Do you know of a cost/benefit analysis for limiting emissions vs. doing nothing different at all? I've never heard of a credible one, but there's always plenty of apocalyptic talk. Shouldn't there be such an analysis before emissions limits are imposed? If not, why not?
Let's all pretend we have anthropogenic climate change and can fix it by geoengineering. How much geoengineering? When do you stop?
Since the data on climate change need to be considered over several decades to determine the extent of the change, what's the indicator that you're done geoengineering and should stop before you overshoot and cause an ice age?
Do you do one project and wait 100 years to see if it gets cooler? 50 years?
Wouldn't 50 or 100 years be better spent finding a way to cope with a slightly warmer climate? People find ways to deal with adversity all the time (or at least we used to before society decided that life was supposed to be problem-free). We can't find some way to flourish in 2 or 4 degree warmer temperatures given 50 or 100 years to work on it?
You seem to be talking in terms of money or material wealth, while I'm thinking in terms of our overall quality of life. I'd rather have a little less money and be healthier...
Poverty correlates negatively with health. Poorer people tend to be less healthy.
Who was angry? I had questions. None of my questions were answered. Do you always accuse people who ask questions of being angry?
You made no substantial connection from libraries to innovation or any kind of technical knowledge or education that might lead to innovation. That was what the questions were for. If you could substantiate some connection, then you might have a point. But mental free-association of one thing to another in some sort of six-degrees-of-separation game is not a rational basis for public policy.
Public libraries are a less and less important source of information as time goes forward. And the information they do provide tends to be historical and biographical. It's not the scientific or technical information that leads to innovation.
Also, you did not substantiate the connection between generic education and innovation. Does an Art History education lead to innovation that fuels economic growth? How about Literature or Law?
Why does someone need to address your assertions when you can't back them up with a factual or logical argument?
Do you have any data that suggests that education levels are related to libraries at all? Do you have any data that suggests libraries lead to innovation? Since when do libraries have mostly technical books and science books? They have fiction and history, but neither of those is a primary ingredient in innovation.
What are schools supposed to be for? Why do we need duplication of educational efforts? Also, how many libraries? If we had 10 times as many libraries, would we have 10 times as much innovation?
Libraries are not education. They are not innovation. They don't teach math. They don't teach science. They are mostly entertainment. And everyone knows it.
And in most cases they are not hired by US Citizens. They are hired by greedy US Corporations.
With no human involvement at all. That's what you're saying, right?
And the solution for that is to make these companies HURT when their caught. MASSIVE fines and Jail time.
If there are no US citizens involved, who is going to jail? The point is that corporations are just groups of people.
I don't agree with sending these people to jail. They should be subject to large fines and the fines should be put into a fund to reimburse hospitals for the unpaid medical bills of illegals.
There's a huge crisis and you think it's really important to keep government libraries? As one of the least essential services, libraries should be one of the first things cut. They are a luxury in a time when it's harder and harder to afford the necessities.
Your overall point is a good one. But you don't seem to have thought through the part about the libraries. They're not essential just because you like them. And if everyone likes them, they should have no trouble raising all their funds from voluntary donations instead of taxes.
I think the solution is basic education in the scientific method and statistics for everyone, beginning in elementary school.
This is wrong. People don't care. Teaching about the scientific method and statistics won't make them care. It's too many steps removed from the vaccine issue for the average attention-span anyway.
We have a cultural problem. It's not about the scientific method. People believe in conspiracy theories. People believe in shadowy corporations who are secretly out to get them. People believe in secret cover-ups. People believe everyone's got a hidden agenda or a conflict of interest. But, most importantly, people believe they're the exception. They have it figured out. They're wise. They're not going to be fooled like everyone else.
It's a self-esteem problem -- too much self-esteem. It's a lack of respect for others. It's laziness. It's irresponsibility. It's self-focus and emotional self-investment. It's not being completely grown-up.
The scientific method won't help because it's only useful if the answer it leads to fulfills some emotional need you have. Otherwise, it can be discounted in favor of the process that leads to a more fulfilling answer.
I don't know what the solution is. Removing some of the societal rewards for making bad choices would help.
... how dare you suggest that a child should be removed from a parent who is otherwise working in good faith to do the best they can for their own kids.
Using governments to take away individual choices is in fashion now. That's how they dare. They know better than you. Maybe you didn't understand that. Their choices are the right ones. You may disagree. If you do, that's just a sign of your inferiority. It's why you need them to make your choices for you. You should thank them for being smarter and better than you and relieving you of your burdensome choices.
(This is not a judgment on vaccination. I'm on the pro-vaccination side. But taking away free choice and routinely using government force against ordinary people is far more harmful than anything involving vaccination.)
You misunderstand the concept of "responsibility". Parents are responsible for what happens to their children. Physicians are simply service providers. Asking a physician is a good idea, but parents are the first, the last, and usually the only ones who actually choose what happens to their children. They have to make the right choice, because no one else is there to do it for them. And if parents get it wrong, the blame is theirs.
The future of food is exactly like the present. There's plenty of food. There's so much that they're converting it into transportation fuel to prop up the price of the food. They're subsidizing food production because farmers can't pay their bills because huge surpluses drag down the market price. Obesity is a growing international problem because there's so much food.
I have shown you that the Post story you cite has easily identifiable, significant holes.
Really? What holes? Do you have any information that suggests it didn't take 9 hours and 38 minutes? I don't think you do.
You have chosen to ignore inconvenient facts presented by others and instead attack the messenger.
What facts? How could "facts" ever be "inconvenient"? I'm trying to argue for a reasonable, thoughtful approach to the problem. All facts would need to be considered for such an approach.
Perhaps you should take a basic course in logic or rhetoric before posting again.
This is a logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad hominem since you are not attempting to address the facts presented but seek to divert the argument by making spurious claims that I am somehow uneducated.
... a logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad hominem since you are not attempting to address the facts presented...
The idea that "there's always time" was asserted with no supporting facts or evidence. It's a talking-point. It would be an argument if it were put forth with a specific example of how there was plenty of time during a specific time-critical event. Or many events, because it's a lot harder to indicate something is true "always".
I have posted a specific counter-example of when there wasn't plenty of time and lives were endangered by the legalistic wrangling around this issue. I am the only one who has presented any facts.
Do you consider facts useful in understanding a topic, or are they just a barrier to be overcome on the way to some understanding that transcends reality?
It may have a chance at anti-shoplifting, though I doubt they have many problems with shoplifters breaking into the locked glass cases where most games are kept.
That's why I never buy games at Target. If they had them on a shelf, I'd shop at Target more.
So you're saying that Chinese state security has never stopped a single terrorist attack? Not even once?
Or, I guess you're saying that stopping one terrorist attack and saving all the victims' lives is completely worthless unless all terrorist attacks are stopped forever.
Again, terrorism is serious. This latest incident in India has the possibility of starting a war between India and Pakistan. Both of those countries have nuclear weapons. If this incident doesn't start a war, then maybe the next one will. It really is a serious subject.
I'm not interested in talking about your bathtub. If you don't understand the difference, then I'm not sure what you have to add to the discussion.
Unless they put more thought into it than you did.
And it only needs to work somewhat better than the current DRM and anti-shoplifting systems. If it prevented 15% of the piracy and worked better than the DRM everyone hates, they'd implement it tomorrow.
It's in my post. Where did you think it was? It was a suggestion.
It's an example of a thoughtful approach to the problem. That's what I've been arguing for. Because terrorism is real and it deserves a thoughtful, balanced approach instead of the partisan games and talking-points and bumper-sticker nonsense we usually hear on this.
You want to complain about Bush. I want terrorists to succeed less often and kill fewer people. Bush is gone in a few weeks. Can we start taking terrorism seriously now that you don't have to win a partisan game any more?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know of a cost/benefit analysis for limiting emissions vs. doing nothing different at all? I've never heard of a credible one, but there's always plenty of apocalyptic talk. Shouldn't there be such an analysis before emissions limits are imposed? If not, why not?
Let's all pretend we have anthropogenic climate change and can fix it by geoengineering. How much geoengineering? When do you stop?
Since the data on climate change need to be considered over several decades to determine the extent of the change, what's the indicator that you're done geoengineering and should stop before you overshoot and cause an ice age?
Do you do one project and wait 100 years to see if it gets cooler? 50 years?
Wouldn't 50 or 100 years be better spent finding a way to cope with a slightly warmer climate? People find ways to deal with adversity all the time (or at least we used to before society decided that life was supposed to be problem-free). We can't find some way to flourish in 2 or 4 degree warmer temperatures given 50 or 100 years to work on it?
You seem to be talking in terms of money or material wealth, while I'm thinking in terms of our overall quality of life. I'd rather have a little less money and be healthier ...
Poverty correlates negatively with health. Poorer people tend to be less healthy.
It's much more complicated than you understand. All modern wireless communications are analog -- especially the digital ones.
The AC post is correct.
Personally, I'd prefer that the policies and regulations governing use and disposal of that nasty stuff not be "fixed."
even though those regulations make everyone poorer.
Is there any room for a cost/benefit analysis in your position? Or is it dogma?
Who was angry? I had questions. None of my questions were answered. Do you always accuse people who ask questions of being angry?
You made no substantial connection from libraries to innovation or any kind of technical knowledge or education that might lead to innovation. That was what the questions were for. If you could substantiate some connection, then you might have a point. But mental free-association of one thing to another in some sort of six-degrees-of-separation game is not a rational basis for public policy.
Public libraries are a less and less important source of information as time goes forward. And the information they do provide tends to be historical and biographical. It's not the scientific or technical information that leads to innovation.
Also, you did not substantiate the connection between generic education and innovation. Does an Art History education lead to innovation that fuels economic growth? How about Literature or Law?
Why does someone need to address your assertions when you can't back them up with a factual or logical argument?
Do you have any data that suggests that education levels are related to libraries at all? Do you have any data that suggests libraries lead to innovation? Since when do libraries have mostly technical books and science books? They have fiction and history, but neither of those is a primary ingredient in innovation.
What are schools supposed to be for? Why do we need duplication of educational efforts? Also, how many libraries? If we had 10 times as many libraries, would we have 10 times as much innovation?
Libraries are not education. They are not innovation. They don't teach math. They don't teach science. They are mostly entertainment. And everyone knows it.
And in most cases they are not hired by US Citizens. They are hired by greedy US Corporations.
With no human involvement at all. That's what you're saying, right?
And the solution for that is to make these companies HURT when their caught. MASSIVE fines and Jail time.
If there are no US citizens involved, who is going to jail? The point is that corporations are just groups of people.
I don't agree with sending these people to jail. They should be subject to large fines and the fines should be put into a fund to reimburse hospitals for the unpaid medical bills of illegals.
There's a huge crisis and you think it's really important to keep government libraries? As one of the least essential services, libraries should be one of the first things cut. They are a luxury in a time when it's harder and harder to afford the necessities.
Your overall point is a good one. But you don't seem to have thought through the part about the libraries. They're not essential just because you like them. And if everyone likes them, they should have no trouble raising all their funds from voluntary donations instead of taxes.
I'd like to start a class-action lawsuit against the Sun. What did the Sun know about these risks and when did it know?
Can you refer me to a reputable attorney? Or better yet, just an attorney.
Not really, but in a way the effect is the same.
Especially if you believe your own exaggerations (because it fills some emotional need for you) and act accordingly.
but when it's a third party who pays for your bad decision, well, that's a lot more justifiable, now isn't it?
So stop doing that. You want to use government force to make the other government meddling (and force) less expensive. Try minding your own business.
I think the solution is basic education in the scientific method and statistics for everyone, beginning in elementary school.
This is wrong. People don't care. Teaching about the scientific method and statistics won't make them care. It's too many steps removed from the vaccine issue for the average attention-span anyway.
We have a cultural problem. It's not about the scientific method. People believe in conspiracy theories. People believe in shadowy corporations who are secretly out to get them. People believe in secret cover-ups. People believe everyone's got a hidden agenda or a conflict of interest. But, most importantly, people believe they're the exception. They have it figured out. They're wise. They're not going to be fooled like everyone else.
It's a self-esteem problem -- too much self-esteem. It's a lack of respect for others. It's laziness. It's irresponsibility. It's self-focus and emotional self-investment. It's not being completely grown-up.
The scientific method won't help because it's only useful if the answer it leads to fulfills some emotional need you have. Otherwise, it can be discounted in favor of the process that leads to a more fulfilling answer.
I don't know what the solution is. Removing some of the societal rewards for making bad choices would help.
... how dare you suggest that a child should be removed from a parent who is otherwise working in good faith to do the best they can for their own kids.
Using governments to take away individual choices is in fashion now. That's how they dare. They know better than you. Maybe you didn't understand that. Their choices are the right ones. You may disagree. If you do, that's just a sign of your inferiority. It's why you need them to make your choices for you. You should thank them for being smarter and better than you and relieving you of your burdensome choices.
(This is not a judgment on vaccination. I'm on the pro-vaccination side. But taking away free choice and routinely using government force against ordinary people is far more harmful than anything involving vaccination.)
You misunderstand the concept of "responsibility". Parents are responsible for what happens to their children. Physicians are simply service providers. Asking a physician is a good idea, but parents are the first, the last, and usually the only ones who actually choose what happens to their children. They have to make the right choice, because no one else is there to do it for them. And if parents get it wrong, the blame is theirs.
The future of food is exactly like the present. There's plenty of food. There's so much that they're converting it into transportation fuel to prop up the price of the food. They're subsidizing food production because farmers can't pay their bills because huge surpluses drag down the market price. Obesity is a growing international problem because there's so much food.
I have shown you that the Post story you cite has easily identifiable, significant holes.
Really? What holes? Do you have any information that suggests it didn't take 9 hours and 38 minutes? I don't think you do.
You have chosen to ignore inconvenient facts presented by others and instead attack the messenger.
What facts? How could "facts" ever be "inconvenient"? I'm trying to argue for a reasonable, thoughtful approach to the problem. All facts would need to be considered for such an approach.
Perhaps you should take a basic course in logic or rhetoric before posting again.
This is a logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad hominem since you are not attempting to address the facts presented but seek to divert the argument by making spurious claims that I am somehow uneducated.
... a logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad hominem since you are not attempting to address the facts presented ...
The idea that "there's always time" was asserted with no supporting facts or evidence. It's a talking-point. It would be an argument if it were put forth with a specific example of how there was plenty of time during a specific time-critical event. Or many events, because it's a lot harder to indicate something is true "always".
I have posted a specific counter-example of when there wasn't plenty of time and lives were endangered by the legalistic wrangling around this issue. I am the only one who has presented any facts.
Do you consider facts useful in understanding a topic, or are they just a barrier to be overcome on the way to some understanding that transcends reality?
It may have a chance at anti-shoplifting, though I doubt they have many problems with shoplifters breaking into the locked glass cases where most games are kept.
That's why I never buy games at Target. If they had them on a shelf, I'd shop at Target more.
So you're saying that Chinese state security has never stopped a single terrorist attack? Not even once?
Or, I guess you're saying that stopping one terrorist attack and saving all the victims' lives is completely worthless unless all terrorist attacks are stopped forever.
Either way, I disagree.
Again, terrorism is serious. This latest incident in India has the possibility of starting a war between India and Pakistan. Both of those countries have nuclear weapons. If this incident doesn't start a war, then maybe the next one will. It really is a serious subject.
I'm not interested in talking about your bathtub. If you don't understand the difference, then I'm not sure what you have to add to the discussion.
Yeah, I'm sure you're a better lawyer than the guys at the DoJ. That's how you know the rules and they don't.
It's not the same thing. But this solution is aimed at both problems.
This is highly unlikely to work.
Unless they put more thought into it than you did.
And it only needs to work somewhat better than the current DRM and anti-shoplifting systems. If it prevented 15% of the piracy and worked better than the DRM everyone hates, they'd implement it tomorrow.
It's in my post. Where did you think it was? It was a suggestion.
It's an example of a thoughtful approach to the problem. That's what I've been arguing for. Because terrorism is real and it deserves a thoughtful, balanced approach instead of the partisan games and talking-points and bumper-sticker nonsense we usually hear on this.
You want to complain about Bush. I want terrorists to succeed less often and kill fewer people. Bush is gone in a few weeks. Can we start taking terrorism seriously now that you don't have to win a partisan game any more?