... if I'm not mistaken Mesopotamia -- the famed "Fertile Crescent" -- is a good example of what irrigation and deforestation can do to a region if that region is not capable of supporting it.
I think you might be mistaken. I think that it is accepted that Mesopotamia has been a place of low rain fall, but of relatively high inundation for several millenia (which is not to say the region has been free from climate change over this time). At least this presumption figures in theories of why the first cities originated in this area (see for instance Gwendolyn Leick, Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City). The idea is that the irrigation requires a large concentrated labour force and extensive organisation, in other words the great potential of Mesopotamia was exploitable only by an urban culture.
This reliance on irrigation for plant growth is evidenced by a passage from the 2nd biblical creation myth (which displays its mesopotamian heritage in other ways too).
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. -- Gen 2:5
Which is why, in contradistinction to the 1st creation myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:3), plants could only be created after man.
and so the idiots (who wouldn't vote if they didn't have to) vote for the party with the worst shock campaign
Yes the problem with compulsory voting is that at least half the voters have below average intelligence... On the other hand the advantage is that any party controlling the legislature has (more or less as we have a representative system not a general popular vote) the mandate of the majority of the citizens in the country. In other words every piece of legislation by which we are governed derives it force at law by (indirectly) representing the will of at least that majority of citizens... it's what we call democracy (idiots and all!)
I'm not sure if those 191 Non US countries all have reputable voting systems...
That being said, I'm glad I live in a country (Australia) where we still use paper ballots; where the election is organised by an independent commission and where they are counted at the polling station by volunteers, with representatives of all the parties standing over their shoulders and watching the tallying like hawks. I may not like the winner of the election (I don't!), but at least I'm reasonably certain the result reflects the will of the People.
With voting machines and elections controlled by local party apparatchiks the best it seems one can hope for is that both sides' cheating cancels each other out.
Yes, god forbid someone is motivated by money! How evil.
Did OP, or anyone else, say he wasn't motivated by money? Anyway to be truly evil you have to be exclusively motivated by money, not merely primarily motivated by it:p
The real, industrial-strength pseudo-scholars who want to watch TV rather than crack a book turn their tight-leather-clad attention spans toward Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
You're not challenging Dr Baker's bona fides, are you? Check out this Buffy Scholar!
while it was quite the wild ride, it was probably an anomaly and not directly related to global warming
Can you prove the assertion that the wild ride was (probably or otherwise) not directly related to global warming? What evidence do you have for making what is a positive claim?
In fact modelling is predicting a increase in storm (and hurricane) activitiy as a result of global warming. However, because of the large interseasonal variation and the relative paucity of good data, it is anticipated that it will be some decades (from memory, I read up to 70 years in one study) before the link between increased hurricane activity and global warming will be firmly established. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the two are unrelated. On the contrary, modelling suggests they are.
So the "wild ride" was probably (using 'probably' in a sense not importing any notion of statistical significance) directly related to global warming, we just can't be sure yet. Of course it was also directly related to already well established cycles and scientists, being in the main cautious creatures, will stress the established over the merely probable. (Though judging from the anti-science drivel flowing from the keyboards of too many shlashdotters, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise).
if you're pirating a song instead of buying it, that's not exactly good business for the record label, is it?
Which is exactly the reason I only ever pirate songs I wouldn't even think of buying. Then it's a win/win situation, I get something for free, the record label doesn't loose a cent.;)
nah, its not the herald that has the problem, its the moron corporate fashion wanker
Exactamundo! Someone needs to have a little talk to her, "Honey, you know it's just not that important... oh and yeah, the middle ship is waiting for you just over there."
As far as it being a product of "Web culture," that's just a wanton display of ignorance. The dictum, Real programmers don't wear suits, was around when gopher was the latest net technology.
And, quoting another reply, "The salient point here is that evolution is the truth (...)"
Had you of continued the quote, you should have noticed that that poster was making the point the 'evolution' is not a theory, but an observable, it is the Theory of Natural Selection that is the theory. To clarify this for you, the sun going up in the morning and setting at night is not a theory, it is the observable, the geocentric or heliocentric theories are the theories trying to account for that observable.
I've never heard a biology teacher saying evolution is a possible explanation, only that it's the explanation for the origin of man.
That's why I believe both theories should be taught together.
You think ID needs to be taught next to [the theory of] evolution because you have never heard a biology teacher saying natural selection is only a possibly explanation?! I'm not sure I follow your logic, however if you read on from the poster you so mischivously misquote (or selectively quote) you would have read this:
... the (post-Darwinian) Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have of evolution to date. (my emphasis)
If other possible explanations ought to be taught, why stop at ID, why not teach the FSM theory? The reason, of course is that neither ID, nor the FSM theory are plausile scientific explanations, and until another plausible scientific theory comes onto the scene, the theory of natural selection is the only game in town. As a side note you might want to reflect on the Kuhnian idea that it is this claim to exclusivity which distinguishes 'science' from 'pre-science'.
But to say that all this Hurricane activity is the result of Global Warming isn't science, it's speculation.
Science involves speculation. But if what you are saying is the drawing a link between increasing hurricane and global warming is pure speculation, lacking any scientific backing, you are sadly mistaken.
Knutson and Tuleya's simulation modeling shows increasing hurricane activity in high CO2 environments, however they argue that given the great interannual variation and the relatively and the poor historical storm data, it will be decades until this effect can be conclusively shown. (Knutson & Tuleya, 2004, 'Impact of C02-induced Warming on Simulated Hurincane Intensity and Precipitation', Climate17, 3477-3495)
I haven't read Kerry Emanuel's (MIT) paper (see this press release) nor the Webster (Georgia Institute of Tech) paper (which I'm led to understand claim such an effect can already be demonstrated), however before dismissing them as pure speculation without having read them. Nor would I rely on a source such as freerepublic.com nor "Reason" magazine for my science.
Perhaps they simply do not agree with your oppinion of how their kids should be raised?
There's no 'perhaps' about it! The mere fact that someone disagrees with my opinion doesn't make the right, (I'm not always wrong you know).
However I seriously doubt that my definition of "demon spawn" would quite match up with your definition of "demon spawn". I don't know you and your family, but you should consider the possibility that your family might just fit my definition. I am a strong believer in values, but my values may just conflict with some of your values.
Allow me to illustrate using a true story of a crime that occured in my neighbourhood. Teenage boy A made a pass at girlfriend of his friend, teenage boy B. Some weeks later A, B, C & D go camping. B enlists the help of C & D to crush A's skull with rocks and then bury A in a shallow grave. Now you know what I mean by demon spawn.
I don't care what values you raise you kids with, providing that those values (or the lack thereof) don't lead to your kids injuring mine (or me for that matter).
lets say that the way I've raised my 4 year old is nothing like the way you raised your 4 year old... And lets say that I taught my 4 year old that things on TV Are Not Real, and that there are things on TV that Should Not Be Done. etc.
You've just contradicted yourself.:)
The question is, do you think you have some right to PULL OUT A GUN AND FORICBLY IMPRISON ME if I do that? And that is what we are really talking about with laws, the idea that you can "hire" a government police officer to pull out that gun for you, and to imprison me for you.
Given the fact scenario you just presented, clearly my answer would be "no". On the other hand should the criminal law restrict the access to certain types of violent media on an age basis, you would of course be oblidged to defer to that law. Or would you rather live in a lawless society?
Lets say I've paid a mechanic $1000 to fix my car, but instead of returning my car to me, he sells it to another party for $6000. Do you think I should be able to enforce the contract using the force of law? Because if you do, what you are really talking about... well you know.
The question I was raising was this one, do you think I have the right to train my kids to PULL A GUN OUT AND DISCHARGE SEVERAL ROUNDS INTO YOUR CHEST (say because you're black, Jewish, a woman, American etc)? Or don't you mind being shot at, provided it's not being done by the police?
a subtle point that people often overlooked in understanding freedom of speach. It's not the words/content that is illegal. Saying "I'll give you a million dollars to kill my wife" is not illegal. Attempting to cause the death of your wife is illegal. Saying those words as part of a movie script, or otherwise without intent to actually cause a death, that is perfectly legal
Arguably it is the speech that is illegal, depending on the context. Try saying that to two undercover detectives and you'll find out what I mean. Although I'm not an American lawyer, my understanding is that exceptions to the 1st amendment rights (such as fighting words) are actually exceptions to the first amendment rights (ie. they are prohibited as speech), in contradistinciton, to say, child porn, which is protected speech, but is illegal if it involves the use of actual children.
The responsibility to other citizens is not to violate other citizens rights. The responsibility not to commit crimes violating other people's rights.
Hear hear! Additionally, it is the responsibility of parents to impart this notion to their children. Whether by act (such as the Hezbollah TV children's programming), or omission (ie just not taking an interest), many parents are failing in this responsibility.
Part of the requirements of good parenting is at least a basic understanding of the different
The only problem with those laws (well not the only, but still...) is they allow the irresponsible parents to file suit against the gaming industry because they were too lazy to look at the box and see what kind of content the game had before forking over the money for the kid to buy the game.
I think what is really happening is that people with a hardline pro-censorship agenda are buying these games, full-well knowing their content, with the express intention of suing the producer. It's a form of deliberate political activism.
As I said, I'm very much pro free speech, but I realise that it cannot be an absolute. A society has the right to censor to some degree. I fear that these people are tending far too much towards the saccharine culture I was fearful of.
I think schemes like the present one, ie. using age restriction, are probably one of the best compromises. If the adults who subsequently supply minors with these products were also made criminally liable (I don't know if they are in the present scheme), we would have a way to deal, not only with irresponsible parents, we could also lock up these campaigners.:)
Uh huh. Because precisely what we need are more laws, because we can't trust parents to be responsible enough to apply their moral values (which may not be the same as yours, by the way) to their little bastards.
Hey I'm a parent, and I'm extremely vigilant in this regard. I certainly don't need laws to do my job for me! On the other hand, I'm surrounded by people who don't seem to give a rat's arse about what their kids are exposed to. I used to love free speech before it was taken away, but letting your 4 year old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? C'mon!
My problem is this: I can raise my boys to be ethical and as they get older, to understand entertainment violence in context, but my family is not an island. My kids (and my self for that matter) will have to live in a world filled with the demon spawn that other parents have negilently released into the community. So while I don't need laws to tell me to do my job, I do need laws to tell those other parents to do theirs.
That being said, the Law is a very blunt instrument when it comes to getting parents to take their responsibilities seriously. You can't censor out all the violent cultural material, at lest not without creating an intolerably saccharine culture. (Conversely, of course, some material is so objectionable that no civilised society should tolerate it, eg. children's programming which extols the virtues becomming a suicide bomber.) I'm just no sure how we can get parents to take an interest and to realise the responsibility they owe to their fellow citizens.
The hidden part of "maximise shareholder returns" is that often companies create an instantaneous appearance of high returns by immoral, even illegal, and assuredly stupid and unsustainable acts. This is done to increase stock price primarily, and to create confidence secondarily. The elite and insiders can then cash out on the temporary condition.
I was not careful enough in choosing my words. Instead of the "only ethical consideration", I ought to have written the primary ethical consideration. Clearly there is a raft of ancillary duties (such as those imposed by law via directors duties), which a company must also meet.
Maintaining the mere "appearance" of profitability, as you point out, does not, in the long run, satisfy the primary duty. If you want to talk about "bad ethics" (as it pertains to a corporation and its servants), Enron would be the most obvious starting point. Please take that as being implied in my analysis, I did not mean to restrict the term 'shareholders' to "the elite and insiders," nor to day-traders for that matter.
US companies... know it's bad ethics to be playing with people's jobs and lives to compensate for poor earnings.
Bad ethics?! Surely the only ethical consideration for a corporation (inasmuch as a non-natural person is bound by ethics) is to maximise shareholder returns. People's lives and jobs should matter to a company only insofar as the company's reputation for good working conditions attracts employees who are better able to guarantee that imperative. If you are just hiring unskilled and easily replacable labour, the worker's lives shouldn't matter in the least (from the perspective of a corporation).
On the other hand, from the point of view of good governance, it is arguable that people's lives should be paramount. Don't forget that corporations are creatures of legislation. They were imbued with legal personality and limited liability in return for the good they could do for society (such as engaging in works requiring massive capital which the 'natural' joint-stock companies were unable to raise). In a democracy (or a republic founded on democratic principles), it is the duly elected legislature, reflecting the will of the people, who must determine the limits of corporate behaviour.
Apparently the voters in France feel that people's lives have precedence of company profits, while the voters of the US feel the opposite to be the case. All irony aside, however, don't expect companies to self-govern in this regard, nor to adopt ethical considerations foreign to their imperative of maximising shareholder returns. That's not their job, it's yours as a citizen.
Companies are very reluctant to hire people if it is overly difficult to fire them.
Nonesense. Companies have to hire people. Any well managed company hires people based on the minimum staffing levels required to carry out its work.
The problem for companies comes when that number declines. In a workers-are-material legislative scenario, the company disposes of the humans immediately. In a workers-are-people scenario, the company must wait for natural attrition to take its toll, meaning that it must suffer reduced profitablility.
Hence the rational preference for companies (and hence shareholding people) is a workers-are-material set-up, while the rational preference for working humans is the opposite.
A system that has 5% unemployment vs. 10% or higher is more compassionate, is it not?
That depends entirely on what provisions the government makes for those 5 or 10%. Sorry to get all Rawlsian on you, but where would you rather be placed, among the 5% of unemployed Americans, or among the 10% of unemployed French?
I'm sorry to have caused you umbrage, but I did try to couch my language so as not to state that, we can as yet blame particular weather phenomena on global warming. This is particularly the case in regard to hurricanes where established wisdom is that they follow a cyclical pattern, and where the intensity of hurricane seasons has been predicted with some success by such specialists as William Grey (who dismisses the impact of anthropogenic glob al warming).
On the other hand, some climatologists do feel that global warming is/or will have an impact on hurricane formation. (see for example thispress release re the more recent work of Kerry Emanuel.)
My point was, that we cannot glibly dismiss any connection out of hand.
It is interesting that the reference you provided for to show how controversial the link is, cites Knutson & Tuleya (2004) as bearing out such controversy. Well it's interesting to me, because I had just recently skimmed through that paper.
Far from denying a link between global warming and hurricane activity Knutson & Tuleya's work shows "increased huricane intensities and storm percipition rates in high-C02 environments."
Knutson & Tuleya, 2004, 'Impact of C02-induced Warming on Simulated Hurincane Intensity and Precipitation', Climate17, 3477-3495,at 3494. What they do say is that we are unlikely to be able to detect any changes over the past half century, and given both the interannual variability and the paucity of historical storm data, that any changes "will probably not be detectable for decades to come." (ibid). at 3493) The clear implication being that after some decades it will be.
the melting of Greenland (which is happening faster than the models predict)...
It is certainly a surprise to me that we are seeing such large changes so soon. I suspect that it is possible we will see other changes will occuring faster than the models predict. As Knutson & Tuleya freely admit, theirs is an "idealized framework" and recent empirical work show a greater than expected increase in 'convective available potential energy', in the Atlantic tropical storm basin, as well as those in the NE Pacific and the Indian Oceans, (with the caveat that for the basins other than the Atlantic, the historical data is even poorer). (ibid.)
But please don't read me as saying the ferocity of Katrina is Gaia's vengance or any such thing. What I'm saying is that the link cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It is tempting to want Mother Nature to bash some sense into the right wingnuts in Florida...
Whenever I feel the temptation the want such a thing, I simply remember that those are human beings who are suffering. I look at my kids and think about theirs. After all, the reason we have to get this message across is so that we can begin to take steps to reduce human suffering, not to wish for it so we can have the satisfaction of wining an argument. What I wish for is that the "boneheads" are right and the GW is nothing but a liberal myth... oh and I also wish to win the lottery.
Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist with particular research interest in human and cultural evolution.
His speciality is neo-catastrophism, and his paper didn't make it past peer review in a premier scientific journal.
his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly
What documents? Peer-reviewed scientific journals, or stories in the Torygraph? Do a quick literature search (of peer-reviewed papers) yourself, you'll see that Benny's figures are a bad joke. No seriously, get your head out of the Telegraph and use a scientific abstracts service.
How is that for political ideology?
http;//www.telegraph.co.uk/...
But then again there doesnt appear to be any really consensus on what is happening with the world... is it global warming, is it cooling, is it pollution-induced or hell, even pollution stabilised!
Depends on where you are looking for consensus. Oreskes (Science 2004 (vol 306, p1686), studied 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003, and found "near universal" consensus. In the specialist community, there really is no dispute, global mean temperatures are rising, and anthropogenic sources of C02 are a likely major contributor to this.
Of course once you enter the world of politics and ideology such consensus is a little more difficult to find. On the other hand if you want to find folks with their heads in the sand, you'll be in luck.
You link this hurricane to global warming and I'll do a backflip
Start doing backflips sonny. This particular hurricane cannot of course be specifically blamed on global warning. However, one of the most consistent predicitions of modelling over the last decade and a half has been the expectation of an increase in the frequency and strength of extreme weather events. So we can say that this hurrican is not inconsistent with predicted climate change.
Start paying attention over the next decade or two. When you start getting one in a decade hurricanes several times a decade, or you get 4 or 5 hurricanes per season, you should consider yourself put on notice.
We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind.
How can this be? Being a neo-con is a political alignment, but either of these questions are questions of science.
Surely being a neo-con doesn't mean you close your mind to scientific fact on the basis of ideology. Next thing you're going to tell me that people deny evolution merely on the basis of religious preference.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you might be mistaken. I think that it is accepted that Mesopotamia has been a place of low rain fall, but of relatively high inundation for several millenia (which is not to say the region has been free from climate change over this time). At least this presumption figures in theories of why the first cities originated in this area (see for instance Gwendolyn Leick, Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City). The idea is that the irrigation requires a large concentrated labour force and extensive organisation, in other words the great potential of Mesopotamia was exploitable only by an urban culture.
This reliance on irrigation for plant growth is evidenced by a passage from the 2nd biblical creation myth (which displays its mesopotamian heritage in other ways too).
Which is why, in contradistinction to the 1st creation myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:3), plants could only be created after man.
and so the idiots (who wouldn't vote if they didn't have to) vote for the party with the worst shock campaign
Yes the problem with compulsory voting is that at least half the voters have below average intelligence ... On the other hand the advantage is that any party controlling the legislature has (more or less as we have a representative system not a general popular vote) the mandate of the majority of the citizens in the country. In other words every piece of legislation by which we are governed derives it force at law by (indirectly) representing the will of at least that majority of citizens ... it's what we call democracy (idiots and all!)
I'm not sure if those 191 Non US countries all have reputable voting systems ...
That being said, I'm glad I live in a country (Australia) where we still use paper ballots; where the election is organised by an independent commission and where they are counted at the polling station by volunteers, with representatives of all the parties standing over their shoulders and watching the tallying like hawks. I may not like the winner of the election (I don't!), but at least I'm reasonably certain the result reflects the will of the People.
With voting machines and elections controlled by local party apparatchiks the best it seems one can hope for is that both sides' cheating cancels each other out.
Yes, god forbid someone is motivated by money! How evil.
Did OP, or anyone else, say he wasn't motivated by money? Anyway to be truly evil you have to be exclusively motivated by money, not merely primarily motivated by it :p
The real, industrial-strength pseudo-scholars who want to watch TV rather than crack a book turn their tight-leather-clad attention spans toward Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
You're not challenging Dr Baker's bona fides, are you? Check out this Buffy Scholar!
while it was quite the wild ride, it was probably an anomaly and not directly related to global warming
Can you prove the assertion that the wild ride was (probably or otherwise) not directly related to global warming? What evidence do you have for making what is a positive claim?
In fact modelling is predicting a increase in storm (and hurricane) activitiy as a result of global warming. However, because of the large interseasonal variation and the relative paucity of good data, it is anticipated that it will be some decades (from memory, I read up to 70 years in one study) before the link between increased hurricane activity and global warming will be firmly established. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the two are unrelated. On the contrary, modelling suggests they are.
So the "wild ride" was probably (using 'probably' in a sense not importing any notion of statistical significance) directly related to global warming, we just can't be sure yet. Of course it was also directly related to already well established cycles and scientists, being in the main cautious creatures, will stress the established over the merely probable. (Though judging from the anti-science drivel flowing from the keyboards of too many shlashdotters, one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise).
if you're pirating a song instead of buying it, that's not exactly good business for the record label, is it?
Which is exactly the reason I only ever pirate songs I wouldn't even think of buying. Then it's a win/win situation, I get something for free, the record label doesn't loose a cent. ;)
the anti-bush grandparent
Maybe the grandparent was more anti state surveillance/propaganda, Bush or no Bush.
nah, its not the herald that has the problem, its the moron corporate fashion wanker
Exactamundo! Someone needs to have a little talk to her, "Honey, you know it's just not that important ... oh and yeah, the middle ship is waiting for you just over there."
As far as it being a product of "Web culture," that's just a wanton display of ignorance. The dictum, Real programmers don't wear suits, was around when gopher was the latest net technology.
And, quoting another reply, "The salient point here is that evolution is the truth (...)"
Had you of continued the quote, you should have noticed that that poster was making the point the 'evolution' is not a theory, but an observable, it is the Theory of Natural Selection that is the theory. To clarify this for you, the sun going up in the morning and setting at night is not a theory, it is the observable, the geocentric or heliocentric theories are the theories trying to account for that observable.
I've never heard a biology teacher saying evolution is a possible explanation, only that it's the explanation for the origin of man. That's why I believe both theories should be taught together.
You think ID needs to be taught next to [the theory of] evolution because you have never heard a biology teacher saying natural selection is only a possibly explanation?! I'm not sure I follow your logic, however if you read on from the poster you so mischivously misquote (or selectively quote) you would have read this:
(my emphasis)
If other possible explanations ought to be taught, why stop at ID, why not teach the FSM theory? The reason, of course is that neither ID, nor the FSM theory are plausile scientific explanations, and until another plausible scientific theory comes onto the scene, the theory of natural selection is the only game in town. As a side note you might want to reflect on the Kuhnian idea that it is this claim to exclusivity which distinguishes 'science' from 'pre-science'.
I agree with you: ID is not science.
'Nuff said.
But to say that all this Hurricane activity is the result of Global Warming isn't science, it's speculation.
Science involves speculation. But if what you are saying is the drawing a link between increasing hurricane and global warming is pure speculation, lacking any scientific backing, you are sadly mistaken.
Knutson and Tuleya's simulation modeling shows increasing hurricane activity in high CO2 environments, however they argue that given the great interannual variation and the relatively and the poor historical storm data, it will be decades until this effect can be conclusively shown. (Knutson & Tuleya, 2004, 'Impact of C02-induced Warming on Simulated Hurincane Intensity and Precipitation', Climate 17, 3477-3495)
I haven't read Kerry Emanuel's (MIT) paper (see this press release) nor the Webster (Georgia Institute of Tech) paper (which I'm led to understand claim such an effect can already be demonstrated), however before dismissing them as pure speculation without having read them. Nor would I rely on a source such as freerepublic.com nor "Reason" magazine for my science.
Perhaps they simply do not agree with your oppinion of how their kids should be raised?
There's no 'perhaps' about it! The mere fact that someone disagrees with my opinion doesn't make the right, (I'm not always wrong you know).
However I seriously doubt that my definition of "demon spawn" would quite match up with your definition of "demon spawn". I don't know you and your family, but you should consider the possibility that your family might just fit my definition. I am a strong believer in values, but my values may just conflict with some of your values.
Allow me to illustrate using a true story of a crime that occured in my neighbourhood. Teenage boy A made a pass at girlfriend of his friend, teenage boy B. Some weeks later A, B, C & D go camping. B enlists the help of C & D to crush A's skull with rocks and then bury A in a shallow grave. Now you know what I mean by demon spawn.
I don't care what values you raise you kids with, providing that those values (or the lack thereof) don't lead to your kids injuring mine (or me for that matter).
lets say that the way I've raised my 4 year old is nothing like the way you raised your 4 year old ... And lets say that I taught my 4 year old that things on TV Are Not Real, and that there are things on TV that Should Not Be Done. etc.
You've just contradicted yourself. :)
The question is, do you think you have some right to PULL OUT A GUN AND FORICBLY IMPRISON ME if I do that? And that is what we are really talking about with laws, the idea that you can "hire" a government police officer to pull out that gun for you, and to imprison me for you.
Given the fact scenario you just presented, clearly my answer would be "no". On the other hand should the criminal law restrict the access to certain types of violent media on an age basis, you would of course be oblidged to defer to that law. Or would you rather live in a lawless society?
Lets say I've paid a mechanic $1000 to fix my car, but instead of returning my car to me, he sells it to another party for $6000. Do you think I should be able to enforce the contract using the force of law? Because if you do, what you are really talking about ... well you know.
The question I was raising was this one, do you think I have the right to train my kids to PULL A GUN OUT AND DISCHARGE SEVERAL ROUNDS INTO YOUR CHEST (say because you're black, Jewish, a woman, American etc)? Or don't you mind being shot at, provided it's not being done by the police?
a subtle point that people often overlooked in understanding freedom of speach. It's not the words/content that is illegal. Saying "I'll give you a million dollars to kill my wife" is not illegal. Attempting to cause the death of your wife is illegal. Saying those words as part of a movie script, or otherwise without intent to actually cause a death, that is perfectly legal
Arguably it is the speech that is illegal, depending on the context. Try saying that to two undercover detectives and you'll find out what I mean. Although I'm not an American lawyer, my understanding is that exceptions to the 1st amendment rights (such as fighting words) are actually exceptions to the first amendment rights (ie. they are prohibited as speech), in contradistinciton, to say, child porn, which is protected speech, but is illegal if it involves the use of actual children.
The responsibility to other citizens is not to violate other citizens rights. The responsibility not to commit crimes violating other people's rights.
Hear hear! Additionally, it is the responsibility of parents to impart this notion to their children. Whether by act (such as the Hezbollah TV children's programming), or omission (ie just not taking an interest), many parents are failing in this responsibility.
Part of the requirements of good parenting is at least a basic understanding of the different
The only problem with those laws (well not the only, but still...) is they allow the irresponsible parents to file suit against the gaming industry because they were too lazy to look at the box and see what kind of content the game had before forking over the money for the kid to buy the game.
I think what is really happening is that people with a hardline pro-censorship agenda are buying these games, full-well knowing their content, with the express intention of suing the producer. It's a form of deliberate political activism.
As I said, I'm very much pro free speech, but I realise that it cannot be an absolute. A society has the right to censor to some degree. I fear that these people are tending far too much towards the saccharine culture I was fearful of.
I think schemes like the present one, ie. using age restriction, are probably one of the best compromises. If the adults who subsequently supply minors with these products were also made criminally liable (I don't know if they are in the present scheme), we would have a way to deal, not only with irresponsible parents, we could also lock up these campaigners. :)
Uh huh. Because precisely what we need are more laws, because we can't trust parents to be responsible enough to apply their moral values (which may not be the same as yours, by the way) to their little bastards.
Hey I'm a parent, and I'm extremely vigilant in this regard. I certainly don't need laws to do my job for me! On the other hand, I'm surrounded by people who don't seem to give a rat's arse about what their kids are exposed to. I used to love free speech before it was taken away, but letting your 4 year old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre? C'mon!
My problem is this: I can raise my boys to be ethical and as they get older, to understand entertainment violence in context, but my family is not an island. My kids (and my self for that matter) will have to live in a world filled with the demon spawn that other parents have negilently released into the community. So while I don't need laws to tell me to do my job, I do need laws to tell those other parents to do theirs.
That being said, the Law is a very blunt instrument when it comes to getting parents to take their responsibilities seriously. You can't censor out all the violent cultural material, at lest not without creating an intolerably saccharine culture. (Conversely, of course, some material is so objectionable that no civilised society should tolerate it, eg. children's programming which extols the virtues becomming a suicide bomber.) I'm just no sure how we can get parents to take an interest and to realise the responsibility they owe to their fellow citizens.
More fool you.
The hidden part of "maximise shareholder returns" is that often companies create an instantaneous appearance of high returns by immoral, even illegal, and assuredly stupid and unsustainable acts. This is done to increase stock price primarily, and to create confidence secondarily. The elite and insiders can then cash out on the temporary condition.
I was not careful enough in choosing my words. Instead of the "only ethical consideration", I ought to have written the primary ethical consideration. Clearly there is a raft of ancillary duties (such as those imposed by law via directors duties), which a company must also meet.
Maintaining the mere "appearance" of profitability, as you point out, does not, in the long run, satisfy the primary duty. If you want to talk about "bad ethics" (as it pertains to a corporation and its servants), Enron would be the most obvious starting point. Please take that as being implied in my analysis, I did not mean to restrict the term 'shareholders' to "the elite and insiders," nor to day-traders for that matter.
US companies ... know it's bad ethics to be playing with people's jobs and lives to compensate for poor earnings.
Bad ethics?! Surely the only ethical consideration for a corporation (inasmuch as a non-natural person is bound by ethics) is to maximise shareholder returns. People's lives and jobs should matter to a company only insofar as the company's reputation for good working conditions attracts employees who are better able to guarantee that imperative. If you are just hiring unskilled and easily replacable labour, the worker's lives shouldn't matter in the least (from the perspective of a corporation).
On the other hand, from the point of view of good governance, it is arguable that people's lives should be paramount. Don't forget that corporations are creatures of legislation. They were imbued with legal personality and limited liability in return for the good they could do for society (such as engaging in works requiring massive capital which the 'natural' joint-stock companies were unable to raise). In a democracy (or a republic founded on democratic principles), it is the duly elected legislature, reflecting the will of the people, who must determine the limits of corporate behaviour.
Apparently the voters in France feel that people's lives have precedence of company profits, while the voters of the US feel the opposite to be the case. All irony aside, however, don't expect companies to self-govern in this regard, nor to adopt ethical considerations foreign to their imperative of maximising shareholder returns. That's not their job, it's yours as a citizen.
Companies are very reluctant to hire people if it is overly difficult to fire them.
Nonesense. Companies have to hire people. Any well managed company hires people based on the minimum staffing levels required to carry out its work.
The problem for companies comes when that number declines. In a workers-are-material legislative scenario, the company disposes of the humans immediately. In a workers-are-people scenario, the company must wait for natural attrition to take its toll, meaning that it must suffer reduced profitablility.
Hence the rational preference for companies (and hence shareholding people) is a workers-are-material set-up, while the rational preference for working humans is the opposite.
A system that has 5% unemployment vs. 10% or higher is more compassionate, is it not?
That depends entirely on what provisions the government makes for those 5 or 10%. Sorry to get all Rawlsian on you, but where would you rather be placed, among the 5% of unemployed Americans, or among the 10% of unemployed French?
I'm sorry to have caused you umbrage, but I did try to couch my language so as not to state that, we can as yet blame particular weather phenomena on global warming. This is particularly the case in regard to hurricanes where established wisdom is that they follow a cyclical pattern, and where the intensity of hurricane seasons has been predicted with some success by such specialists as William Grey (who dismisses the impact of anthropogenic glob al warming).
On the other hand, some climatologists do feel that global warming is/or will have an impact on hurricane formation. (see for example thispress release re the more recent work of Kerry Emanuel.)
My point was, that we cannot glibly dismiss any connection out of hand.
It is interesting that the reference you provided for to show how controversial the link is, cites Knutson & Tuleya (2004) as bearing out such controversy. Well it's interesting to me, because I had just recently skimmed through that paper.
Far from denying a link between global warming and hurricane activity Knutson & Tuleya's work shows "increased huricane intensities and storm percipition rates in high-C02 environments." Knutson & Tuleya, 2004, 'Impact of C02-induced Warming on Simulated Hurincane Intensity and Precipitation', Climate 17, 3477-3495,at 3494. What they do say is that we are unlikely to be able to detect any changes over the past half century, and given both the interannual variability and the paucity of historical storm data, that any changes "will probably not be detectable for decades to come." (ibid). at 3493) The clear implication being that after some decades it will be.
the melting of Greenland (which is happening faster than the models predict)...
It is certainly a surprise to me that we are seeing such large changes so soon. I suspect that it is possible we will see other changes will occuring faster than the models predict. As Knutson & Tuleya freely admit, theirs is an "idealized framework" and recent empirical work show a greater than expected increase in 'convective available potential energy', in the Atlantic tropical storm basin, as well as those in the NE Pacific and the Indian Oceans, (with the caveat that for the basins other than the Atlantic, the historical data is even poorer). (ibid.)
But please don't read me as saying the ferocity of Katrina is Gaia's vengance or any such thing. What I'm saying is that the link cannot be dismissed out of hand.
It is tempting to want Mother Nature to bash some sense into the right wingnuts in Florida ...
Whenever I feel the temptation the want such a thing, I simply remember that those are human beings who are suffering. I look at my kids and think about theirs. After all, the reason we have to get this message across is so that we can begin to take steps to reduce human suffering, not to wish for it so we can have the satisfaction of wining an argument. What I wish for is that the "boneheads" are right and the GW is nothing but a liberal myth ... oh and I also wish to win the lottery.
From Liverpool John Moores University web site:
Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist with particular research interest in human and cultural evolution.
His speciality is neo-catastrophism, and his paper didn't make it past peer review in a premier scientific journal.
his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly
What documents? Peer-reviewed scientific journals, or stories in the Torygraph? Do a quick literature search (of peer-reviewed papers) yourself, you'll see that Benny's figures are a bad joke. No seriously, get your head out of the Telegraph and use a scientific abstracts service.
How is that for political ideology? ...
http;//www.telegraph.co.uk/
:)
But then again there doesnt appear to be any really consensus on what is happening with the world... is it global warming, is it cooling, is it pollution-induced or hell, even pollution stabilised!
Depends on where you are looking for consensus. Oreskes (Science 2004 (vol 306, p1686), studied 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003, and found "near universal" consensus. In the specialist community, there really is no dispute, global mean temperatures are rising, and anthropogenic sources of C02 are a likely major contributor to this.
Of course once you enter the world of politics and ideology such consensus is a little more difficult to find. On the other hand if you want to find folks with their heads in the sand, you'll be in luck.
Uhhhh hold on a second, why should sonny start doing backflips again?
To get into practice.
You link this hurricane to global warming and I'll do a backflip
Start doing backflips sonny. This particular hurricane cannot of course be specifically blamed on global warning. However, one of the most consistent predicitions of modelling over the last decade and a half has been the expectation of an increase in the frequency and strength of extreme weather events. So we can say that this hurrican is not inconsistent with predicted climate change.
Start paying attention over the next decade or two. When you start getting one in a decade hurricanes several times a decade, or you get 4 or 5 hurricanes per season, you should consider yourself put on notice.
We NeoCons don't deny that the climate is changing; we deny that it's the fault of mankind.
How can this be? Being a neo-con is a political alignment, but either of these questions are questions of science.
Surely being a neo-con doesn't mean you close your mind to scientific fact on the basis of ideology. Next thing you're going to tell me that people deny evolution merely on the basis of religious preference.