For tech start-ups, funding will be tougher to find and more expensive, there will be no local banks, access to EU markets and the freedom of movement will be curtailed
Yes, because of course no bank would ever want to be in a new country with an educated workforce, low unemployment, and lots of natural resources! Small places like Luxembourg and Switzerland are absolutely barren, devoid of banks, money, or access to markets! The poor people of Liechtenstein and Monaco are starving and barely literate! Don't turn Scotland into a dump like Norway!
What you prefer - endless exponential economic growth combined with a liveable planet - is not on offer by the universe we inhabit.
Bullshit, I said no such thing. That's both a straw man and a false dichotomy.
Fossil fuel use is self-limiting: there is only so much of it we can burn, and even if we burned all of it, we'd still be on a livable planet (where do you think fossil fuel came from?). Furthermore, fossil fuel use is going to be limited far more effectively through economic development and free markets; if governments don't intervene, we'll likely stop using fossil fuels much sooner and deal with climate change much better than if governments do intervene in the way climate change activists advocate.
Your error isn't with what you desire for the long term future of the planet, it's with the harmful policies you advocate: ineffective and corrupt policies justified as solutions to the wrong problems.
Personally, I'd prefer a liveable planet to any amount of money.
Well, fortunately, there is no evidence that climate change will make the planet overall less livable. At worst, climate change will impose some temporary costs on some vested interests.
On the other hand, it is clear that the kind of programs people propose to combat climate change are not only ineffective but economically destructuve.
I prefer a livable planet and a free society and a high standard of living to a livable planet in which people live in non-free societies and in poverty.
It's easy to throw together a new language and compiler. The question is whether it has the credibility and features to build a large user community. I see nothing in Rust that makes me believe that it does. Whether Swift is a better or worse programming language doesn't matter as much as that its adoptions by Apple pretty much guarantees that there will be programmers, books, tools, and libraries.
Sea ice cover (and that means surface area, not volume) matters a great deal "in the context of models", because it changes reflectivity.
(Of course, while various descriptive parts of climatology are scientific, climate models are little more than the reading of goat entrails and based on numerous guesses and assumptions. They also haven't been very good at actually predicting the future.)
I'm not just referring to the (particularly common as Slashdot) climate change deniers who dismiss all sorts of careful analysis of data and theory for some unspecified null hypothesis
No, what we deny is not the scientific conclusions, but the applications of it. "We must limit carbon emissions" does not follow, scientifically or otherwise, from "it is getting warmer due to carbon emissions".
Correct: the Earth doesn't care. It just keeps getting warmer. What matters is what we do, and when politicians like Gore lie, it hurts us all.
If we were smart, we'd focus our thinking on just the physics.
Physics has little to do with it. The primary science concerned with deciding what to do about global warming is economics, and it's pretty clear: we should do nothing.
Citing the errors of celebrities, powerful politicians, authors, lobbyists, or influential policy advocates as evidence of the failings of science is... also jibberish.
Which I didn't do. I simply explained why it matters when Al Gore misrepresents science.
Ignoring science is being ignorant. Pretty much by definition.
"Ignorant" means lacking in knowledge, not deliberately ignoring something.
Are you supporting this conspiracy theory of a "global warming hoax?"
Not at all. I think global warming is real. I just think that the rational course of action is to ignore it.
Citing the errors of celebrities as evidence of the failings of science is... jibberish.
Al Gore isn't just a "celebrity", he is also a powerful politician, author, lobbyists, and influential policy advocate. If he makes wrong statements about the policies he advocates, yes, it matters.
When you have to word your defense this carefully, even you should question the validity of it.
That's the right metric to compare. What's your problem with it?
I suppose we hardly have a gun problem in the US to argue about either. I mean after all, murders per bullet fired is at an all time low...
The correct metric is "murder rate". It has been declining. We don't have a "gun problem"; we do have a problem with high murder rates, but that has other causes.
Those are the facts. Sorry they don't fit your prejudices. Anything else?
Call it what you will, they were mainstream, highly regarded intellectuals in the US (they were also mostly progressives): Ely, Seager, Wilson, Keynes, Walker, and many others. They could produce tons of scientific evidence for their theories, and their ideas and proposals were the basis for segregation, forced sterilization, anti-miscegenation, anti-immigration, and other racist policies in the US. Scientific racism in the US provided strong support for Nazis and their policies (Hitler considered Madison Grant's book his "bible").
Oh, TFA is wrong in many ways. I was just objecting to the use of the term "modernism", which refers to a cultural and artistic period, not a single philosophy or ideology.
Crony capitalism and lobbying are an inherent feature of licensing schemes (as is a failure to be effective at what they were originally justified by). All licensing scheme have them, and economists understand pretty well why they have them. Proposing licensing schemes on the premise that you can make them free of crony capitalism and lobbying is like trying to legislate pi to be 3.
(Even if crony capitalism and lobbying were not inherent features of licensing schemes, denying some people licenses and increasing the cost of operating a business are also inherent features of even an ideal licensing scheme, both of which limit the number of providers.)
There's a reason people are this desperate for an answer, so don't sit here and trivialize it, or waive it off as if anything in use today is actually working.
In what way isn't it "working"? Deaths per vehicle mile are at an all time low.
People's "desperation" is trivial and drummed up by politicians and people with an agenda. But the consequences of this b.s. are anything but trivial: police stops, police brutality, privacy intrusions, and other loss of liberties.
It's basically just "negligent homicide". Some states make a distinction because it's easier to convict. Unless you specifically intend to kill someone, it is not "murder", and the existence of "vehicular homicide" statutes doesn't preclude a charge of murder.
(In different words, your entire response was complete nonsense.)
I think the solution is just to have good Android and iPhone apps doing this. People have tried, but they haven't gotten the dialog quite right yet. I expect in a couple of years, they will.
His "solution" is utter bullshit, trying to capitalize on "think of the children", helicopter parenting, and potential legislation.
It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).
Furthermore, the right company to partner with are insurance companies, but they already have a better mechanism for monitoring in place: they don't care whether you text per se, they care whether you drive erratically for any reason. For lower insurance rates, you can agree to monitoring. Nice voluntary solution and incentive.
Finally, if there is a technical solution to be developed, it's a good voice-based, hands-free texting app that lets you text with a Bluetooth headset. Phone calls and voice interfaces are legal in most places, and will likely remain so. That's also something many people would use voluntarily because it is both safer and convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because of course no bank would ever want to be in a new country with an educated workforce, low unemployment, and lots of natural resources! Small places like Luxembourg and Switzerland are absolutely barren, devoid of banks, money, or access to markets! The poor people of Liechtenstein and Monaco are starving and barely literate! Don't turn Scotland into a dump like Norway!
(That was sarcasm, for the sarcasm-impaired.)
Bullshit, I said no such thing. That's both a straw man and a false dichotomy.
Fossil fuel use is self-limiting: there is only so much of it we can burn, and even if we burned all of it, we'd still be on a livable planet (where do you think fossil fuel came from?). Furthermore, fossil fuel use is going to be limited far more effectively through economic development and free markets; if governments don't intervene, we'll likely stop using fossil fuels much sooner and deal with climate change much better than if governments do intervene in the way climate change activists advocate.
Your error isn't with what you desire for the long term future of the planet, it's with the harmful policies you advocate: ineffective and corrupt policies justified as solutions to the wrong problems.
Humanity has never lived sustainably. Sustainability is neither a desirable nor an achievable goal.
Well, fortunately, there is no evidence that climate change will make the planet overall less livable. At worst, climate change will impose some temporary costs on some vested interests.
On the other hand, it is clear that the kind of programs people propose to combat climate change are not only ineffective but economically destructuve.
I prefer a livable planet and a free society and a high standard of living to a livable planet in which people live in non-free societies and in poverty.
Yes, please do!
It's easy to throw together a new language and compiler. The question is whether it has the credibility and features to build a large user community. I see nothing in Rust that makes me believe that it does. Whether Swift is a better or worse programming language doesn't matter as much as that its adoptions by Apple pretty much guarantees that there will be programmers, books, tools, and libraries.
Sea ice cover (and that means surface area, not volume) matters a great deal "in the context of models", because it changes reflectivity.
(Of course, while various descriptive parts of climatology are scientific, climate models are little more than the reading of goat entrails and based on numerous guesses and assumptions. They also haven't been very good at actually predicting the future.)
Properly pronounced political propaganda always leaves wiggle room.
Everybody should have "an ax to grind" with progressives, given how destructive their policies have been.
No, what we deny is not the scientific conclusions, but the applications of it. "We must limit carbon emissions" does not follow, scientifically or otherwise, from "it is getting warmer due to carbon emissions".
Correct: the Earth doesn't care. It just keeps getting warmer. What matters is what we do, and when politicians like Gore lie, it hurts us all.
Physics has little to do with it. The primary science concerned with deciding what to do about global warming is economics, and it's pretty clear: we should do nothing.
Which I didn't do. I simply explained why it matters when Al Gore misrepresents science.
"Ignorant" means lacking in knowledge, not deliberately ignoring something.
Not at all. I think global warming is real. I just think that the rational course of action is to ignore it.
"Important" for what?
Pretty much anything you do to damage the economy is "effective in reducing CO2 emissions".
Al Gore isn't just a "celebrity", he is also a powerful politician, author, lobbyists, and influential policy advocate. If he makes wrong statements about the policies he advocates, yes, it matters.
That's the right metric to compare. What's your problem with it?
The correct metric is "murder rate". It has been declining. We don't have a "gun problem"; we do have a problem with high murder rates, but that has other causes.
Those are the facts. Sorry they don't fit your prejudices. Anything else?
Call it what you will, they were mainstream, highly regarded intellectuals in the US (they were also mostly progressives): Ely, Seager, Wilson, Keynes, Walker, and many others. They could produce tons of scientific evidence for their theories, and their ideas and proposals were the basis for segregation, forced sterilization, anti-miscegenation, anti-immigration, and other racist policies in the US. Scientific racism in the US provided strong support for Nazis and their policies (Hitler considered Madison Grant's book his "bible").
Oh, TFA is wrong in many ways. I was just objecting to the use of the term "modernism", which refers to a cultural and artistic period, not a single philosophy or ideology.
Crony capitalism and lobbying are an inherent feature of licensing schemes (as is a failure to be effective at what they were originally justified by). All licensing scheme have them, and economists understand pretty well why they have them. Proposing licensing schemes on the premise that you can make them free of crony capitalism and lobbying is like trying to legislate pi to be 3.
(Even if crony capitalism and lobbying were not inherent features of licensing schemes, denying some people licenses and increasing the cost of operating a business are also inherent features of even an ideal licensing scheme, both of which limit the number of providers.)
Well, yes, effectively they are. Did you have a point you wanted to make?
In what way isn't it "working"? Deaths per vehicle mile are at an all time low.
People's "desperation" is trivial and drummed up by politicians and people with an agenda. But the consequences of this b.s. are anything but trivial: police stops, police brutality, privacy intrusions, and other loss of liberties.
There are several apps for that.
It's basically just "negligent homicide". Some states make a distinction because it's easier to convict. Unless you specifically intend to kill someone, it is not "murder", and the existence of "vehicular homicide" statutes doesn't preclude a charge of murder.
(In different words, your entire response was complete nonsense.)
Great! I suggest warning lights for food, babies, and makeup in cars as well, because those are serious and dangerous distractions as well.
Because, as we all know, if we pass laws and impose stricter requirements, it fixes everything! It worked so well for the war on drugs!
But I suppose once we're all in prison, we can't drive-and-text anymore. Good suggestion!
I think the solution is just to have good Android and iPhone apps doing this. People have tried, but they haven't gotten the dialog quite right yet. I expect in a couple of years, they will.
His "solution" is utter bullshit, trying to capitalize on "think of the children", helicopter parenting, and potential legislation.
It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).
Furthermore, the right company to partner with are insurance companies, but they already have a better mechanism for monitoring in place: they don't care whether you text per se, they care whether you drive erratically for any reason. For lower insurance rates, you can agree to monitoring. Nice voluntary solution and incentive.
Finally, if there is a technical solution to be developed, it's a good voice-based, hands-free texting app that lets you text with a Bluetooth headset. Phone calls and voice interfaces are legal in most places, and will likely remain so. That's also something many people would use voluntarily because it is both safer and convenient.