The movie's message is that specific-skin-color people never need to share. It's a parallel to the rain forest, where a very few "special" people are -- according to shallow, thoughtless liberals -- supposed to be granted a perpetual and infinite right to an extremely vast resource, regardless of the needs of anyone else, with absolutely no compromises.
Avatar had an interesting message. We're all supposed to share resources, but if you have the right skin color, then you don't have to share. Even if a billion people will be impoverished and die without the resource, you don't even have to talk about sharing it with people who aren't like you -- if you have the magic skin color.
Please link to something describing this simple conversion and these readily available products. I've never heard of them. I don't want to say they don't exist though. Please inform.
Other people find reasons. They want a faster CPU, new OS features, a better camera, more storage, access to new LTE channels, a better screen, longer battery life, maybe even a new color. These are reasons to upgrade. You don't have to if you don't want to. Other people do want to. Ok?
Posts on this topic are very strange.
Do you (and the rest of the "no upgrades, yuck!" crowd) experience physical pain when other people get a new phone because they want new features? No? So... what's the problem?
As it becomes more expensive to produce, the price goes up. As it becomes more expensive to buy, demand goes down. It's always available at a higher or lower market equilibrium price.
This idea that "all the easy oil has been used" doesn't account for the fact that technical challenges get easier as technology progresses.
Also, no one is predicting economic slowdowns reversing. They may stabilize and increase marginally, but what would lead to strong economic growth again? Good government? Population growth? Rising productivity? Trade liberalization? What?
More obviously, trucks that deliver food to grocery stores are not electric and can't be converted to electric in 10 years. Airlines have no alternative fuel prospects at this time (except biological fuels which pollute more than fossil fuels). Ships run on fossil fuels and a ship can operate for a lot longer than 20 years.
Ending fossil fuel use in 10 years or 20 years is not reality.
So licensing drivers is a 4th Amendment workaround then? Time to re-examine licensing drivers. Why should adults need to bargain away their civil rights to get government permission to drive their own car on public roads...?
Why shouldn't you expect it? Because person A is worthy of respect and sensitivity and person B isn't? Is person B subhuman and not worthy of respect and sensitivity? Are fat conservative white males subhuman? Because... wrong gender, wrong skin color?
That stuff is to justify doing things that everyone acknowledges are evil. They want to lie, and bully people, and hurt people, and take money from people. How do you get away with that? Claim there's "a war on [whomever] and you're fighting for [whomever] against HitlerSatan". Problem solved; now anything goes!
Positive feedback would make things worse, but we're set to blow right by the 2k mark that climate scientists think critical without it.
All climate models that predict alarming levels of warming rely on elevated positive feedback. By itself, CO2 greenhouse effect produces a logarithmic response in heat absorption and we are already near the flattish part of the curve. But the relative long term stability of the climate suggests that positive feedback is small -- if it weren't, the climate would be unstable: extremely hot, quickly followed by extremely cold.
We're seeing unrest from lack of food already.
No we aren't. Just this week there were articles about more obese people on earth than underweight people. Food is less of a problem today than ever before.
if you start having to believe that an entire field of science is part of a corrupt conspiracy to falsify data and theories to advance a uniform political end, you really need to rethink where you're coming from.
It's not. It's based on models that don't predict reality, self-reinforcing errors, a power structure that incentivizes a single conclusion and silences and ostracizes dissent, hype that isn't science, and bad data. All this is applied to a very complex system with huge uncertainties. What result would you expect from something like that?
No one ever polled scientists to ask them the exact temperature rise by 2100. If you did, you'd get a wide range of guesses. They wouldn't produce a single answer. What's the "denial" number? +0.85 degrees C ? You'd get some deniers. +1.15 degrees C? You'd get more.
Clearly, if you don't understand evidence that AGW is happening, you are unqualified to judge evidence on the "missed opportunity". If we put less CO2 in the air today, we get less warming down the line, and even delaying the bigger problems is better than not delaying them.
It's probably happening. It's slow and not very warm. Good thing too, because the extra time we have to develop technologically will make the transition to alternative energy a lot easier on people. I hope we don't screw it up and hurt people by listening to alarmists.
Some environmentalists are irrational fanatics that don't like people. They tend to get more press than they should, but trying to typify the movement based on them is like concluding that Christianity is much like the Westboro Baptist Church. Most want to keep the environment in good shape so future generations of humans can enjoy it.
You hear stuff like this, but what will future generations be allowed to do in the environment? Travel? Why are they allowed to travel when we can't travel because of carbon footprint concerns? Eat well? Why are they allowed to eat well when we're all supposed to go vegan because of carbon footprint concerns? If we have to restrict our choices and be artificially relatively poor, why won't they?
... people who say there is no global warming really should be prepared to explain why the increased CO2 isn't causing warming.
What about those who say it's causing warming, but there's not much positive feedback so it's only a little warming -- not a crisis?
We're certainly having problems with ocean acidification, also a result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been having our temperature records broken on the upside fairly frequently of late. Arctic summer ice is a lot lower than it used to be, and is having records on the low side set fairly frequently. We're not seeing a lack of warming that would need some sort of explanation, although the rate of warming isn't necessarily as we predicted.
Those are observations. Doesn't seem like a crisis though. Was it bad for people in some way?
Also it's easy to have record high temperatures every year without warming -- just revise historic temperatures lower every year.
If we wait until people like you are convinced, we'll have missed some very good opportunities to alleviate the harm, by reducing the rate of CO2 increase or adapting in other ways.
There's not really strong evidence for this "missed opportunity" hypothesis. It's just something people say.
On the other hand, if we don't wait, we may harm people with solutions that don't address an actual need. Someone who cares about people wouldn't want them to be harmed for no reason. Do environmentalists care about people? It doesn't seem like they do.
Slashdot Mirror
It says the warranty doesn't cover damage from running over adults. Or from hitting a moose. I think it was written by Canadians.
My matches say it's cool.
The movie's message is that specific-skin-color people never need to share. It's a parallel to the rain forest, where a very few "special" people are -- according to shallow, thoughtless liberals -- supposed to be granted a perpetual and infinite right to an extremely vast resource, regardless of the needs of anyone else, with absolutely no compromises.
Avatar had an interesting message. We're all supposed to share resources, but if you have the right skin color, then you don't have to share. Even if a billion people will be impoverished and die without the resource, you don't even have to talk about sharing it with people who aren't like you -- if you have the magic skin color.
I've got an original untouched iPhone 4S (4.2.1,) and I have one with iOS8 and one with iOS9.
I don't think you do.
Printing money and giving it to people doesn't grow an economy.
Get a VR headset grandpa!
... people will vote to get rid of the politicians who hate them enough to tax them that much.
Citation? Evidence? "Rest assured" is not information.
Please link to something describing this simple conversion and these readily available products. I've never heard of them. I don't want to say they don't exist though. Please inform.
Other people find reasons. They want a faster CPU, new OS features, a better camera, more storage, access to new LTE channels, a better screen, longer battery life, maybe even a new color. These are reasons to upgrade. You don't have to if you don't want to. Other people do want to. Ok?
Posts on this topic are very strange.
Do you (and the rest of the "no upgrades, yuck!" crowd) experience physical pain when other people get a new phone because they want new features? No? So ... what's the problem?
Energy density calculations that almost work out aren't a commercial aircraft engine.
Yeah, 25 years from now maybe there will be a lot of electric trucks on the road in some places.
As it becomes more expensive to produce, the price goes up. As it becomes more expensive to buy, demand goes down. It's always available at a higher or lower market equilibrium price.
This idea that "all the easy oil has been used" doesn't account for the fact that technical challenges get easier as technology progresses.
Also, no one is predicting economic slowdowns reversing. They may stabilize and increase marginally, but what would lead to strong economic growth again? Good government? Population growth? Rising productivity? Trade liberalization? What?
And there are no alternative fuels for airlines. No one even has a serious proposal for any.
More obviously, trucks that deliver food to grocery stores are not electric and can't be converted to electric in 10 years. Airlines have no alternative fuel prospects at this time (except biological fuels which pollute more than fossil fuels). Ships run on fossil fuels and a ship can operate for a lot longer than 20 years.
Ending fossil fuel use in 10 years or 20 years is not reality.
So licensing drivers is a 4th Amendment workaround then? Time to re-examine licensing drivers. Why should adults need to bargain away their civil rights to get government permission to drive their own car on public roads ...?
One wrong doesn't excuse another.
Do people have a right to not "get the message"? Or should the thought police come and arrest them? Just curious how far this goes.
Why shouldn't you expect it? Because person A is worthy of respect and sensitivity and person B isn't? Is person B subhuman and not worthy of respect and sensitivity? Are fat conservative white males subhuman? Because ... wrong gender, wrong skin color?
Ideal capitalism maybe, but not in the real world.
No, that's what capitalism is. If someone is doing something else, it's not capitalism.
Ask when you can expect someone to be sensitive to you and your culture and your situation.
That stuff is to justify doing things that everyone acknowledges are evil. They want to lie, and bully people, and hurt people, and take money from people. How do you get away with that? Claim there's "a war on [whomever] and you're fighting for [whomever] against HitlerSatan". Problem solved; now anything goes!
Positive feedback would make things worse, but we're set to blow right by the 2k mark that climate scientists think critical without it.
All climate models that predict alarming levels of warming rely on elevated positive feedback. By itself, CO2 greenhouse effect produces a logarithmic response in heat absorption and we are already near the flattish part of the curve. But the relative long term stability of the climate suggests that positive feedback is small -- if it weren't, the climate would be unstable: extremely hot, quickly followed by extremely cold.
We're seeing unrest from lack of food already.
No we aren't. Just this week there were articles about more obese people on earth than underweight people. Food is less of a problem today than ever before.
if you start having to believe that an entire field of science is part of a corrupt conspiracy to falsify data and theories to advance a uniform political end, you really need to rethink where you're coming from.
It's not. It's based on models that don't predict reality, self-reinforcing errors, a power structure that incentivizes a single conclusion and silences and ostracizes dissent, hype that isn't science, and bad data. All this is applied to a very complex system with huge uncertainties. What result would you expect from something like that?
No one ever polled scientists to ask them the exact temperature rise by 2100. If you did, you'd get a wide range of guesses. They wouldn't produce a single answer. What's the "denial" number? +0.85 degrees C ? You'd get some deniers. +1.15 degrees C? You'd get more.
Clearly, if you don't understand evidence that AGW is happening, you are unqualified to judge evidence on the "missed opportunity". If we put less CO2 in the air today, we get less warming down the line, and even delaying the bigger problems is better than not delaying them.
It's probably happening. It's slow and not very warm. Good thing too, because the extra time we have to develop technologically will make the transition to alternative energy a lot easier on people. I hope we don't screw it up and hurt people by listening to alarmists.
Some environmentalists are irrational fanatics that don't like people. They tend to get more press than they should, but trying to typify the movement based on them is like concluding that Christianity is much like the Westboro Baptist Church. Most want to keep the environment in good shape so future generations of humans can enjoy it.
You hear stuff like this, but what will future generations be allowed to do in the environment? Travel? Why are they allowed to travel when we can't travel because of carbon footprint concerns? Eat well? Why are they allowed to eat well when we're all supposed to go vegan because of carbon footprint concerns? If we have to restrict our choices and be artificially relatively poor, why won't they?
... people who say there is no global warming really should be prepared to explain why the increased CO2 isn't causing warming.
What about those who say it's causing warming, but there's not much positive feedback so it's only a little warming -- not a crisis?
We're certainly having problems with ocean acidification, also a result of more CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been having our temperature records broken on the upside fairly frequently of late. Arctic summer ice is a lot lower than it used to be, and is having records on the low side set fairly frequently. We're not seeing a lack of warming that would need some sort of explanation, although the rate of warming isn't necessarily as we predicted.
Those are observations. Doesn't seem like a crisis though. Was it bad for people in some way?
Also it's easy to have record high temperatures every year without warming -- just revise historic temperatures lower every year.
If we wait until people like you are convinced, we'll have missed some very good opportunities to alleviate the harm, by reducing the rate of CO2 increase or adapting in other ways.
There's not really strong evidence for this "missed opportunity" hypothesis. It's just something people say.
On the other hand, if we don't wait, we may harm people with solutions that don't address an actual need. Someone who cares about people wouldn't want them to be harmed for no reason. Do environmentalists care about people? It doesn't seem like they do.