Oh look, another vegan with an agenda. Seriously, go fuck yourself. You eat what you want to eat. The moment you start trying to impose your choices on me is the moment that I slam the door in your face.
The solution lies in internalizing the costs of bringing in the water instead of subsidizing it. People are certainly able to move into the area then—with the understanding that they will either have to live in a way that uses less water, or pay through the nose to sustain a lifestyle not suited for that environment.
The money to move the water clearly came from somewhere. I would submit as self-evident that the people of California are, in fact, paying the true cost of that water. The fact that it is not wholly contained in the water bill is somewhat irrelevant.
it's stupid to live somewhere that takes too many resources to make habitable.
For what definition of "too many"? Who decides how many that is? Generally speaking, a population will grow until it hits some boundary that prevents it from growing further. You might argue that we've reached that point, and there might even be merit in that. But you most assuredly cannot argue that the population never should have existed in the first place, because to do so presupposes that you know what the eventual boundary condition will be.
California has supported human habitation for a long, long time. We're in an unprecedented drought right now, the likes of which nobody 100 years ago (or even 50, or 20, or 10) was able to predict. "Too many" is meaningless in that context.
there is little reason to ship all that produce all over the country and world when many many smaller plots would be more ecologically safe.
Except for the small, inconvenient fact that much of the country doesn't have the climate to support growing stuff year-round, leaving vast swaths of the country without produce for much of the year.
Having read a little bit of history, it appears that for most of human's existence on Earth, a ready supply of fresh water is generally very high on the list of variables that drive peoples' decision on where to live.
For various definitions of "supply", yes. I hold it as self-evident that Los Angeles (as a particularly egregious example) had a ready supply of fresh water available, or it would never have grown to the size that it is today. You may not like the means by which that supply was secured or delivered, but there's no question that the city had water.
It doesn't require a government to tell people in parts of California that the game is up for those locations.
Unlikely at best. Prima facie bullshit at worst. Los Angeles isn't going to suddenly disappear back into nothingness. There's far too much at stake to let something as trivial as a water supply get in the way. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
way to overlook the point i have been making, put words in my mouth AND insult me at the same time. Kudos....
If you make stupid statements that have no basis in reality, then you should probably expect for someone to say so. The fact that you've littered this topic with essentially the same three posts over and over again just makes you an easy target.
I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR THEM TO
Ah, so it boils down to just more Libertarian bullshit. Okay, then please tell us how your are paying for me to live in the desert (which ignores the fact that not all of California is actually desert).
If I make a smart decision to live somewhere where the weather is nice and i have plenty of water, I dont want you people in california coming over and taking it from me. If you thought ahead you wouldnt be begging me for water now would you
Oh look, yet another baseless statement. Honestly, you're a fucking idiot. Give it up, already.
maybe the next generation will be smart enough not to live in a desert
This is misguided. No, I'll go farther than that -- it's self-satisfied smugness without any practical basis in reality, making it essentially a pointless comment. Humans have been adapting their environment to suit their needs for longer than recorded history, and will continue to do so well beyond the point that any of us have left this mortal coil.
But more to the point, your statement implicitly includes the idea that someone is in charge of deciding where people can and can not live, or where cities can or can not be built. In the US, at least, there is no such person, no such board, no such decision-making process. Cities grow organically based on where people want to live, and where people want to live is driven by more variables than I could possibly enumerate in this post.
TL;DR: You're not actually smarter than anyone else. You're just a smug prick who thinks he is.
This cannot be done. much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks", such as Akamai, that host much larger proxies closer to the web browser's "final mile". Even modest icon or graphical content on a web page will overwhelm many corporate core web servers without these third-party hosted proxies
I call bullshit. Distributing content via an edge network is trivial these days, as trivial as flipping a switch in AWS.
Android is free because they wanted to help unify the mobile OS space
And by "unify", you mean "fragment to the point of being completely dysfunctional". If this is Google's idea of an improvement, they must be some sadistic fucking bastards.
The very best programmers that I've encountered in my long career were the ones that could make the code sing (figuratively speaking) regardless of the environment. Any language, any OS, any hardware -- none of these things ultimately matter. All those things will be replaced by something better (or maybe worse) at some point in the future. Being able to put aside juvenile biases and petty preferences is a hallmark of the truly great programmer.
The very worst programmers that I've encountered were the ones that bitched and whined endlessly about minute details, or those who let their pure philosophical ideals get in the way of the task at hand. They adopt stupid star-belly-sneetches attitudes for the sake of appearing smart among their peers, slagging that which they do not approve of.
Anyone using PHP is a non-programmer by definition.
I'm a professional software engineer working on OS-level software for a heavyweight in the tech industry. I also use php in a non-work context. And I actually enjoy it
Guess you'll have to peddle your absolutisms elsewhere.
Nobody claimed that they were, though if Apple have exclusives through their service, people still may miss out if they're not using it.
Did you even bother RTFS?
That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy that crops up here over and over again.
Bullshit and utter nonsense. In a capitalist system, anyone can sell anything they want (within the confines of legality) and the market will determine whether that was a reasonable idea or not. PERIOD. Whining about whether such a product or service should be allowed to exist misses the point that it's not up to you whether they should be allowed to exist or not. If you don't like it, buy something else. Better yet, offer a better service, instead of trying to convince us all of the superiority of your smug position on the matter.
I am fucking tired of all the whinging from all the neckbeards around here about which products fit into their philosophical world view. It's a product. It will live and die by whether anyone buys it. Your personal stance on the matter means sweet fuck-all.
I don't think it's going to take much more for armed rebellion to start taking place. Another 2008 "recession", a sharp rise in the price of food, a couple more serious scandals like snowden, or CIA torture.
You need to stop smoking crack so early in the day. Wait until after 8:00pm, at least.
It may be arbitrary, unfair and anti-democratic, but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!
If you could be so kind, could you remind us all at what point businesses in the US were bound by the First Amendment? I can't seem to find it in my history book.
open carry is allowed everywhere. gun laws are unconstitutional and should not be obeyed.
Next time I see some dipshit open-carrying his rifle into Chipotle, I'm going to sneak up on him in the parking lot and tackle him. At best, I'll be a hero. At worst, I'll be wrong. But the guy carrying might learn a valuable lesson: even if open carry is illegal, it's still not socially acceptable. And I'll have plausible deniability either way.
What is that temperature? And, to repeat the GP post, show your work.
Who's bullshitting?
You realize that there's no single temperature, right? Because we're unlikely to have a meaningful conversation if you try to reduce the entire planet to a single temperature.
What is the temperature of the Earth *supposed* to be?
IOW, what is the *ideal* temperature for the planet, and while you're at it, show your work explaining how that particular number was derived.
It seems to me that the AGW folks chose temps circa 1850 or so as the gold standard, at least partly (but to me probably mostly) because that's about when decent measurements and record keeping began. Of course this ignores all temperature variations that preceded that.
I see where you're going with this, but really, it's just so much bullshit. The "proper" temperature of the Earth (if you can call it that) is the one that preserves the massive civilization that has sprung up around the world since 1850 or so. You may see that as a ludicrously arbitrary data point, and it is -- in the abstract. We don't live in an abstract world, however. We live on Earth in a period where civilization has taken root, and we'd rather not see that destroyed. You might not care about such things, preferring the smug safety of your abstract world. But most of the rest of us DO actually care whether the world we live in -- the civilization we have built -- will continue to be viable.
TL;DR: Take your smug abstraction and shove it up your sociopathic ass.
OK so they ban mills. I can make a mill from stepper motors and linear slides. Going to regulate those as well?
Have you ever heard the term "arms race"? Are you capable of applying the concept therein to an abstract concept that doesn't literally involve nuclear weapons?
Yeah.
You ae missing the point. Libertarians (actually the agorist wing) is doing this because this is how your bring down the State.
And I don't especially want the State "brought down". I want changes, I want reforms. I don't especially want revolution, and neither do the vast majority of Americans. It's only the Libertarian Masturbators that prattle on at length about bringing down the state. It's not going to happen. Not in my lifetime.
See, I get that the gun advocates want to prove a point here. I do. But the government is not ever going to say "Oh, you know what, you're right. That's silly. Go ahead and make all the guns you want". I realize that this is the libertarian fantasy, but it's just that: Libertarians masturbating.
Instead, what's going to happen is the government is going to start regulating CNC mills (or something equally absurd) in order to control the problem. Yes, that's a stupid thing to do. What, you don't think the government is capable of doing cutting off its nose to spite its face? I think if anyone should realize that the government is capable of doing stupid shit, it's Libertarians. It's all they ever talk about.
So thanks, guys. As someone who likes gcode and cutting metal, you're now going to ruin it for the rest of us just to prove your fucking point.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some stats on that.
Oh look, another vegan with an agenda. Seriously, go fuck yourself. You eat what you want to eat. The moment you start trying to impose your choices on me is the moment that I slam the door in your face.
Nice sacred cow. There are plenty of other places in the country suitable for growing crops.
Name one that's even on the same scale. Go on. Just one.
SoCal can't just steal water from other users.
History would tend to suggest otherwise.
The solution lies in internalizing the costs of bringing in the water instead of subsidizing it. People are certainly able to move into the area then—with the understanding that they will either have to live in a way that uses less water, or pay through the nose to sustain a lifestyle not suited for that environment.
The money to move the water clearly came from somewhere. I would submit as self-evident that the people of California are, in fact, paying the true cost of that water. The fact that it is not wholly contained in the water bill is somewhat irrelevant.
it's stupid to live somewhere that takes too many resources to make habitable.
For what definition of "too many"? Who decides how many that is? Generally speaking, a population will grow until it hits some boundary that prevents it from growing further. You might argue that we've reached that point, and there might even be merit in that. But you most assuredly cannot argue that the population never should have existed in the first place, because to do so presupposes that you know what the eventual boundary condition will be.
California has supported human habitation for a long, long time. We're in an unprecedented drought right now, the likes of which nobody 100 years ago (or even 50, or 20, or 10) was able to predict. "Too many" is meaningless in that context.
it makes more sense to live where the water is, instead of in a desert. but what do I know
Nothing. That much is clear from all the spam you've posted to this topic.
there is little reason to ship all that produce all over the country and world when many many smaller plots would be more ecologically safe.
Except for the small, inconvenient fact that much of the country doesn't have the climate to support growing stuff year-round, leaving vast swaths of the country without produce for much of the year.
Having read a little bit of history, it appears that for most of human's existence on Earth, a ready supply of fresh water is generally very high on the list of variables that drive peoples' decision on where to live.
For various definitions of "supply", yes. I hold it as self-evident that Los Angeles (as a particularly egregious example) had a ready supply of fresh water available, or it would never have grown to the size that it is today. You may not like the means by which that supply was secured or delivered, but there's no question that the city had water.
It doesn't require a government to tell people in parts of California that the game is up for those locations.
Unlikely at best. Prima facie bullshit at worst. Los Angeles isn't going to suddenly disappear back into nothingness. There's far too much at stake to let something as trivial as a water supply get in the way. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
way to overlook the point i have been making, put words in my mouth AND insult me at the same time. Kudos....
If you make stupid statements that have no basis in reality, then you should probably expect for someone to say so. The fact that you've littered this topic with essentially the same three posts over and over again just makes you an easy target.
I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR THEM TO
Ah, so it boils down to just more Libertarian bullshit. Okay, then please tell us how your are paying for me to live in the desert (which ignores the fact that not all of California is actually desert).
If I make a smart decision to live somewhere where the weather is nice and i have plenty of water, I dont want you people in california coming over and taking it from me. If you thought ahead you wouldnt be begging me for water now would you
Oh look, yet another baseless statement. Honestly, you're a fucking idiot. Give it up, already.
maybe the next generation will be smart enough not to live in a desert
This is misguided. No, I'll go farther than that -- it's self-satisfied smugness without any practical basis in reality, making it essentially a pointless comment. Humans have been adapting their environment to suit their needs for longer than recorded history, and will continue to do so well beyond the point that any of us have left this mortal coil.
But more to the point, your statement implicitly includes the idea that someone is in charge of deciding where people can and can not live, or where cities can or can not be built. In the US, at least, there is no such person, no such board, no such decision-making process. Cities grow organically based on where people want to live, and where people want to live is driven by more variables than I could possibly enumerate in this post.
TL;DR: You're not actually smarter than anyone else. You're just a smug prick who thinks he is.
This cannot be done. much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks", such as Akamai, that host much larger proxies closer to the web browser's "final mile". Even modest icon or graphical content on a web page will overwhelm many corporate core web servers without these third-party hosted proxies
I call bullshit. Distributing content via an edge network is trivial these days, as trivial as flipping a switch in AWS.
Android is free because they wanted to help unify the mobile OS space
And by "unify", you mean "fragment to the point of being completely dysfunctional". If this is Google's idea of an improvement, they must be some sadistic fucking bastards.
You are an untrained monkey pounding on your keyboard until it sort of works, although you don't know why it does.
And you're an anonymous coward with nothing meaningful to say.
No it really is a pile of garbage.
The very best programmers that I've encountered in my long career were the ones that could make the code sing (figuratively speaking) regardless of the environment. Any language, any OS, any hardware -- none of these things ultimately matter. All those things will be replaced by something better (or maybe worse) at some point in the future. Being able to put aside juvenile biases and petty preferences is a hallmark of the truly great programmer.
The very worst programmers that I've encountered were the ones that bitched and whined endlessly about minute details, or those who let their pure philosophical ideals get in the way of the task at hand. They adopt stupid star-belly-sneetches attitudes for the sake of appearing smart among their peers, slagging that which they do not approve of.
Guess which one you are.
Anyone using PHP is a non-programmer by definition.
I'm a professional software engineer working on OS-level software for a heavyweight in the tech industry. I also use php in a non-work context. And I actually enjoy it
Guess you'll have to peddle your absolutisms elsewhere.
Nobody claimed that they were, though if Apple have exclusives through their service, people still may miss out if they're not using it.
Did you even bother RTFS?
That aside, your implication that any criticism of the service is invalid because people aren't being forced to buy it is the same argumentative fallacy that crops up here over and over again.
Bullshit and utter nonsense. In a capitalist system, anyone can sell anything they want (within the confines of legality) and the market will determine whether that was a reasonable idea or not. PERIOD. Whining about whether such a product or service should be allowed to exist misses the point that it's not up to you whether they should be allowed to exist or not. If you don't like it, buy something else. Better yet, offer a better service, instead of trying to convince us all of the superiority of your smug position on the matter.
I am fucking tired of all the whinging from all the neckbeards around here about which products fit into their philosophical world view. It's a product. It will live and die by whether anyone buys it. Your personal stance on the matter means sweet fuck-all.
Nobody is actually forcing you to participate in any new service, are they?
I don't think it's going to take much more for armed rebellion to start taking place. Another 2008 "recession", a sharp rise in the price of food, a couple more serious scandals like snowden, or CIA torture.
You need to stop smoking crack so early in the day. Wait until after 8:00pm, at least.
It may be arbitrary, unfair and anti-democratic, but that what happens when citizens can't be fucking bothered to pay attention and give the goddamn lobbyists free reign to write the laws!
If you could be so kind, could you remind us all at what point businesses in the US were bound by the First Amendment? I can't seem to find it in my history book.
Grrr. Legal, not illegal.
open carry is allowed everywhere. gun laws are unconstitutional and should not be obeyed.
Next time I see some dipshit open-carrying his rifle into Chipotle, I'm going to sneak up on him in the parking lot and tackle him. At best, I'll be a hero. At worst, I'll be wrong. But the guy carrying might learn a valuable lesson: even if open carry is illegal, it's still not socially acceptable. And I'll have plausible deniability either way.
Soooo....
What is that temperature? And, to repeat the GP post, show your work.
Who's bullshitting?
You realize that there's no single temperature, right? Because we're unlikely to have a meaningful conversation if you try to reduce the entire planet to a single temperature.
What is the temperature of the Earth *supposed* to be?
IOW, what is the *ideal* temperature for the planet, and while you're at it, show your work explaining how that particular number was derived.
It seems to me that the AGW folks chose temps circa 1850 or so as the gold standard, at least partly (but to me probably mostly) because that's about when decent measurements and record keeping began. Of course this ignores all temperature variations that preceded that.
I see where you're going with this, but really, it's just so much bullshit. The "proper" temperature of the Earth (if you can call it that) is the one that preserves the massive civilization that has sprung up around the world since 1850 or so. You may see that as a ludicrously arbitrary data point, and it is -- in the abstract. We don't live in an abstract world, however. We live on Earth in a period where civilization has taken root, and we'd rather not see that destroyed. You might not care about such things, preferring the smug safety of your abstract world. But most of the rest of us DO actually care whether the world we live in -- the civilization we have built -- will continue to be viable.
TL;DR: Take your smug abstraction and shove it up your sociopathic ass.
OK so they ban mills. I can make a mill from stepper motors and linear slides. Going to regulate those as well?
Have you ever heard the term "arms race"? Are you capable of applying the concept therein to an abstract concept that doesn't literally involve nuclear weapons?
Yeah.
You ae missing the point. Libertarians (actually the agorist wing) is doing this because this is how your bring down the State.
And I don't especially want the State "brought down". I want changes, I want reforms. I don't especially want revolution, and neither do the vast majority of Americans. It's only the Libertarian Masturbators that prattle on at length about bringing down the state. It's not going to happen. Not in my lifetime.
See, I get that the gun advocates want to prove a point here. I do. But the government is not ever going to say "Oh, you know what, you're right. That's silly. Go ahead and make all the guns you want". I realize that this is the libertarian fantasy, but it's just that: Libertarians masturbating.
Instead, what's going to happen is the government is going to start regulating CNC mills (or something equally absurd) in order to control the problem. Yes, that's a stupid thing to do. What, you don't think the government is capable of doing cutting off its nose to spite its face? I think if anyone should realize that the government is capable of doing stupid shit, it's Libertarians. It's all they ever talk about.
So thanks, guys. As someone who likes gcode and cutting metal, you're now going to ruin it for the rest of us just to prove your fucking point.