I mean what the hell do you think they are gonna say? Oh, gee sorry, we have completely ruined the environment for humans for 10000 years?
Where did you get the figure of 10000 years from? They've ruined the immediate environs of human habitation for probably about 100-150 years I would guess (really depends how substantial the contamination is now).
We are worried about Cs-137 and Sr-90 here so (given the shorter half-lives of the isotopes they decay to on their way to stability) an effective half life of 30 years. This is a terrible half-life from the PoV of creatures whose life-spans are in the order of decades.
From there it's simply powers of two that any geek, even an Anonymous Coward should have little trouble dealing with. After 30 years 50% of the original radioactive substance has gone. After 90 years (3 half-lives) %87.5 percent of the radioactive substance is spent, after 150 years 97% is spent... after 300 years we are talking around 1/100th of 1% of these isotopes remaining.
However, that is not to say that the deployment of off-shore wind power is not good news. I just hope they don't melt in those highly contaminated waters:p.
So in your mind Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes have no correlation.
To my mind using a restricted data set not directly pertinent to the region under question seems inappropriate where there would be regional and/or global data available.
Global data. Western Pacific ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is still slightly below average for the year, and worldwide ACE is only about 75% of normal. Does that help?
No please don't mention climate change when extreme weather events like this occur, it upsets the children. And when it happens in the Phillipines it upsets the diplomats.
Whatever you do don't start talking about climate change!
I'm not sure where exact comes into the picture when you use US data to talk about increasing typhoon activity (or the lack thereof) in Asia or globally. Irrelevant comes to mind.
Haha. So the fact that I did not take the time... to provide a definitive, line-by-line critique of Marx's entire body of work demonstrates to you an apparent lack of understanding?
Not at all. In fact I guarantee that there exists no one in the world who would be prepared to read any line-by-line critique of Marx's entire body of work that you might devise. All that was required was the merest hint that you were familiar with the work you claim to have read and presume to critique.
I suppose that all the other philosophers, mathematicians, and social scientists... also don't "have any understanding of anything he wrote".
Do not suppose that my comments were directed at anyone apart from you.
Comments along the lines of "completely eviscerating," "pathetic lack of logic" or "irrational rantings [sic]" are not indicative of a dispassionate and reasonable assessment. Clearly there are critics of Marx who are intimately familiar with his work. For something light, I'd recommend David Conway's A Farewell to Marx, a reading of which would leave you with the ability at least to mimic someone who had bothered to read the writer they purport to critique.
So I'll put the discussion on the other foot: Your statement demonstrates that you have neither read nor understood anything about complex adaptive systems...
The statement: I believe you may have read the word 'Marx,' but you show no hint in your posts that you have any understanding of anything he wrote. That's what might be confusing people. demonstrates a lack of understanding of complex adaptive systems? Wow.
In any case... NO, you don't get to shift the discussion. I'm making no claims about complex adaptive systems. I'm making a claim about your lack of erudition as regards the writer you claim to have disposed of at age 14.
I suggest you spend a year or so studying, yourself.
LOL
Then, come back in a year and tell me how Marx even makes sense
I have no interest in telling you how Marx makes sense! What do you take me for... a Marxist?!
This isn't about Marx, it's about your narcissism. It's about the cringeworthy dragshow of your parading your palpable ignorance tarted up as knowledge. In public! There's no ideological dispute here --you got called out, that's all.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then [sic] can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! [Emphasis added]
The point being that To each according to his contribution was necessarily to be the appropriate principle until that higher phase be accomplished! I.e. simply the elimination of exploitation (in the technical Marxist sense of that word). As you say, don't believe everything people tell you about Marx and, I would add, be careful about taking these slogans out of context. Our friend here seems especially to have had his recall of reading of Kapital (or was it Grundrisse?) coloured by popular misconception.
The system we use says that the "free" in "free market" means anyone can participate...
Well... that 'free' means many things to many people. I certainly agree that it implies a freedom of anyone to participate free from qualification (apart from having the requisite wealth). IMO it requires additionally (or perhaps essentially) that the buyer and seller are free to agree between themselves on the price. Thus the market for theatre tickets is a free market only when it involves a scalper.
What you say about China is insightful and often forgotten. Not that I'd want to live under their system mind...
I think I'm a bit insulted, or else you misunderstood me. For that term paper (9th grade) I read Marx, Engels, and others.
I believe you may have read the word 'Marx,' but you show no hint in your posts that you have any understanding of anything he wrote. That's what might be confusing people.
So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research?
Let's rephrase to remove that objection.
Publicly funded research is essential because there are many fields where private funding would be somewhere between insufficient to non-existent, especially those with low potential for obvious commercial application (ironically, like climate change). Additionally there are many fields where monetary interest raises questions about the reliability of industry based research (eg. the efficacy of glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis), which reliability can be assessed only by comparison with publicly funded (as close as we can practically get to independent) research.
To blame the nature of government funded research itself, for the gross attempt at state intervention described in the present article, is not only to misunderstand the nature and ignore the importance of public research, it is to underestimate the transgression contemplated by this intervention. Instead of attacking science funding we ought attack the administrator who fails in their duty to respect independence in publicly funded research. With pitchforks if necessary.
Not only that, but there are glaring counterexamples. Koch money, for instance, funded BEST.
Which was a review of extant climate science and would not have been funded but for government funding of science. So perhaps not as good an example as it appears on first appearances.
The browsers installed by default on the OS do. In fact switching back to them is even easier than installing the plugin. And yes some users will install the plugin, but some will change browsers instead.
This seems a blunt way to audit the security of plugins and one guaranteed to reduce user numbers.
Thanks for that. I thought it was obvious. But these guys nearly had me providing an interlinear translations along the lines of...
Original:
And they call me a sociopath...
Translation:
In the even that the dripping irony of the above is not already blindingly obvious, allow me to state explicitly that this post is of satirical intent.
But then again perhaps an ironic statement is not itself the clearest way to alert the slower reader to the presence of irony.
Grade A? Why thank you. One does try one's hardest. I'm relieved that you failed to mention the nicht I carelessly omitted from the second German sentence... you're too kind. And if I might repay your compliment... however much you may lack of it yourself, you are at least able to acknowledge talent in others.
... your assberger's...
Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight. Seriously, if you can't do wit, don't even try. Go away and read some Oscar Wilde first, or watch a Woody Allen movie or two, or take lessons, or something...
That would usually be the case, yes. As far as your clinical diagnosis is concerned, here's my advice: Don't give up your day job.
First off, don't [sic] me, boy. You misspelled it first.
Sorry granddad, I neither misspelled his name (you did), nor sicced you. Look! I sicced myself (which is to say I'm spelling it this way knowingly). Und es ist doch ganz klar wie dass buchstabiert ist, oder? Ich meine es ist mit einem 'ei' ausgesprochen.... Mann!
... spouting off his ideas which is just as bad.
So terribly sorry there chief censor. I had no idea his works were on your Index Librorum Prohibitorum. But why do I have this feeling that you are still not quite getting it?
Seriously though, I will continue to quote Nietzsche where doing so illuminates some point, the sensitivities of the unread notwithstanding.
This made me laugh, thanks!
Which was the intent of the original post, glad you finally got there. And your most welcome.
No one have ever called me a sociopath, I didn't quote Nietzsche [sic] (whom I doubt you have ever read), and your sense of irony is somewhat underdeveloped.
Exactly. This teaches that living creatures, and one would hope by extension other humans, are properly controlled at our whim.
As I'm teaching my boys, the point of life is to get other people to do stuff that is against their interests and in yours. All this talk of dignity, human rights, liberty &c. is, as Nietzsche pointed out, merely the pathetic cry of the weak, whom it is the right of my offspring to manipulate and exploit. I wonder where I can get this for them -given the great educational value.
Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock [sic] and [sic] Foxtel, so you're not alone.
From the PoV of established media players, the threat of to-the-home-fibre, that the erstwhile Labor govt was implementing, as opposed to the fibre-to-the-node, copper-to-the-home system we will now be getting, is that it would further to erode traditional business models. The traditional producer-consumer relationship is already strained by the self-publication the web, via blogs and social media, has introduced. Reproducing this on a hardware level with a network of peers replacing a company servers - consumer clients model ramps this up to a whole new level.
The requirements of vested interests play well into the lack of scientific/technological awareness of Abbott and many of colleagues (excluding Turnbull obviously).
Rupert Murdoch isn't sitting in some little control room somewhere surrounded by intelligence agents plotting to take away your freedom, that's just paranoia talking.
It's true his power is not absolute.
Even in Australia (where his control of the print amounts to almost 77% of papers sold) he has, since he backed Whitlam in1972, lost the federal election on 3 occasions (1973, 1993 and 2010). He only missed 2010 by a hair's breath (his influence did not extend to those independents who decided which party to back in the hung parliament). That's a success rate of well below 100% (it's actually only a touch above 80%). And yes, in Australia, Murdoch backs either side of politics as the expediencies of current business imperatives demand. Though in the US (where his power is much diluted) his media seem welded on to the Republican side.
In Australia, of course, he has just notched up another win, in an election that (given the (re)emergence of a popular figure on the non-Murdoch just before the election) was being touted as almost a test of his power to determine the government of Australia. In the event Rudd ran a pretty lousy campaign so the precipitous fall in his popularity cannot entirely be attributed to Murdoch's admittedly shameless propaganda: among other things dressing the incumbent and his deputy in Nazi uniforms (actually Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schulz) on the front covers of Australia's highest circulation dailies.
OTOH, it would be foolish simply to ignore Murdoch's influence. And I would stress to that the use of 'Murdoch' here is somewhat of a synedoche, it being perhaps more accurate to speak of the influence of the upper management of News Ltd in general --including of course Col Allan, whom Murdoch sent in specifically to fight the 2013 federal election.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean what the hell do you think they are gonna say? Oh, gee sorry, we have completely ruined the environment for humans for 10000 years?
Where did you get the figure of 10000 years from? They've ruined the immediate environs of human habitation for probably about 100-150 years I would guess (really depends how substantial the contamination is now).
We are worried about Cs-137 and Sr-90 here so (given the shorter half-lives of the isotopes they decay to on their way to stability) an effective half life of 30 years. This is a terrible half-life from the PoV of creatures whose life-spans are in the order of decades.
From there it's simply powers of two that any geek, even an Anonymous Coward should have little trouble dealing with. After 30 years 50% of the original radioactive substance has gone. After 90 years (3 half-lives) %87.5 percent of the radioactive substance is spent, after 150 years 97% is spent ... after 300 years we are talking around 1/100th of 1% of these isotopes remaining.
However, that is not to say that the deployment of off-shore wind power is not good news. I just hope they don't melt in those highly contaminated waters :p.
So in your mind Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes have no correlation.
To my mind using a restricted data set not directly pertinent to the region under question seems inappropriate where there would be regional and/or global data available.
Global data. Western Pacific ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is still slightly below average for the year, and worldwide ACE is only about 75% of normal. Does that help?
Yes that seems far more pertinent.
No please don't mention climate change when extreme weather events like this occur, it upsets the children. And when it happens in the Phillipines it upsets the diplomats.
Whatever you do don't start talking about climate change!
Um, not exactly.
I'm not sure where exact comes into the picture when you use US data to talk about increasing typhoon activity (or the lack thereof) in Asia or globally. Irrelevant comes to mind.
Haha. So the fact that I did not take the time ... to provide a definitive, line-by-line critique of Marx's entire body of work demonstrates to you an apparent lack of understanding?
Not at all. In fact I guarantee that there exists no one in the world who would be prepared to read any line-by-line critique of Marx's entire body of work that you might devise. All that was required was the merest hint that you were familiar with the work you claim to have read and presume to critique.
I suppose that all the other philosophers, mathematicians, and social scientists ... also don't "have any understanding of anything he wrote".
Do not suppose that my comments were directed at anyone apart from you.
Comments along the lines of "completely eviscerating," "pathetic lack of logic" or "irrational rantings [sic]" are not indicative of a dispassionate and reasonable assessment. Clearly there are critics of Marx who are intimately familiar with his work. For something light, I'd recommend David Conway's A Farewell to Marx, a reading of which would leave you with the ability at least to mimic someone who had bothered to read the writer they purport to critique.
So I'll put the discussion on the other foot: Your statement demonstrates that you have neither read nor understood anything about complex adaptive systems ...
The statement: I believe you may have read the word 'Marx,' but you show no hint in your posts that you have any understanding of anything he wrote. That's what might be confusing people. demonstrates a lack of understanding of complex adaptive systems? Wow.
In any case ... NO, you don't get to shift the discussion. I'm making no claims about complex adaptive systems. I'm making a claim about your lack of erudition as regards the writer you claim to have disposed of at age 14.
I suggest you spend a year or so studying, yourself.
LOL
Then, come back in a year and tell me how Marx even makes sense
I have no interest in telling you how Marx makes sense! What do you take me for ... a Marxist?!
This isn't about Marx, it's about your narcissism. It's about the cringeworthy dragshow of your parading your palpable ignorance tarted up as knowledge. In public! There's no ideological dispute here --you got called out, that's all.
The opening line of Karl Mark's book...
It's an excerpt from Marx' Critique of the Gotha Programme.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then [sic] can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! [Emphasis added]
The point being that To each according to his contribution was necessarily to be the appropriate principle until that higher phase be accomplished! I.e. simply the elimination of exploitation (in the technical Marxist sense of that word). As you say, don't believe everything people tell you about Marx and, I would add, be careful about taking these slogans out of context. Our friend here seems especially to have had his recall of reading of Kapital (or was it Grundrisse?) coloured by popular misconception.
The system we use says that the "free" in "free market" means anyone can participate ...
Well ... that 'free' means many things to many people. I certainly agree that it implies a freedom of anyone to participate free from qualification (apart from having the requisite wealth). IMO it requires additionally (or perhaps essentially) that the buyer and seller are free to agree between themselves on the price. Thus the market for theatre tickets is a free market only when it involves a scalper.
What you say about China is insightful and often forgotten. Not that I'd want to live under their system mind ...
I think I'm a bit insulted, or else you misunderstood me. For that term paper (9th grade) I read Marx, Engels, and others.
I believe you may have read the word 'Marx,' but you show no hint in your posts that you have any understanding of anything he wrote. That's what might be confusing people.
So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research?
Let's rephrase to remove that objection.
Publicly funded research is essential because there are many fields where private funding would be somewhere between insufficient to non-existent, especially those with low potential for obvious commercial application (ironically, like climate change). Additionally there are many fields where monetary interest raises questions about the reliability of industry based research (eg. the efficacy of glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis), which reliability can be assessed only by comparison with publicly funded (as close as we can practically get to independent) research.
To blame the nature of government funded research itself, for the gross attempt at state intervention described in the present article, is not only to misunderstand the nature and ignore the importance of public research, it is to underestimate the transgression contemplated by this intervention. Instead of attacking science funding we ought attack the administrator who fails in their duty to respect independence in publicly funded research. With pitchforks if necessary.
Not only that, but there are glaring counterexamples. Koch money, for instance, funded BEST.
Which was a review of extant climate science and would not have been funded but for government funding of science. So perhaps not as good an example as it appears on first appearances.
Fortunately it still works ...
But it doesn't just work.
The browsers installed by default on the OS do. In fact switching back to them is even easier than installing the plugin. And yes some users will install the plugin, but some will change browsers instead.
This seems a blunt way to audit the security of plugins and one guaranteed to reduce user numbers.
Apparently, scientists in Japan are extremely concerned that Japanese users of Twitter are frequently reporting spontaneous nosebleeds.
Is it only Twitter causing nosebleeds or are other social media site users presenting similarly?
Thanks for that. I thought it was obvious. But these guys nearly had me providing an interlinear translations along the lines of ...
Original: ...
And they call me a sociopath
Translation:
In the even that the dripping irony of the above is not already blindingly obvious, allow me to state explicitly that this post is of satirical intent.
But then again perhaps an ironic statement is not itself the clearest way to alert the slower reader to the presence of irony.
[Y]ou're a grade A asshole- I'll give you that.
Grade A? Why thank you. One does try one's hardest. I'm relieved that you failed to mention the nicht I carelessly omitted from the second German sentence ... you're too kind. And if I might repay your compliment ... however much you may lack of it yourself, you are at least able to acknowledge talent in others.
Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight. Seriously, if you can't do wit, don't even try. Go away and read some Oscar Wilde first, or watch a Woody Allen movie or two, or take lessons, or something ...
Maybe you're right.
That would usually be the case, yes. As far as your clinical diagnosis is concerned, here's my advice: Don't give up your day job.
First off, don't [sic] me, boy. You misspelled it first.
Sorry granddad, I neither misspelled his name (you did), nor sicced you. Look! I sicced myself (which is to say I'm spelling it this way knowingly). Und es ist doch ganz klar wie dass buchstabiert ist, oder? Ich meine es ist mit einem 'ei' ausgesprochen. ... Mann!
So terribly sorry there chief censor. I had no idea his works were on your Index Librorum Prohibitorum. But why do I have this feeling that you are still not quite getting it?
Seriously though, I will continue to quote Nietzsche where doing so illuminates some point, the sensitivities of the unread notwithstanding.
This made me laugh, thanks!
Which was the intent of the original post, glad you finally got there. And your most welcome.
did you bother reading your own link? "A Modest Proposal" was satire
Hold that thought for a while.
1 s/have/has/
What scares me most about this post is your +5 mod. I bet lots of those points came from folks who actually believe that.
Yes, I was wondering the same thing actually. I trust that the moderators, like you, understood what was being said. You did guys? Cool!
It's one of the few times where one would almost be more comfortable having one's post modded Troll by some irony deprived dullard ... :/
In other words, you're one sick puppy.
Thanks for the opinion Doc. But if you think I'm sick, you don't even want to hear about Jonathan Swift's ideas about what to do with Irish children.
You're not Canadian by any chance, are you?
No one have ever called me a sociopath, I didn't quote Nietzsche [sic] (whom I doubt you have ever read), and your sense of irony is somewhat underdeveloped.
This does seem a great deal more educational.
Exactly. This teaches that living creatures, and one would hope by extension other humans, are properly controlled at our whim.
As I'm teaching my boys, the point of life is to get other people to do stuff that is against their interests and in yours. All this talk of dignity, human rights, liberty &c. is, as Nietzsche pointed out, merely the pathetic cry of the weak, whom it is the right of my offspring to manipulate and exploit. I wonder where I can get this for them -given the great educational value.
And they call me a sociopath ...
If God did create us, how bad an engineer do you have to be to put a sewage outlet right in the middle of a recreational area?
You can hardly blame God for that. God merely created us in his own image ... blame the engineer who designed God!
Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock [sic] and [sic] Foxtel, so you're not alone.
From the PoV of established media players, the threat of to-the-home-fibre, that the erstwhile Labor govt was implementing, as opposed to the fibre-to-the-node, copper-to-the-home system we will now be getting, is that it would further to erode traditional business models. The traditional producer-consumer relationship is already strained by the self-publication the web, via blogs and social media, has introduced. Reproducing this on a hardware level with a network of peers replacing a company servers - consumer clients model ramps this up to a whole new level.
The requirements of vested interests play well into the lack of scientific/technological awareness of Abbott and many of colleagues (excluding Turnbull obviously).
I'd keep a closer eye on George Soros ...
You have two eyes, no?
Oops, sorry that was 1974, not 1973
and
... on the non-Murdoch side ...
Rupert Murdoch isn't sitting in some little control room somewhere surrounded by intelligence agents plotting to take away your freedom, that's just paranoia talking.
It's true his power is not absolute.
Even in Australia (where his control of the print amounts to almost 77% of papers sold) he has, since he backed Whitlam in1972, lost the federal election on 3 occasions (1973, 1993 and 2010). He only missed 2010 by a hair's breath (his influence did not extend to those independents who decided which party to back in the hung parliament). That's a success rate of well below 100% (it's actually only a touch above 80%). And yes, in Australia, Murdoch backs either side of politics as the expediencies of current business imperatives demand. Though in the US (where his power is much diluted) his media seem welded on to the Republican side.
In Australia, of course, he has just notched up another win, in an election that (given the (re)emergence of a popular figure on the non-Murdoch just before the election) was being touted as almost a test of his power to determine the government of Australia. In the event Rudd ran a pretty lousy campaign so the precipitous fall in his popularity cannot entirely be attributed to Murdoch's admittedly shameless propaganda: among other things dressing the incumbent and his deputy in Nazi uniforms (actually Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schulz) on the front covers of Australia's highest circulation dailies.
OTOH, it would be foolish simply to ignore Murdoch's influence. And I would stress to that the use of 'Murdoch' here is somewhat of a synedoche, it being perhaps more accurate to speak of the influence of the upper management of News Ltd in general --including of course Col Allan, whom Murdoch sent in specifically to fight the 2013 federal election.