Do you think environmentalists typically pray to Gaia?
No. It's my way of saying environmentalists do completely irrational things in order to feel good about themselves. At least if they actually believed in environmentalist heaven their decisions could be considered rational. But instead they're based on feelings.
There's tangible cost associated with environmental decline like global warming.
Not one that's been fairly accounted for using a non-biased cost/benefit analysis. All we get is "the world is ending: socialism NOW" and variations on that theme.
Environmentalists are usually just faster to recognize this.
Because they wanted socialism all along and global warming is just this most recent means to that end.
BTW: It's called "climate change" now because it's harder to sell global warmism in the winter and during periods when the climate is not warming. You need to update your talking-points.
If someone could do a fair cost/benefit analysis taking every single factor into account, and if reducing energy turned out the be the lowest cost and highest benefit (rather than, say, building a nuclear power plant) then it would make sense.
If the only real benefit is going to environmentalist heaven, then reducing energy use is just a sad waste of humanity.
Do you have this analysis that shows all the externalities? I don't think you do.
Reducing energy usage is a waste of time and money for almost anyone. It represents a reduction in the value and quality of human life for the benefit of "The Earth".
These companies could be producing good and services for their customers or profits for their shareholders. That's what they were created to do -- not wasting their employees' time to try to save energy. Why should they want to spend $100 in employee time to save $50 worth of energy? To go to environmentalist heaven?
I didn't demand anything. I suggested that the people demanding things start paying for the work they are demanding others do. Or they could just start minding their own business and stop demanding something for nothing.
If they're going to complain, why shouldn't they should expect complaints in return?
Not sure what the point of this story is. Sometimes things don't work out the way everyone wishes they would. Apparently every decision to say something or not say something always has to be second-guessed by third parties who have no responsibility or accountability -- but they get to demand things anyway.
I'm sure a lot more of these failed trials would be published if there was a financial incentive. The complainers should start a foundation and start paying the people who have better things to do than to write papers and publish info that's of no use to them. They should do that instead of complaining.
Please explain "out of balance" in objective terms. Is there only one "balance"? Or are there many? This "balance" concept seems to imply that a particular species is very important to the health of a particular ecosystem. How do we know when this is the case? Or are you saying it's always the case and that every single species is vitally important to every ecosystem it inhabits (or has ever inhabited)?
I have seen "out of balance" seemingly used to mean "I don't prefer that outcome" -- an intentional deception.
But individual extinctions of species due to non-natural events are of a different scale and could have dramatic effects on a delicate, semi-isolated ecosystem such as the Galapagos.
What is the evidence to support the characterizations of "dramatic" and/or "delicate"?
And isn't a relatively isolated ecosystem less valuable? It would seem like the important, valuable ecosystems are the ones adjacent to populations or crop production or otherwise have a large monetary or other tangible value associated with a certain condition.
Most people don't agree that you need more than 250 GB per month. Why should I engage in a boycott? It makes things worse for me. I should do that to benefit you?
I have a better idea. You should boycott that 251st GB every month to benefit me.
All in favor? Comcast agrees. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned.
You mention the Cadillac Escalade as if fuel efficiency were the primary design criteria for that vehicle. Why should anyone read any further after that?
Superman has writers. They always come up with a way to resolve things.
That is the primary difference between real life and fiction: writers control the outcomes in fiction. As a result, real life outcomes sometimes tend to be less satisfying than literary or cinematic (or news-media-reported) outcomes.
Apple's success is not primarily because of their manufacturing. Everyone knows that.
A lot of people on this board seem to think there's some benefit in intentionally missing the point when someone posts something. I don't know what the benefit is supposed to be though.
While Dell and HP try to make cheap computers that aren't broken, Aplle will continue to make good computers that aren't cheap. Apple has been gaining marketshare from these guys steadily for a long time now.
So the success of a video format depends on getting people who don't care about movies or video or how their TV looks to buy it. And they're also really poor.
No video format can ever be a success until these destitute, oblivious people are willing to buy it. And everyone else doesn't matter at all -- for some reason. The money from people who like movies and HD doesn't spend or something.
There must still be ice up there. Is anyone getting tired of these stupid alarmist stories?
Ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. Get over it.
Who needs privacy when people are so predictable?
on
Blown to Bits
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I was alternately fascinated and horrified at what information is available, and how it is being used and abused
Congratulations on being hysterical and full of yourself. Your heightened groupthink skills are a cautionary example to media consumers. You are "fascinated" and "horrified" exactly on cue. Your interests are exactly as required by the media leaders and the Slashdot editors.
It's like back in high school when everyone wanted to show his individuality by dressing and acting exactly like everyone else. I don't understand why you people are so interested in privacy when you are all carbon copies of each other.
Environmental over-regulation in the US drives up prices for manufacturers and other businesses. This leads them to move to China and other developing countries with very lax environmental standards. Pollution is increased a lot.
Just setting environmental standards at a rational level in the US might allow these companies to stay here. They could run a clean operation. It might not be perfect or "sustainable", but it would be clean and suitable by any rational standard.
Environmental over-regulation and utopianism actually results in greater pollution in these cases. Carbon cap-and-trade schemes will just increase this phenomenon. And it shifts pollution to poorer, less-empowered populations.
You have no facts, no date or time, no specific person to accuse, and no witnesses or documentation to back up your story.
You're just a bigot that makes up stories about the people you hate. This is a well-established feature of bigotry. You guys should all get together and robe-up and burn a cross in a churchyard or something.
No, you miss the point, the point being that fundies, especially Christians, want to force their beliefs down nonbelievers throats.
Talk is not force.
And this is what bigotry is like, right here. There's the slur. Then there's the false accusation of force and the invention of vaguely-defined victims.
"We must do something about these [insert slur] who are victimizing us with the thing that makes them different than us."
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think environmentalists typically pray to Gaia?
No. It's my way of saying environmentalists do completely irrational things in order to feel good about themselves. At least if they actually believed in environmentalist heaven their decisions could be considered rational. But instead they're based on feelings.
There's tangible cost associated with environmental decline like global warming.
Not one that's been fairly accounted for using a non-biased cost/benefit analysis. All we get is "the world is ending: socialism NOW" and variations on that theme.
Environmentalists are usually just faster to recognize this.
Because they wanted socialism all along and global warming is just this most recent means to that end.
BTW: It's called "climate change" now because it's harder to sell global warmism in the winter and during periods when the climate is not warming. You need to update your talking-points.
unless it's already included in the dollar figures.
...it's just a dream.
If someone could do a fair cost/benefit analysis taking every single factor into account, and if reducing energy turned out the be the lowest cost and highest benefit (rather than, say, building a nuclear power plant) then it would make sense.
If the only real benefit is going to environmentalist heaven, then reducing energy use is just a sad waste of humanity.
Do you have this analysis that shows all the externalities? I don't think you do.
Here's an idea: Why not just shut down and lay off all the employees and open up shop in India or China where they still build power plants?
Reducing energy usage is a waste of time and money for almost anyone. It represents a reduction in the value and quality of human life for the benefit of "The Earth".
These companies could be producing good and services for their customers or profits for their shareholders. That's what they were created to do -- not wasting their employees' time to try to save energy. Why should they want to spend $100 in employee time to save $50 worth of energy? To go to environmentalist heaven?
I didn't demand anything. I suggested that the people demanding things start paying for the work they are demanding others do. Or they could just start minding their own business and stop demanding something for nothing.
If they're going to complain, why shouldn't they should expect complaints in return?
Cancer patients are already vulnerable to cancer.
Not sure what the point of this story is. Sometimes things don't work out the way everyone wishes they would. Apparently every decision to say something or not say something always has to be second-guessed by third parties who have no responsibility or accountability -- but they get to demand things anyway.
I'm sure a lot more of these failed trials would be published if there was a financial incentive. The complainers should start a foundation and start paying the people who have better things to do than to write papers and publish info that's of no use to them. They should do that instead of complaining.
...the ecosystem is out of balance...
Please explain "out of balance" in objective terms. Is there only one "balance"? Or are there many? This "balance" concept seems to imply that a particular species is very important to the health of a particular ecosystem. How do we know when this is the case? Or are you saying it's always the case and that every single species is vitally important to every ecosystem it inhabits (or has ever inhabited)?
I have seen "out of balance" seemingly used to mean "I don't prefer that outcome" -- an intentional deception.
But individual extinctions of species due to non-natural events are of a different scale and could have dramatic effects on a delicate, semi-isolated ecosystem such as the Galapagos.
What is the evidence to support the characterizations of "dramatic" and/or "delicate"?
And isn't a relatively isolated ecosystem less valuable? It would seem like the important, valuable ecosystems are the ones adjacent to populations or crop production or otherwise have a large monetary or other tangible value associated with a certain condition.
Is this news for giant tortoises? Stuff that matters to giant tortoises?
Can someone explain the value of these giant tortioses in objective, real terms? What would be different without them?
Do they run Linux?
Most people don't agree that you need more than 250 GB per month. Why should I engage in a boycott? It makes things worse for me. I should do that to benefit you?
I have a better idea. You should boycott that 251st GB every month to benefit me.
All in favor? Comcast agrees. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned.
What if they don't want to? Why should they want to? To make you happy? Why wouldn't they just assume you'd find something else to complain about?
You mention the Cadillac Escalade as if fuel efficiency were the primary design criteria for that vehicle. Why should anyone read any further after that?
Superman has writers. They always come up with a way to resolve things.
That is the primary difference between real life and fiction: writers control the outcomes in fiction. As a result, real life outcomes sometimes tend to be less satisfying than literary or cinematic (or news-media-reported) outcomes.
Apple's success is not primarily because of their manufacturing. Everyone knows that.
A lot of people on this board seem to think there's some benefit in intentionally missing the point when someone posts something. I don't know what the benefit is supposed to be though.
While Dell and HP try to make cheap computers that aren't broken, Aplle will continue to make good computers that aren't cheap. Apple has been gaining marketshare from these guys steadily for a long time now.
What's the best way to distribute HTML files online?
So the success of a video format depends on getting people who don't care about movies or video or how their TV looks to buy it. And they're also really poor.
No video format can ever be a success until these destitute, oblivious people are willing to buy it. And everyone else doesn't matter at all -- for some reason. The money from people who like movies and HD doesn't spend or something.
Because you are the world's most important person.
And because no one bought DVDs when DVD players were $199 or $149 or $99.
In early June, Slashdot told me all the ice would be melted by now.
There must still be ice up there. Is anyone getting tired of these stupid alarmist stories?
Ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. Get over it.
I was alternately fascinated and horrified at what information is available, and how it is being used and abused
Congratulations on being hysterical and full of yourself. Your heightened groupthink skills are a cautionary example to media consumers. You are "fascinated" and "horrified" exactly on cue. Your interests are exactly as required by the media leaders and the Slashdot editors.
It's like back in high school when everyone wanted to show his individuality by dressing and acting exactly like everyone else. I don't understand why you people are so interested in privacy when you are all carbon copies of each other.
Environmental over-regulation in the US drives up prices for manufacturers and other businesses. This leads them to move to China and other developing countries with very lax environmental standards. Pollution is increased a lot.
Just setting environmental standards at a rational level in the US might allow these companies to stay here. They could run a clean operation. It might not be perfect or "sustainable", but it would be clean and suitable by any rational standard.
Environmental over-regulation and utopianism actually results in greater pollution in these cases. Carbon cap-and-trade schemes will just increase this phenomenon. And it shifts pollution to poorer, less-empowered populations.
You have no facts, no date or time, no specific person to accuse, and no witnesses or documentation to back up your story.
You're just a bigot that makes up stories about the people you hate. This is a well-established feature of bigotry. You guys should all get together and robe-up and burn a cross in a churchyard or something.
What's her name? When did this occur? Was there a police report filed?
No, you miss the point, the point being that fundies, especially Christians, want to force their beliefs down nonbelievers throats.
Talk is not force.
And this is what bigotry is like, right here. There's the slur. Then there's the false accusation of force and the invention of vaguely-defined victims.
"We must do something about these [insert slur] who are victimizing us with the thing that makes them different than us."