People like you who obsess about race and gender are the problem. Drama isn't a race. Entertainment isn't a gender. Your audience does not care about the social justice identity bonafides of your characters. Except a very tiny, tiny fraction of that audience. And no on can ever make that fraction happy, regardless of anything anyone does, because that fraction regards complaining about race and gender as a sort of religious sacrament.
Get back to us when you're trying to entertain. Until then, you are entirely useless.
The real story should be about the people complaining. It’s a very small amount of water. The effects will be zero. Yet people are still taking the time and effort to lodge complaints about it.
The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters is risking their credibility. Credibility is useful if you want to be listened to on something that's a real concern in the future.
I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.
Notwithstanding Korea, in your example, success speaks for itself.
Pretty sure people will still want better solar panels. If a solar panel maker is truly threatened by hints of possibilities of problems, maybe they weren't destined to succeed anyway.
Slowing or stopping the cost reductions in clean energy is what this is about.
How does that happen?
"We were going to make more cost efficient solar panels, but we decided not to because of Trump conspiracy worries." Is that how you think things happen?
Religious leader like their followers to be devoted, not opportunistic. You must care about green power. Merely using it because it makes financial sense is a sort of blasphemy.
Except Apple/Google claim it will create jobs, and the more people invest the more affordable it will be, therefore, they do care.
Except Google and Apple are promoting their own aesthetic concerns as ultimately better for everyone? Of course they are saying that. Otherwise they would have to consider the other side.
In other words:
Why don't they just eat cake? What's wrong with cake? I don't understand these ignorant peasants at all.
Silicon Valley billionaires don't care about middle class workers in the energy industries or poor people who can't afford to pay more on their utility bills. Let them eat cake.
Contract out most of the work done by the city. Then if one of the contractors gets hit with ransomware, it's their problem. If that contractor can't meet obligations, switch contractors.
Not really for me. But it's one clear way to judge climate proposals. Most of them seem specifically designed to make things worse for Americans.
And the killing off of a huge portion of the marine biomass falls under a dumb reason to take action as well, I take it.
Or no, you won't believe in that either, because of some other graph comparing two different things as if they were equal in order to mislead you, which you take at face value.
Meanwhile I have seen it with my own eyes,
I don't believe you know the future and I won't be manipulated by bullshit scare stories. You haven’t seen the future with your own eyes.
Algae will grow ok in very slightly warmer water. Same for the rest of the aquatic ecosystem. It's not fragile — unless you equate change with destruction.
but hey, saying that to someone is being nasty, right?
You somehow managed to avoid name calling and all the rest of the hallmarks of the nastiness that time.
Yes, Virginia can formulate a plan; move. Build a sea wall. -- but my favorite is to "retroactively prosecute people who actively participated in dis-informing the public about global warming and prudent steps to prevent sea level rise, and then packing them up and putting them on Marshall Islands, so they can discuss the cultural value of their position that this isn't a big deal so stop whining about it."
There you go again with your concentration camp schemes. For every reasonable blue team voice on climate, there seem to be 5 haters and death camp architects like you.
Small wonder you're not convinced. Or that you're red.
On climate, I’m more on team "I do not care." Partly because I'm against empowering government to screw everyone over. Partly because when the dire consequences of climate change get discussed, it's either some made up bullshit ("ice free North Pole by 2005") or like the Marshall Islands in 2050. The distant future of tiny Pacific islands isn't on my top 1000 list of concerns. It certainly seems like a dumb reason for people to be nasty to their fellow Americans.
That comparison is utterly dishonest, but you don't know enough to know it. There's a more complete set of comparisons available here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
At a glance, that site doesn't seem to be very conclusive. I'm sure it looks conclusive to believers though. Clearly you can draw graphs a lot of different ways.
It's almost like the dataset was deliberately chosen to maximise the difference!
Yeah, imagine that! Exaggerated messaging on climate. I guess there's a first time for everything.
[Lot's of critiques of Spencer graph deleted.]
All this graph massaging is counter to the original point that the "models fit the data". Apparently, whether "the models fit the data" is an extremely complex question with a somewhat ambiguous answer.
This is why the red-team-blue-team thing is so incredibly stupid. The public can't actually interpret any of this evidence.
Hence my original point:
Average blue team flag waver has no more clue than average red team flag waver. Blue team believes what blue team captains say, based on blue team member's emotion and self-regard. Red team similar. Not much of it has anything to do with science.
Regardless, all the name-calling and general assholishness on climate seems guaranteed to produce zero meaningful change. One side pushes and the other pushes back in defense. If you want to actually accomplish something, then you're going to have to heal some of the divide in the country. Not likely any time soon.
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Thousands of people smarter than either of us think this problem is one of the most important. We aren't going to go bankrupt doing it. We'll actually be better off once we do. Not only will we reduce future climate-related problems, we'll reduce future health problems. No more pneumonia cases or asthma attacks caused by air pollution from fossil fuel combustion. Yeah, the last president understood. This problem takes more than 8 years to solve, and he can't do it with half the government fighting common sense.
So you're completely ignoring the point. The last guy's efforts barely mattered at all. The current guy's efforts are barely different in actual effect because the last guy's efforts had little effect.
But this small difference is worth making a huge deal about? The Marshall Islands have problems in 2053 instead of 2050? That's the super important thing?
You don't get "more than 8 years" in a country like the US without homogeneous opinions.
I know you want to congratulate yourself for being right about the climate. Congratulations from me too. Is congratulating yourself worth hating your fellow countrymen? Because that's what I see — if not from you specifically, then from plurality of the blue team.
But that's a Red Team web site and you're Blue Team. So nevermind. Blue Team says models are awesome and predict measurements right on. Red Team says nope, here's a graph. Disbelieve Red. Trust Blue. Wave the flag. Go Team!
You made an argument based on cultural evolution about homosexuality
Not that I’m aware of. Some guys said "X behavior will make us stronger, Y behavior is counterproductive, let's encourage X behavior and discourage Y behavior". They made it a tradition. It stood the test of time. Others independently came to the same conclusions and also did well. That's all I was saying. You want to make it more than that. But there is no more.
Cultural evolution is not necessary to explain traditional family structures;
But it does explain the fact that they're considered a tradition.
traditional family structures and pair bonding are biologically natural for the majority of humans.
Yeah, those guys pushing the tradition weren't exactly fighting an uphill battle most of the time.
Whether it's left-wing authoritarians or right-wing authoritarians, they all want to tell people how to live their lives and they all say "we need to force you at gunpoint to do something" because of "what's best for society" or "what's best for you even if you don't know it".
Totalitarians are a threat to everyone now, so yeah.
The traditionalist guys wanted the young folks to stick to their wives, have some kids, till the fields, and have an existential reason to protect the villiage from attack by the tribe across the river. They were sometimes mean to folks who wouldn't go along with that, as you say.
There's no tribe across the river any more, but totalitarians threaten us all.
UBI is based on the theory that it is basic, that is where the B comes from.
Yeah, I know. I was replying to a post that was neither here nor there.
if you are going to remove the options of pumping gas, Uber driving and shelf stacking as a way of surviving when your employment collapses, then either you do this, or you can reasonably expect a re-run of the French revolution - which is effectively what is happening in a lot of the world already (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc). Once the killing starts, it is very hard to stop, and when you have nothing, the guy with 5c is a "filthy capitalist bastard".
If it's such a sensible idea, why are you making up silly scare stories to push it? You know we aren't scared by them, right? It's just another talking point.
I'm all for UBI as long as it's 100% voluntary. If it's as sensible and needed as the advocates proclaim, it shouldn’t be impossible to get people to fund it voluntarily.
Slashdot Mirror
People like you who obsess about race and gender are the problem. Drama isn't a race. Entertainment isn't a gender. Your audience does not care about the social justice identity bonafides of your characters. Except a very tiny, tiny fraction of that audience. And no on can ever make that fraction happy, regardless of anything anyone does, because that fraction regards complaining about race and gender as a sort of religious sacrament.
Get back to us when you're trying to entertain. Until then, you are entirely useless.
No industrial process is going to the 100% clean
So the big question is what else goes back with the water?
A higher standard of living for people in the community.
If Foxconn builds 1000 more flat screen factories, it might barely start to matter.
The real story should be about the people complaining. It’s a very small amount of water. The effects will be zero. Yet people are still taking the time and effort to lodge complaints about it.
The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters is risking their credibility. Credibility is useful if you want to be listened to on something that's a real concern in the future.
They love the money they get from the cable franchise monopoly rights too much. Signing a meaningless pledge costs them nothing.
I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.
Notwithstanding Korea, in your example, success speaks for itself.
Pretty sure people will still want better solar panels. If a solar panel maker is truly threatened by hints of possibilities of problems, maybe they weren't destined to succeed anyway.
Slowing or stopping the cost reductions in clean energy is what this is about.
How does that happen?
"We were going to make more cost efficient solar panels, but we decided not to because of Trump conspiracy worries." Is that how you think things happen?
Take a look outside. The air is clean. The last tiny bit of perfection to make air perfectly clean is an aesthetic choice, yes.
Especially when you don't care about the cost.
Religious leader like their followers to be devoted, not opportunistic. You must care about green power. Merely using it because it makes financial sense is a sort of blasphemy.
Except Apple/Google claim it will create jobs, and the more people invest the more affordable it will be, therefore, they do care.
Except Google and Apple are promoting their own aesthetic concerns as ultimately better for everyone? Of course they are saying that. Otherwise they would have to consider the other side.
In other words:
Why don't they just eat cake? What's wrong with cake? I don't understand these ignorant peasants at all.
Silicon Valley billionaires don't care about middle class workers in the energy industries or poor people who can't afford to pay more on their utility bills. Let them eat cake.
Do you want the Trump Administration to make new environmental rules based on secret science?
People like you are why we are doomed as a species.
This doomsday will fail just like all the other doomsdays that were predicted all the other times. Doomsday predictions are always wrong.
Contract out most of the work done by the city. Then if one of the contractors gets hit with ransomware, it's their problem. If that contractor can't meet obligations, switch contractors.
Americans. Right. It's all about Americans.
Not really for me. But it's one clear way to judge climate proposals. Most of them seem specifically designed to make things worse for Americans.
And the killing off of a huge portion of the marine biomass falls under a dumb reason to take action as well, I take it.
Or no, you won't believe in that either, because of some other graph comparing two different things as if they were equal in order to mislead you, which you take at face value.
Meanwhile I have seen it with my own eyes,
I don't believe you know the future and I won't be manipulated by bullshit scare stories. You haven’t seen the future with your own eyes.
Algae will grow ok in very slightly warmer water. Same for the rest of the aquatic ecosystem. It's not fragile — unless you equate change with destruction.
but hey, saying that to someone is being nasty, right?
You somehow managed to avoid name calling and all the rest of the hallmarks of the nastiness that time.
Yes, Virginia can formulate a plan; move. Build a sea wall. -- but my favorite is to "retroactively prosecute people who actively participated in dis-informing the public about global warming and prudent steps to prevent sea level rise, and then packing them up and putting them on Marshall Islands, so they can discuss the cultural value of their position that this isn't a big deal so stop whining about it."
There you go again with your concentration camp schemes. For every reasonable blue team voice on climate, there seem to be 5 haters and death camp architects like you.
Small wonder you're not convinced. Or that you're red.
On climate, I’m more on team "I do not care." Partly because I'm against empowering government to screw everyone over. Partly because when the dire consequences of climate change get discussed, it's either some made up bullshit ("ice free North Pole by 2005") or like the Marshall Islands in 2050. The distant future of tiny Pacific islands isn't on my top 1000 list of concerns. It certainly seems like a dumb reason for people to be nasty to their fellow Americans.
That comparison is utterly dishonest, but you don't know enough to know it. There's a more complete set of comparisons available here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
At a glance, that site doesn't seem to be very conclusive. I'm sure it looks conclusive to believers though. Clearly you can draw graphs a lot of different ways.
It's almost like the dataset was deliberately chosen to maximise the difference!
Yeah, imagine that! Exaggerated messaging on climate. I guess there's a first time for everything.
[Lot's of critiques of Spencer graph deleted.]
All this graph massaging is counter to the original point that the "models fit the data". Apparently, whether "the models fit the data" is an extremely complex question with a somewhat ambiguous answer.
This is why the red-team-blue-team thing is so incredibly stupid. The public can't actually interpret any of this evidence.
Hence my original point:
Average blue team flag waver has no more clue than average red team flag waver. Blue team believes what blue team captains say, based on blue team member's emotion and self-regard. Red team similar. Not much of it has anything to do with science.
Regardless, all the name-calling and general assholishness on climate seems guaranteed to produce zero meaningful change. One side pushes and the other pushes back in defense. If you want to actually accomplish something, then you're going to have to heal some of the divide in the country. Not likely any time soon.
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Thousands of people smarter than either of us think this problem is one of the most important. We aren't going to go bankrupt doing it. We'll actually be better off once we do. Not only will we reduce future climate-related problems, we'll reduce future health problems. No more pneumonia cases or asthma attacks caused by air pollution from fossil fuel combustion. Yeah, the last president understood. This problem takes more than 8 years to solve, and he can't do it with half the government fighting common sense.
So you're completely ignoring the point. The last guy's efforts barely mattered at all. The current guy's efforts are barely different in actual effect because the last guy's efforts had little effect.
But this small difference is worth making a huge deal about? The Marshall Islands have problems in 2053 instead of 2050? That's the super important thing?
You don't get "more than 8 years" in a country like the US without homogeneous opinions.
I know you want to congratulate yourself for being right about the climate. Congratulations from me too. Is congratulating yourself worth hating your fellow countrymen? Because that's what I see — if not from you specifically, then from plurality of the blue team.
Yeah, Spencer plays for the wrong team. Support only blue team scientists. Wave the flag! Go team!
I have an idea. A bit of a revolutionary concept perhaps, but hear me out: We pay people enough, so they want to work.
Who is "we"? And where is this money coming from to pay people to either work or not to work?
Not that it will matter, but here's what I keep seeing on how well the model predictions match the measurements. Not very well.
But that's a Red Team web site and you're Blue Team. So nevermind. Blue Team says models are awesome and predict measurements right on. Red Team says nope, here's a graph. Disbelieve Red. Trust Blue. Wave the flag. Go Team!
You made an argument based on cultural evolution about homosexuality
Not that I’m aware of. Some guys said "X behavior will make us stronger, Y behavior is counterproductive, let's encourage X behavior and discourage Y behavior". They made it a tradition. It stood the test of time. Others independently came to the same conclusions and also did well. That's all I was saying. You want to make it more than that. But there is no more.
Cultural evolution is not necessary to explain traditional family structures;
But it does explain the fact that they're considered a tradition.
traditional family structures and pair bonding are biologically natural for the majority of humans.
Yeah, those guys pushing the tradition weren't exactly fighting an uphill battle most of the time.
Whether it's left-wing authoritarians or right-wing authoritarians, they all want to tell people how to live their lives and they all say "we need to force you at gunpoint to do something" because of "what's best for society" or "what's best for you even if you don't know it".
Totalitarians are a threat to everyone now, so yeah.
The traditionalist guys wanted the young folks to stick to their wives, have some kids, till the fields, and have an existential reason to protect the villiage from attack by the tribe across the river. They were sometimes mean to folks who wouldn't go along with that, as you say.
There's no tribe across the river any more, but totalitarians threaten us all.
UBI is based on the theory that it is basic, that is where the B comes from.
Yeah, I know. I was replying to a post that was neither here nor there.
if you are going to remove the options of pumping gas, Uber driving and shelf stacking as a way of surviving when your employment collapses, then either you do this, or you can reasonably expect a re-run of the French revolution - which is effectively what is happening in a lot of the world already (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc). Once the killing starts, it is very hard to stop, and when you have nothing, the guy with 5c is a "filthy capitalist bastard".
If it's such a sensible idea, why are you making up silly scare stories to push it? You know we aren't scared by them, right? It's just another talking point.
I'm all for UBI as long as it's 100% voluntary. If it's as sensible and needed as the advocates proclaim, it shouldn’t be impossible to get people to fund it voluntarily.