Congratulations slashdot, you just jumped the shark for me. A front page story about a scam artist with a victim complex and a direct link to a Patreon account so people can give her more money. Time to go find another tech news site.
Out of all the stupid shit that gets posted on Slashdot, you're going to get your knickers in a twister over this? Really? Honestly, that says more about your intellectual dishonesty than you can possibly imagine. Regardless of your (or anyone's) opinion of Ms. Wu, a single story soliciting questions (you know, what they used to call a "dialog") is hardly the worst thing that Slashdot has ever done. If this is the line in the sand for you, then you should probably go back to the sandbox.
If they come from God, well, the religions practiced by virtually all people worldwide have consistently said throughout their history that such a marriage is not a marriage.
If they do not come from God, then they are simply a social construct, freely defined by humans. And the humans in many states said that such a marriage is not a marriage.
The rights don't come from god, since he plainly does not exist. Anyone who says otherwise is a dirty liar.
That said, I see where you're going with this. Or at least, I see where you're attempting to steer it. But it's a false dichotomy, and I'm a bit disappointed that you would attempt such a shallow parlor trick.
We live in a country that has constructed a system (a social construct, if you insist) that says that all people shall be treated equally under the law. Today's decision holds the nation -- the WHOLE nation -- to that principle, regardless of what a minority of conservatives believe or want. Even in those states where a majority of people do not agree with same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court decided today that doing so does not square with the larger principle of everyone being equal under the law. But then, you knew that. You've known that all along, through all your repeated posts about god and religion and other assorted bullshit. Your false dichotomy is a weak attempt at putting a will-of-the-people spin on what is, at its core, a matter of equal protection under the law.
And guess what? The people don't get to vote on that part. They can repeal the 14th amendment if they like (good luck with that) but they can't simply decide to ignore the equal protection clause. The Supremes said so.
And yet the "three great religions" practiced by the vast majority of the people who inhabit your biosphere have for their entire collective history said that this same creator says that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Please explain how that constitutes a legal issue.
Elon is managing to change the climate within the auto industry by a sufficient degree that EVs are going to enter the mainstream in the west. China's pollution problems mean it has no other choice but to adopt EVs.
There currently is no where near enough manufacturing capacity to build enough solar panels, wind mills, or batteries to supply the world with its electricity needs in the next two decades. Running purely on renewables is not a realistic option. Even if manufacturing was magically ramped up it still wouldn't be possible unless the materials used changes there will not be enough rare earth minerals to support that many solar panels, wind farms, or batteries.
This statement makes your sig line that much funnier. You must make a fortune.
If anything other than a tiny, tiny number of people buy that car, those rebates would vanish rather quickly.
The government could increase the rebates to $20k and then your argument would be that the car is a "steal" for only $10k, but how long would that last?
They're quite popular where I live. I could probably walk out to the parking lot where I work and count 20 or 30 just in the corner of the large corporation where I work. And I happen to know that they are the most popular electric car on campus, with the Tesla Model S coming in second.
There is never real competition in any market because it's a theoretical abstraction that's impossible to achieve in reality. For a free market to function, consumers need to have immediate access to all information necessary to make an informed product choice, the price and availability of all competing products, and the prices of all products must include ALL costs associated with that product. These conditions are never true in reality.
That's pretty much completely false, and it all comes down to your (mis)use of the word "all". Having access to ALL information is great, but it's not a black-or-white situation. Having access to SOME or even ANY information about competing products still gives the consumer a proportional benefit, which in turn increases competition among suppliers.
This is really not hard to figure out, nor rare or exceptional. This kind of competition happens every single day in (almost) every corner of the world. I'm baffled by why you think "ALL" is the gating element to competition.
Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
I am afraid that this ruling will result in many foods that I occasionally eat replacing the trans fats with lard, which isn't on my diet.:(
I can't have my trans fats because all of YOU eat too much of it.
Thanks a lot, jerks.
Just as trans fats are not the panacea that they were made out to be, lard is not actually the villain it has been made out to be. This is just more fallout from Ancel Keys' bullshit "science" that we are now finally correcting.
If people were smart enough not to live in a desert
How long do you think people can live without water? I think the number is something like four days, give or take. So, if all those people were so stupid, how did they survive more than four days?
Hint: there was actually water available when they got there.
Not a single living person ever moved somewhere where no water was available. The ones who did are dead now. Towns and cities grow organically, and the infrastructure grows with them. This is not a question of whether people are (or are not) smart enough to live in a desert. People will live where life is sustainable, and even here in California, life thus far has been sustained. The fact that we're in a drought at the moment may test that sustainability, but you can't argue that people are dumb for moving here. Up until now, they've had the facts on their side.
Point two, governments absolutely decide where people can and can not live. That is a truism, and I should not have to support it. Try moving into a local park if you don't believe me.
The fact that there are places where one cannot live does not actually prove your point. It only proves that people can't possess other people's properties. All you need to do to found a town is to buy some land and call it a town. And buying land isn't always necessary. Just look at the founding of Oakland.
Point three, there most certainly are people in charge of kicking you out of all the places you might try to live or start up a community, at least in the developed world.
Generally speaking, that's not the case in the United States.
Point four, cities' growth can absolutely be manipulated intentionally, by means both fair and foul, and this has been done throughout history for a variety of reasons.
Yes. And statistically speaking, most towns seek to increase their size, not reduce it.
You wrote that whole shitty comment, and then wrote this at the bottom of it without a hint of irony, didn't you?
Since all of your counterpoints are in fact bullshit, yes. I did.
There's many orders of magnitude more water in the Pacific Ocean than California can consume
Obligatory analogy: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and burns cleanly. Despite that, hydrogen is still a terrible fuel source. Why? The effort required to separate hydrogen from whatever it's stuck to makes it not worth the effort.
By the same token, desalinating enough water for California's agricultural needs is on a scale that I don't think you have really thought about. It's a scale so massive that every other civil project pales in comparison. The energy consumption alone would be staggering. Getting the water from the coast to the central valley (where most of the crops are) would be staggering. The physical infrastructure to actually do the desalinization is staggering.
But yes, it's possible. Just like it's possible to convert America from gasoline to hydrogen.
Believe it or not, people managed to survive in colder climates before they could truck in fresh fruit year-round from California. And actually, if they planned well, they could eat rather well with a variety of food. The stuff that didn't store well? Well, that's why they invented fermentation. And canning. And freezing.
For various definitions of "survive", yes. And yeah, I'm aware of the long history of humankind's relationship with food.
Personally, I like that lifestyle.
Good for you! No, I mean that non-sarcastically. Those are great skills to have. But they're not common anymore, and they're not likely to be common again (barring the zombie apocalypse).
Maybe those farms never belonged there in the first place, or they should have not let the population grow to the point that it was unsustainable?
Given that the current drought is unprecedented, how would they have knows that? California has managed thus far to have enough water. The current situation is obviously scary, but nobody is able to predict the future.
They KNEW this was an issue, how did they know? Because They Have To Pipe Water In From Hundreds Of Miles Away And Their Crops Don't Stand A Snowballs Chance In Hell Without Someone Elses Water.
How about move the people to where the water is instead?
And how -- exactly -- do you propose we do that? Forcible relocation? Do we just evict all the people from their houses and tell them to go somewhere else, or were you thinking more along the lines of refuge camps? Maybe you could load everyone in boxcars and ship them across country.
California of course already provides a number of incentives for people to not live there
And yet we're still the most populous state in America. Clearly, there must be some actual reason that so many people choose to live here. Whatever disincentives you might have in mind are clearly not working.
but perhaps they could do more and actively subsidize moving people to places more suitable for human habitation.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderation is supposed to be factual
You must be new here. Moderation at Slashdot has never, ever, ever resembled what you describe.
Congratulations slashdot, you just jumped the shark for me. A front page story about a scam artist with a victim complex and a direct link to a Patreon account so people can give her more money. Time to go find another tech news site.
Out of all the stupid shit that gets posted on Slashdot, you're going to get your knickers in a twister over this? Really? Honestly, that says more about your intellectual dishonesty than you can possibly imagine. Regardless of your (or anyone's) opinion of Ms. Wu, a single story soliciting questions (you know, what they used to call a "dialog") is hardly the worst thing that Slashdot has ever done. If this is the line in the sand for you, then you should probably go back to the sandbox.
If they come from God, well, the religions practiced by virtually all people worldwide have consistently said throughout their history that such a marriage is not a marriage.
If they do not come from God, then they are simply a social construct, freely defined by humans. And the humans in many states said that such a marriage is not a marriage.
The rights don't come from god, since he plainly does not exist. Anyone who says otherwise is a dirty liar.
That said, I see where you're going with this. Or at least, I see where you're attempting to steer it. But it's a false dichotomy, and I'm a bit disappointed that you would attempt such a shallow parlor trick.
We live in a country that has constructed a system (a social construct, if you insist) that says that all people shall be treated equally under the law. Today's decision holds the nation -- the WHOLE nation -- to that principle, regardless of what a minority of conservatives believe or want. Even in those states where a majority of people do not agree with same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court decided today that doing so does not square with the larger principle of everyone being equal under the law. But then, you knew that. You've known that all along, through all your repeated posts about god and religion and other assorted bullshit. Your false dichotomy is a weak attempt at putting a will-of-the-people spin on what is, at its core, a matter of equal protection under the law.
And guess what? The people don't get to vote on that part. They can repeal the 14th amendment if they like (good luck with that) but they can't simply decide to ignore the equal protection clause. The Supremes said so.
And yet the "three great religions" practiced by the vast majority of the people who inhabit your biosphere have for their entire collective history said that this same creator says that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Please explain how that constitutes a legal issue.
I heard a rumor somewhere that slashdot readers are actual human beings, do you deny it?
I must confess that I do sometimes question the humanity of my fellow slashdotters, yes.
Elon is managing to change the climate within the auto industry by a sufficient degree that EVs are going to enter the mainstream in the west. China's pollution problems mean it has no other choice but to adopt EVs.
I see what you did there.
you were likely using nicd's, not nimh
There was actually a period of time where nimh batteries were the de-facto standard for laptops.
There currently is no where near enough manufacturing capacity to build enough solar panels, wind mills, or batteries to supply the world with its electricity needs in the next two decades. Running purely on renewables is not a realistic option. Even if manufacturing was magically ramped up it still wouldn't be possible unless the materials used changes there will not be enough rare earth minerals to support that many solar panels, wind farms, or batteries.
This statement makes your sig line that much funnier. You must make a fortune.
Not actually "all". A lot, yes. But it's very far from "all".
If anything other than a tiny, tiny number of people buy that car, those rebates would vanish rather quickly.
The government could increase the rebates to $20k and then your argument would be that the car is a "steal" for only $10k, but how long would that last?
They're quite popular where I live. I could probably walk out to the parking lot where I work and count 20 or 30 just in the corner of the large corporation where I work. And I happen to know that they are the most popular electric car on campus, with the Tesla Model S coming in second.
There is never real competition in any market because it's a theoretical abstraction that's impossible to achieve in reality. For a free market to function, consumers need to have immediate access to all information necessary to make an informed product choice, the price and availability of all competing products, and the prices of all products must include ALL costs associated with that product. These conditions are never true in reality.
That's pretty much completely false, and it all comes down to your (mis)use of the word "all". Having access to ALL information is great, but it's not a black-or-white situation. Having access to SOME or even ANY information about competing products still gives the consumer a proportional benefit, which in turn increases competition among suppliers.
This is really not hard to figure out, nor rare or exceptional. This kind of competition happens every single day in (almost) every corner of the world. I'm baffled by why you think "ALL" is the gating element to competition.
I am afraid that this ruling will result in many foods that I occasionally eat replacing the trans fats with lard, which isn't on my diet. :(
I can't have my trans fats because all of YOU eat too much of it.
Thanks a lot, jerks.
Just as trans fats are not the panacea that they were made out to be, lard is not actually the villain it has been made out to be. This is just more fallout from Ancel Keys' bullshit "science" that we are now finally correcting.
Both of these companies are committing fraud, somehow getting people to think that high price =quality product
Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this constitutes fraud.
Guess you're SOL then.
Olive oil is fine on bread and salad but if you use anything above a low heat it just smokes.
Nope. http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/w...
You can't (or at least you shouldn't) fry anything in Olive oil. It will smoke and degrade into potentially unhealthy chemicals.
That's pretty much complete bunk. Here: http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/w...
What if I want to consume it despite there not being a consensus that it is safe to consume?
Nice try. In fact, nobody is preventing you from consuming it. The FDA is simply saying that it cannot be contained in foods sold in the US.
Your comment is fractally wrong.
Another dumb slashdotism.
If people were smart enough not to live in a desert
How long do you think people can live without water? I think the number is something like four days, give or take. So, if all those people were so stupid, how did they survive more than four days?
Hint: there was actually water available when they got there.
Not a single living person ever moved somewhere where no water was available. The ones who did are dead now. Towns and cities grow organically, and the infrastructure grows with them. This is not a question of whether people are (or are not) smart enough to live in a desert. People will live where life is sustainable, and even here in California, life thus far has been sustained. The fact that we're in a drought at the moment may test that sustainability, but you can't argue that people are dumb for moving here. Up until now, they've had the facts on their side.
Point two, governments absolutely decide where people can and can not live. That is a truism, and I should not have to support it. Try moving into a local park if you don't believe me.
The fact that there are places where one cannot live does not actually prove your point. It only proves that people can't possess other people's properties. All you need to do to found a town is to buy some land and call it a town. And buying land isn't always necessary. Just look at the founding of Oakland.
Point three, there most certainly are people in charge of kicking you out of all the places you might try to live or start up a community, at least in the developed world.
Generally speaking, that's not the case in the United States.
Point four, cities' growth can absolutely be manipulated intentionally, by means both fair and foul, and this has been done throughout history for a variety of reasons.
Yes. And statistically speaking, most towns seek to increase their size, not reduce it.
You wrote that whole shitty comment, and then wrote this at the bottom of it without a hint of irony, didn't you?
Since all of your counterpoints are in fact bullshit, yes. I did.
There's many orders of magnitude more water in the Pacific Ocean than California can consume
Obligatory analogy: Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and burns cleanly. Despite that, hydrogen is still a terrible fuel source. Why? The effort required to separate hydrogen from whatever it's stuck to makes it not worth the effort.
By the same token, desalinating enough water for California's agricultural needs is on a scale that I don't think you have really thought about. It's a scale so massive that every other civil project pales in comparison. The energy consumption alone would be staggering. Getting the water from the coast to the central valley (where most of the crops are) would be staggering. The physical infrastructure to actually do the desalinization is staggering.
But yes, it's possible. Just like it's possible to convert America from gasoline to hydrogen.
Believe it or not, people managed to survive in colder climates before they could truck in fresh fruit year-round from California. And actually, if they planned well, they could eat rather well with a variety of food. The stuff that didn't store well? Well, that's why they invented fermentation. And canning. And freezing.
For various definitions of "survive", yes. And yeah, I'm aware of the long history of humankind's relationship with food.
Personally, I like that lifestyle.
Good for you! No, I mean that non-sarcastically. Those are great skills to have. But they're not common anymore, and they're not likely to be common again (barring the zombie apocalypse).
How many times do we have to prove that PRIVATE management of natural resources is better than useless wasteful goverment before people believe it?
You haven't actually proven that. Not by a long shot.
Maybe those farms never belonged there in the first place, or they should have not let the population grow to the point that it was unsustainable?
Given that the current drought is unprecedented, how would they have knows that? California has managed thus far to have enough water. The current situation is obviously scary, but nobody is able to predict the future.
They KNEW this was an issue, how did they know? Because They Have To Pipe Water In From Hundreds Of Miles Away And Their Crops Don't Stand A Snowballs Chance In Hell Without Someone Elses Water.
Who is "they"?
Be specific.
How about move the people to where the water is instead?
And how -- exactly -- do you propose we do that? Forcible relocation? Do we just evict all the people from their houses and tell them to go somewhere else, or were you thinking more along the lines of refuge camps? Maybe you could load everyone in boxcars and ship them across country.
California of course already provides a number of incentives for people to not live there
And yet we're still the most populous state in America. Clearly, there must be some actual reason that so many people choose to live here. Whatever disincentives you might have in mind are clearly not working.
but perhaps they could do more and actively subsidize moving people to places more suitable for human habitation.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Move people to where the water is instead. Or at least the farming.
The only thing that's harder to move than water is climate. There's a reason all the produce is grown in California.