially clear: if it happens that the right decision in terms ofthe Law is NOT the right decision in terms of the public good, then the Law MUST be changed. The two concepts should, indeed they must, be aligned in a nation of free people.
Otherwise you become a country who worships the law even to the detriment of society itself.
and just so I can be especially clear: if it happens that the right decision in terms ofthe Law is NOT the right decision in terms of the public good, then the Law MUST be changed. The two concepts should, indeed they must, be aligned.
Otherwise you become a country who worships the law even to the detriment of soctety itself.
so money = speech, and if some just happen to have a louder voice because they have more money...oh well? Bugger that.
and the rest of your comments are nonsense too: the ACA did originate in the house; if we can require people to carry car insurance so they dont become a burden and impose a burden on others then theres no reason not to do it for healthcare, especially when healthcare costs are 20% of our entire economy (course this whole "problem" goes away if we just instituted medicaire for all....plus it's cheaper); etc etc.
as i said: they were "upholding the law" in Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott too, and others, even though those were horrible decisions, detrimental to the country And again as i said, the case could be made that they werent upholding the law when they decided several others, even though those others were beter for the country. That's why all the money=speech decisions are horrible, cause it literally, blatantly, opens up elections to being bought (or at least more than they already were). So stuff you nonsense.
there is a big difference between those building housing and those doing infrastructure work. also, what you describe isnt the norm, but the exception, and as China goes throw the same growing pains we did a hundred years ago, they are holding those responsible tosome very harsh punishments.
No, most of that concrete went into infrastructure projects. in the space of a decade China laid down a modern "interstate" highway system tremendously larger than the entire US Interstate and US HWY highway system combined.
They did this because they knew, from looking at history, of the power of massive public works/modernization projects. Particularly a modern highway system. This project both spurred economic growth in its own right from the labor and materials required, and will spurr further growth through time as it begins to allow the same things we saw happen in the US. Manufacturing can be located even further inland. It can also specialize into sub-assemblies that go elsewhere for final assembly. It' easier to transport goods, services, and people now into the interior of China. This will and has spurred the movement of people seeking better opportunities, and promoted growth of cities further inland, in contrast to past history where most of China's economy and trade depended on access to and was oriented around sea ports.
I only point this out, because while they tackle the problem of modern infrastructure, we're kicking the can down the road repeatedly, only doing small things after bridges have already collapsed, and roads become nearly unusable. that new "infrastructre bill" they just passed that was supposed to fund the HWY fund for a little longer? It's actually a loan from private businesses that will be repaid with tax dollars, at a profit to the businesses, a few years down the road. It's absolutely shameless.
Cynicism? Yes. Warranted? Yes. To be fair, most of their decisions aren't earth shattering or even really newsworthy, so they dont get reported. But of those that are big deals...this current court is pretty atrocious. Particularly in terms of business, this court is one of the most pro-corporation-as-the-expense-of-citizens/consumers that has ever existed.
Good decision: killing DOMA, upholding the ACA in general
Bad decisions: allowing unlimited money in politics...twice (total ban on contribution limits will probably happen next year), allowing corporate religious belief, saying that admitting to a religuos belief so an employee can get outside coverage is a burden (essentially allowing employee to use his religious beliefs to control what an employee can or cannot buy with his own monies), weakening the 5th Amendment such that now you must declare that are you exercising your 5th Amendment/Miranda rights otherwise your refusal to incriminate yourself CAN be used against you....
For ex: --Corporations can have religious rights. But that's ok, because the Adminstration already has a workaround for religious non-profits, right? So just use that. --3 day later: BTW, that work around? It's unconstitutional too, because having an employer admit it won't provide certain coverage because of religious convictions is too big of a burden on their ability to exercise their religious convictions.
Plus there are many cases in the Court's history where the decision they made was the better choice for the citizenry, even though not the best legal choice. IE, a solid legal case could have been made for the opposite outcome, but they chose to orient towards what was best for the people, rather than what was best for the law. This particularly cover cases related to Slavery, Civil Rights, Equal Rights, etc.
No it doesn't and its not nearly as doom and gloom as you think.
Yes, there is a problem when the oversight committee assigned to oversee an intelligence agency gets hacked by that same intelligence agency and files removed. That however does not warrant the agency's destruction. Punishment and enforcement of law to maintain the heirarchy of oversight is what is called for.
Do we dissolve the military when they screw up? Did we disband the NYPD after they choked a guy to death? No. Beacuse they still serve an important function.
The same goes for the CIA: the fact that the oversight committee is toothless and the agency itself is really the one in charge when no one is looking is reason to bring the hammer down, but not reason to give up on their mission. Lock up the guys responsible, fire individuals who would violate their oath of service, who owe allegiance to agency first and country second, and get on with the real mission.
1) no part of the bill actually requires you to lose your doctor. they even went out of their way with various waivers and exemptions to make it easier. and anyone with a brain (key phrase, which explains the detractors...like you) knew that the only thing that could get in the way there is if your current plan was sub-standard. very few people actually lost their doctors as a result of moving to a plan that met the standards, particularly if they stayed within the same insurance company.
2) if you dont not acknolwedge the bill's funding being > the bill's costs that would only be because you are ignorant of the bill itself beyond what some talking heads have told you to think. even the most cursory examination of the bill and the CBO projections carried out almost conitnuously shows it to be true and not a lie.
and that's about all the effort on my part you deserve in terms of correcting your ignorance. the onus of becoming well informed rests in your hands. thus far, you have been failing miserably.
they just left out hte word "operational". granted, the PBY isn't that large as flying boats go, so that's not a good one to use. Better would be the: Martin Mars, Short Sunderland, or the Saunders Roa Princess, all of which are FAR larger than this new chinese one.
those aren'tlanding gear. the Mars does not have landing gear. those are ground wheels temporarily attached to the hull for the purpose of "drydocking".
they just left out the key qualifier word "operational". the current japanese one isn't that big at all, and puny compared to the ones we used in the navy even into the 60s. the new Chinese one here looks to be about the same size as the old trans-pacific clipper planes, maybe even as big as those huge navy seaplanes used to operate.
that and the largest planes at the time, including all trans-oceanic passenger planes, were all flying boats.
the only reason flying boats fell out of use is the range of land based aircraft increased sufficiently that the ability to land and refuel on the water was no longer a strength, and the ability to have a streamlined fuselage is an efficiency and speed advantage over seaplanes.
but there are still many cases where seaplanes have important uses, such as maritime operations, particularly search and rescue.
you dont run multiple electrical busses into a building for the same circuit, especially in a large building. there may be multiple busses, but they each supply power to a seperate system.
only if you think in terms of leaving the Earth's gravity well every time.
we could, right now, with todays technology, begin exploring. it would be hard. it would expensive. but we could do it.
it starts with learning to harness the resources already in space. then turn those resources into ships. some of the mterials would have to come from earth, at least initially. hell, we could turn the moon into a manufacturing and launch facility. and just being 1/6th the earth's gravity leads to expenentially lower fuel requirements.
the problem is we dont even have the collective will to start. because "its too hard" "its too expensive". we went to the bloody moon for chrissakes. ya ya, to beat the commies. but also because we could. to prove it could be done.
even then we could have started this greated of all human endeavors: conquering space. but we didnt. and its stupid.
but point is once you get going, the easier it is to keep going. and we could do it today.
but if we keep waiting "for the right moment", for it "become easier", with the right "magic tech"...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. over time we will develope better tech. but the thinking of waiting for tomorows tech is a trap, an endless cycle. so start now, start today with todays tech.
So fund NASA. And get us off the rock. Before we make it uninhabitable.
Slashdot Mirror
plankton is a mix of types of life. all microscopic. some is animal in type (super micro crustaceans), but a lot of it more akin to plant or bacteria, and as such it takes its energy directly from the sun. that's one reason its mainly found in the upper layers of the ocean.
and its the reason this line is questioning is important. we know that water clarity can impact the amount of plankton biomass (as well as other submarine ecosystems such as coral reefs). this question is basically heading towards finding hte point at which harm can be done to the plankton. does it start witht he very smallest particles in the very very uppermost top 1mm of the ocean? or does it require more than that?
but if it does affect the plankton, that most definitely IS a Very Bad Thing (tm).
We already have science showing decreasing plankton biomass, though there hasnt yet been much alarm about it.
But if the plankton does go away, yes that actually is an End of (nearly) All Life scenario. All O2 breathing life anyway.
remember how kids eating chips of lead based paint ended up with physiological damage because of the chemials dissolving and entering their tissues?
same concept.
just smaller chips.
and a much larger affected biomass.
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
some of the people decrying the human impact on the world may be alarmist or overreacting, but they are far less dangerous than those who try to say that there's no impact, nothing is wrong, and everything is/will be fine, so stop worrying.
you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters. in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.
in this new avenue of research the science doesnt say a whole lot yet. its only just started to ask the question, the question being, paraphrased, "is there potential harm here to plankton from particulates in the very top most layer?". there's already been questions asked about the micro-plastics we flush into the water daily (espcially the new fad of plastic microbeads in soaps) that can make it through water treatment plants into the rivers or lakes or oceans, and evidence found that they can buildup in and eventually block fish gills. so this is then related to that line of thinking, but is a new question itself. and it's a good question because plankton is one of the most important (if not THE most important) classes of life on Earth. its the very first link in the food chain for a majority of life on Earth. Further its also the primary producer of oxygen, both atmospheric and water-dissolved, which is fairly important too.
only for the peons.
no, but seriously: the answer is "sorta".
the leaders in China aren't stupid.
they saw how Russia turned out (ad no, Russia wasn't a proper communist country either).
and theyve taken steps to harness the power of capitalism and markets while still holding the name "communist".
in a sense, they are approaching the problem from the opposite end as compared to the western world, slowly arriving at the same conclusion: capitalism and free markets are great, but must be controlled, else they tend to burn out and self-destruct. at some future point the two approaches will meet in the middle, though we're not yet at that point, and I believe the western world is closer to that "middle".
you just described what the other guy said about certifications, licenses and education.
you're saying the same thing, while disagreeing with him.
No. Fallacies are not automatically incorrect. They are, in most cases, only *potentially* incorrect.
In the case of Appeal to Authority, the phrasing itself is misleading, because the actually fallacy, the actual problem, using comes from citing a non-authority as an authority. IE, its really an Appeal to an Inappropriate Authority.
and just so I can be especially clear: if it happens that the right decision in terms ofthe Law is NOT the right decision in terms of the public good, then the Law MUST be changed. The two concepts should, indeed they must, be aligned in a nation of free people.
Otherwise you become a country who worships the law even to the detriment of society itself.
and just so I can be especially clear: if it happens that the right decision in terms ofthe Law is NOT the right decision in terms of the public good, then the Law MUST be changed. The two concepts should, indeed they must, be aligned.
Otherwise you become a country who worships the law even to the detriment of soctety itself.
so money = speech, and if some just happen to have a louder voice because they have more money...oh well?
Bugger that.
and the rest of your comments are nonsense too: the ACA did originate in the house; if we can require people to carry car insurance so they dont become a burden and impose a burden on others then theres no reason not to do it for healthcare, especially when healthcare costs are 20% of our entire economy (course this whole "problem" goes away if we just instituted medicaire for all....plus it's cheaper); etc etc.
as i said: they were "upholding the law" in Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott too, and others, even though those were horrible decisions, detrimental to the country
And again as i said, the case could be made that they werent upholding the law when they decided several others, even though those others were beter for the country.
That's why all the money=speech decisions are horrible, cause it literally, blatantly, opens up elections to being bought (or at least more than they already were).
So stuff you nonsense.
there is a big difference between those building housing and those doing infrastructure work.
also, what you describe isnt the norm, but the exception, and as China goes throw the same growing pains we did a hundred years ago, they are holding those responsible tosome very harsh punishments.
No, most of that concrete went into infrastructure projects. in the space of a decade China laid down a modern "interstate" highway system tremendously larger than the entire US Interstate and US HWY highway system combined.
They did this because they knew, from looking at history, of the power of massive public works/modernization projects. Particularly a modern highway system. This project both spurred economic growth in its own right from the labor and materials required, and will spurr further growth through time as it begins to allow the same things we saw happen in the US. Manufacturing can be located even further inland. It can also specialize into sub-assemblies that go elsewhere for final assembly. It' easier to transport goods, services, and people now into the interior of China. This will and has spurred the movement of people seeking better opportunities, and promoted growth of cities further inland, in contrast to past history where most of China's economy and trade depended on access to and was oriented around sea ports.
I only point this out, because while they tackle the problem of modern infrastructure, we're kicking the can down the road repeatedly, only doing small things after bridges have already collapsed, and roads become nearly unusable. that new "infrastructre bill" they just passed that was supposed to fund the HWY fund for a little longer? It's actually a loan from private businesses that will be repaid with tax dollars, at a profit to the businesses, a few years down the road. It's absolutely shameless.
ooo pretty. thanks to you sir i now wish to visit a cathedral in nicaragua.
Cynicism? Yes. Warranted? Yes.
To be fair, most of their decisions aren't earth shattering or even really newsworthy, so they dont get reported.
But of those that are big deals...this current court is pretty atrocious. Particularly in terms of business, this court is one of the most pro-corporation-as-the-expense-of-citizens/consumers that has ever existed.
Good decision: killing DOMA, upholding the ACA in general
Bad decisions: allowing unlimited money in politics...twice (total ban on contribution limits will probably happen next year), allowing corporate religious belief, saying that admitting to a religuos belief so an employee can get outside coverage is a burden (essentially allowing employee to use his religious beliefs to control what an employee can or cannot buy with his own monies), weakening the 5th Amendment such that now you must declare that are you exercising your 5th Amendment/Miranda rights otherwise your refusal to incriminate yourself CAN be used against you....
For ex:
--Corporations can have religious rights. But that's ok, because the Adminstration already has a workaround for religious non-profits, right? So just use that.
--3 day later: BTW, that work around? It's unconstitutional too, because having an employer admit it won't provide certain coverage because of religious convictions is too big of a burden on their ability to exercise their religious convictions.
Plus there are many cases in the Court's history where the decision they made was the better choice for the citizenry, even though not the best legal choice. IE, a solid legal case could have been made for the opposite outcome, but they chose to orient towards what was best for the people, rather than what was best for the law.
This particularly cover cases related to Slavery, Civil Rights, Equal Rights, etc.
my algorithm is even better, and even more accurate. its simple: What is the worst possible outcome for the citizenry?
No it doesn't and its not nearly as doom and gloom as you think.
Yes, there is a problem when the oversight committee assigned to oversee an intelligence agency gets hacked by that same intelligence agency and files removed.
That however does not warrant the agency's destruction. Punishment and enforcement of law to maintain the heirarchy of oversight is what is called for.
Do we dissolve the military when they screw up? Did we disband the NYPD after they choked a guy to death?
No. Beacuse they still serve an important function.
The same goes for the CIA: the fact that the oversight committee is toothless and the agency itself is really the one in charge when no one is looking is reason to bring the hammer down, but not reason to give up on their mission. Lock up the guys responsible, fire individuals who would violate their oath of service, who owe allegiance to agency first and country second, and get on with the real mission.
who modded this stupidity +5 ?
the only one lyiing is you, AC.
1) no part of the bill actually requires you to lose your doctor. they even went out of their way with various waivers and exemptions to make it easier. and anyone with a brain (key phrase, which explains the detractors...like you) knew that the only thing that could get in the way there is if your current plan was sub-standard. very few people actually lost their doctors as a result of moving to a plan that met the standards, particularly if they stayed within the same insurance company.
2) if you dont not acknolwedge the bill's funding being > the bill's costs that would only be because you are ignorant of the bill itself beyond what some talking heads have told you to think. even the most cursory examination of the bill and the CBO projections carried out almost conitnuously shows it to be true and not a lie.
and that's about all the effort on my part you deserve in terms of correcting your ignorance.
the onus of becoming well informed rests in your hands.
thus far, you have been failing miserably.
they just left out hte word "operational".
granted, the PBY isn't that large as flying boats go, so that's not a good one to use.
Better would be the: Martin Mars, Short Sunderland, or the Saunders Roa Princess, all of which are FAR larger than this new chinese one.
those aren'tlanding gear.
the Mars does not have landing gear.
those are ground wheels temporarily attached to the hull for the purpose of "drydocking".
they just left out the key qualifier word "operational". the current japanese one isn't that big at all, and puny compared to the ones we used in the navy even into the 60s. the new Chinese one here looks to be about the same size as the old trans-pacific clipper planes, maybe even as big as those huge navy seaplanes used to operate.
that and the largest planes at the time, including all trans-oceanic passenger planes, were all flying boats.
the only reason flying boats fell out of use is the range of land based aircraft increased sufficiently that the ability to land and refuel on the water was no longer a strength, and the ability to have a streamlined fuselage is an efficiency and speed advantage over seaplanes.
but there are still many cases where seaplanes have important uses, such as maritime operations, particularly search and rescue.
you had AC?
i worked in a warehouse one summer down there...long miserable days with no AC in a metal building.
Fun.
you dont run multiple electrical busses into a building for the same circuit, especially in a large building.
there may be multiple busses, but they each supply power to a seperate system.
they meant "bus". as in electrical bus. the main line running into the building.
only if you think in terms of leaving the Earth's gravity well every time.
we could, right now, with todays technology, begin exploring.
it would be hard.
it would expensive.
but we could do it.
it starts with learning to harness the resources already in space.
then turn those resources into ships. some of the mterials would have to come from earth, at least initially.
hell, we could turn the moon into a manufacturing and launch facility.
and just being 1/6th the earth's gravity leads to expenentially lower fuel requirements.
the problem is we dont even have the collective will to start.
because "its too hard" "its too expensive".
we went to the bloody moon for chrissakes.
ya ya, to beat the commies. but also because we could. to prove it could be done.
even then we could have started this greated of all human endeavors: conquering space.
but we didnt.
and its stupid.
but point is once you get going, the easier it is to keep going.
and we could do it today.
but if we keep waiting "for the right moment", for it "become easier", with the right "magic tech"...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
over time we will develope better tech. but the thinking of waiting for tomorows tech is a trap, an endless cycle.
so start now, start today with todays tech.
So fund NASA.
And get us off the rock.
Before we make it uninhabitable.