Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
But the real point is it's an irrelevant and stupid argument. I mean - even if one were to accept that X number of people googling a term a day after a particular event must carry more weight than all the people who might have googled the same term every day before that event - are you seriously trying to argue Google trends should direct how to run a country ?
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument.
Your argument is that you can't see any possible positive outcome, therefore it was a bad idea.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same?
Yes.
I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
The people's will is not being respected, their call to have their choice confirmed is being ignored. The people are being denied an opportunity to express their will. If it's the will of the people to leave the EU and they haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
The only place this reasoning leads is perpetual elections.
Look at it another way - ~16 million people voted to remain. ~4 million signed this petition. So only about a quarter of those who voted remain could be bothered to "confirm" their choice.
"You'll vote, and you'll keep voting until you get the right answer" isn't democratic.
Or just sending someone out in the middle of the night to burn their factories (or whatever) down.
That's what a real "unregulated" market looks like.
But we all know what people _really_ mean when they write "unregulated" is "regulated the way I agree with". Just like a "statist" is someone who thinks there should be one more law than they do.
A dominant market position facilitating the destruction (or outright prevention) of new entrants requires no "government protection", neither does sole control of a unique and necessary resource.
If you control the only source of fresh water on a desert island, you have a monopoly.
While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"
Libertarianism writ large. Nobody should be surprised.
Remember, it's equality cuz everyone is subject to the same laws !
Why wouldn't everyone exchange them for real goods and/or services ?
Because they can walk up to a replicator or a robot and get either whenever they want. Without money.
Money is a legal construct. It only has value and utility because of the law. Take away that legal construct - the hypothetical Federation that doesn't use money - and...?
Money is a legal construct. If the law says there's no such thing as money (per the supposed Federation not having money), then there's no such thing as money.
What people might barter between themselves is a different issue. But that's generally not something you see in a functional society and, of course, it carries no legal weight.
A reference of some nature to your unique input into society much like your bank account does today [...]
No, my bank account is a record of my money transactions.
Many scifi stories use "credits" in the abstract this way.
Who creates these "credits" ? Who accounts for them ? Who uses them ? Why do they have value ? Why would anyone exchange them for real goods and/or services ?
An alien civilisation with a mere few hundred years head start on humanity would probably have technology that was nearly magical to us if we were to meet them today.
Stretch that out to a few tens of thousands of years - still utterly irrelevant on a timescale measured in billions of years - and you've easily got the kind of civilisation the OP was talking about. Undetectable by us and completely uninterested in us.
From memory, even with the technology we have today we could colonise the entire galaxy in a million years. Not that I think any civilisation could remain stable for that long, but consider it in the context of the mere hundreds or thousands of years "head start" required as discussed earlier.
To get a technological head start and a head start out in space an alien species would been part of an evolutionary process that skipped whatever their equivalent of dinosaurs would have been and gone directly to intelligent life capable of technology.
Say what ?
We're probably talking about a timeframe measured in tens of thousands of years at most. On planetary timescales even a eye blink analogy is woefully inadequate.
That said, I'm personally of the belief that most intelligent/technologically advanced societies destroy themselves, either completely or to the point where escaping the gravity well (or even mid-20th century tech level) is unattainable. Like we probably will in the next 50-100 years.
Most of fossil fuels represent energy of sun converted to carbohydrates or coal. Of course burning all of it would heat up mother Earth. But burning it slowly, won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
*sigh*
Here's another explanation.
But the real point is it's an irrelevant and stupid argument. I mean - even if one were to accept that X number of people googling a term a day after a particular event must carry more weight than all the people who might have googled the same term every day before that event - are you seriously trying to argue Google trends should direct how to run a country ?
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument.
Your argument is that you can't see any possible positive outcome, therefore it was a bad idea.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
no it wasn't.
When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
These are religious statements.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same?
Yes.
I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
At its core, Brexit is about clamping down on the free flow of people and capital.
At its core, the EU is about unhindered flow of people and capital.
The things the people don't like about Eu are the things that lie at the core of the EU project.
They're not getting "reformed". Literally, doing so would defeat the purpose and objective of the EU.
Direct democracy and especially referendums are fraught with problems.
Switzerland does OK.
The people's will is not being respected, their call to have their choice confirmed is being ignored. The people are being denied an opportunity to express their will. If it's the will of the people to leave the EU and they haven't changed their minds, they'll vote the same way again.
The only place this reasoning leads is perpetual elections.
Look at it another way - ~16 million people voted to remain. ~4 million signed this petition. So only about a quarter of those who voted remain could be bothered to "confirm" their choice.
"You'll vote, and you'll keep voting until you get the right answer" isn't democratic.
Cloud providers have vastly more redundancy requiring much more raw space.
I'd be interested to see any real numbers if anyone has them, but my guess is it's a wash.
You're talking about a scenario without property rights, Government, and laws. What relevance has "consensus" ?
No, it's control over the resource that makes a monopoly possible.
All you need to maintain that is bigger sticks than anyone who would try to take it from you.
Whether you wield the sticks or someone else wields them on your behalf is semantics.
This same logic makes authoritarian dictatorships A-OK, so long as the majority of people are unaffected by their harmful actions.
Or just sending someone out in the middle of the night to burn their factories (or whatever) down.
That's what a real "unregulated" market looks like.
But we all know what people _really_ mean when they write "unregulated" is "regulated the way I agree with". Just like a "statist" is someone who thinks there should be one more law than they do.
Rubbish.
A dominant market position facilitating the destruction (or outright prevention) of new entrants requires no "government protection", neither does sole control of a unique and necessary resource.
If you control the only source of fresh water on a desert island, you have a monopoly.
Drug test their children.
Who is *really* the victim of this?
Everyone.
While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"
Libertarianism writ large. Nobody should be surprised.
Remember, it's equality cuz everyone is subject to the same laws !
Why wouldn't everyone exchange them for real goods and/or services ?
Because they can walk up to a replicator or a robot and get either whenever they want. Without money.
Money is a legal construct. It only has value and utility because of the law. Take away that legal construct - the hypothetical Federation that doesn't use money - and...?
Money is a legal construct. If the law says there's no such thing as money (per the supposed Federation not having money), then there's no such thing as money.
What people might barter between themselves is a different issue. But that's generally not something you see in a functional society and, of course, it carries no legal weight.
A reference of some nature to your unique input into society much like your bank account does today [...]
No, my bank account is a record of my money transactions.
Many scifi stories use "credits" in the abstract this way.
Who creates these "credits" ? Who accounts for them ? Who uses them ? Why do they have value ? Why would anyone exchange them for real goods and/or services ?
Where does the money in your examples come from ?
The '90s called, they want their FUD back.
What do you think someone from a thousand years ago would think of a smartphone ?
I think you're missing the point.
An alien civilisation with a mere few hundred years head start on humanity would probably have technology that was nearly magical to us if we were to meet them today.
Stretch that out to a few tens of thousands of years - still utterly irrelevant on a timescale measured in billions of years - and you've easily got the kind of civilisation the OP was talking about. Undetectable by us and completely uninterested in us.
From memory, even with the technology we have today we could colonise the entire galaxy in a million years. Not that I think any civilisation could remain stable for that long, but consider it in the context of the mere hundreds or thousands of years "head start" required as discussed earlier.
To get a technological head start and a head start out in space an alien species would been part of an evolutionary process that skipped whatever their equivalent of dinosaurs would have been and gone directly to intelligent life capable of technology.
Say what ?
We're probably talking about a timeframe measured in tens of thousands of years at most. On planetary timescales even a eye blink analogy is woefully inadequate.
That said, I'm personally of the belief that most intelligent/technologically advanced societies destroy themselves, either completely or to the point where escaping the gravity well (or even mid-20th century tech level) is unattainable. Like we probably will in the next 50-100 years.
Most of fossil fuels represent energy of sun converted to carbohydrates or coal. Of course burning all of it would heat up mother Earth. But burning it slowly, won't.
Define "slowly". Show your working.