I don't suggest doing nothing. I suggest more research and more experimentation. I suggest public policy that encourages more nuclear power and addresses the dangerous build up of temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, trading a risk of local toxicity for the proven regional air pollution and possible global impact.
What I -don't- suggest is that we rush it. Let change evolve slowly on a low-cost vector until the science is good enough to support more radical action.
So you suggest doing nothing to arrest the carbon emissions that appear to be fueling the climate change. That is, in effect, nothing. "Slowly evolving change" will not get it done. Certainly, some scenarios indicate that we've already passed the tipping point. And yet you advocate "caution". Like I said, insane.
Can I get you to concede that there are climate scientists unworthy of the title?
TFTFY. And yes, I will happily stipulate as much if you will admit that the vast majority of the tiny minority of "climate" scientists who still deny the overwhelming evidence have dubious credentials or have an interest in preventing meaningful change in energy policy, or both.
Wait for it..., wait for it... Yep. Crickets.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.
...the whole idea of social networks is to get *away* from work....
I beg to differ. The whole idea of social networks is to con the sheep into providing personal details that can be sold to those willing to pay for it.
...little people, for that's all you lot are. A bunch of beggars. We will decide what's best for you and we will tell our underlings who pretend to regulate us what that is. You will kindly shut up and enjoy your bread and circuses.
So, by your reasoning, ever single cell with distinct DNA is a "life", deserving of all the rights and privileges of a living, breathing human being. Sorry, not buying it. Try again. You may yet find a way to render your metaphysical beliefs into something approaching reason. Until that time, kindly keep your beliefs the fuck out of my liberties.
That only shows how bad and harmful such regulations are, and the best way to get done with them is to put it in competition the regulated service with something non regulated and let people vote with their wallets about what they prefer.
A more ignorant reply I can not remember seeing here on/. Unless, oh, I see. You don't give a shit about "the little people" for whose protection the regulations were enacted in the first place.
Just yet another small group relying on provincialist reasoning to deny the existence of something that vast majority of the world's experts agree, after carefully collating data collected on a truly global scale, does exist. Same ignorant denialist shit. Different day. If you substitute "Energy Industry Shill on Fox News" for "Swedish Farmers" would this even be news?
We'd be interested to see the data supporting your 99.9% number, but we know that you're just talking out of your ass so we'll just call bullshit right now.
Now let's talk about your misguided (not to mention grammatically awkward) notion that "Your doctor is no better of a person than anyone at the insurance company." What a remarkably naive notion that is. While there, is to be sure, a wide range of expertise (and character) among physicians, comparing those two populations is almost pointless. What is an important point is the fact that insurance companies, whose single over-riding motivation is profit for their shareholders, have been dictating to doctors how to care for their patients for the better part of three decades, and it shows. Compared to every other western nation, the value we get for our health care dollars is poor, at best. Get that part right, at least.
As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change.
That is mathematical nonsense. 15% of 100 thousand is 15 thousand. 15% of 100 million is 15 million.
This "pocket change" notion is nonsense. The wealthy would notice a 15% hit just like those of more moderate means.
No. They would not. Basic living expenses, common to all incomes, do not change. The guy who's left with $85 million after taxes doesn't have to worry about choosing between paying the heating bill or feeding his kids. Ever.
Jeezuz. How is this not patently fucking obvious?
The numbers that actually matter to the average worker are quite clear - the economy is shit right now. No, "the market" is not a useful index for that. Not by a long shot.
The "flat tax" idea is seductive in it's simplicity, but extremely unfair in actual practice. For those living at the lowest income levels, n% is a meaningful bite out of their income. As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change. The progressive tax tables in place today were conceived with the notion that every tax payer should feel the burden more or less equally. It worked well for a long time. Then the notion that "rich people need to be rewarded so that they do the right thing" began to gain favor, so the Reagan Tax Cuts came about, and things have gone downhill ever since. A flat tax is not the solution. A true progressive tax, at realistic rates and without any built in "favors" is what is needed.
Backups, accessible via the same system that made them, are not backups. A backup is a thing that lives elsewhere and is not affected by anything that might happen on the primary system. All they had were "copies".
So you're suggesting that a K-12 focus on self-esteem doesn't result in outstanding academic ability?
This just in: difficult things are hard, and most people can't do them.
Especially those people. Right? You've either missed the point of TFA or you are a racist. Don't feel bad. Not everyone gets it. You're still a very special person, in your own way.
Why do you think people want something that sounds like "real life"?
Wrong question, my friend. People want something that sounds "alive". Let's be clear... I have nothing against electronic music. Some of my favorite pieces have no "real" instruments in them. But I also know that there is no substitute for a well crafted instrument in the hands of a master, and that includes the "vox humana". (Insert rant about Autotune here)
"Sounds just like" never quite does.
You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.
Fortunately, your average GOP voter will do what he's told if that will "keep him safe from teh terrorists", so all we have to do is explain that we're seeing to the safety of Americans and their children, and those voters will bend over willingly.
So, rail against the free market if you must, but as far as I'm concerned,,, yeah, I'm good.
Hooray for you. Setting aside, for now, the ridiculously loose definitions of "fiber" being used by the LEC's, your experience is unlike that of the vast majority of ISP customers in the U.S. And if you think that your ISP isn't mining the data that your activity is generating for all it's worth, you are not paying attention.
QFT. Personally, I can add an example of "crazy" which included her living in a fantasy construct, pathologically lying, stealing thousands of dollars from me, faking a pregnancy and abortion (to get more cash from me), eventually getting institutionalized briefly after we broke up, and drunk texting me annually on her mother's death anniversary with passive-aggressive suicide notes (don't respond to those). I eventually changed my phone number I had for 10 years in order to escape.
Listen to the man.
There's a difference between "dating" and "letting the crazy person affect you to the point of theft, personal harm, etc.". Maybe I just have more experience with them and know when to pull out, so to speak. Not that that's a particularly cool badge to have earned, but I have been able to see where things were heading and jumped off the train. Still it was usually worth the ride.
A classic case of corporate interests spending lavishly to buy influence on issues where their interests run counter to those of the public at large. Who was the tool here last week who insisted that this was not a problem?
Human brains, even the bigger one's here on/., often miss sarcasm. It's one of those subtle things that varies immensely with context, intelligence, context, etc.
Then again, software can hardly do worse than the Secret Service at differentiating things like "real" from "make believe". For you new kids, please see http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
Slashdot Mirror
I don't suggest doing nothing. I suggest more research and more experimentation. I suggest public policy that encourages more nuclear power and addresses the dangerous build up of temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, trading a risk of local toxicity for the proven regional air pollution and possible global impact.
What I -don't- suggest is that we rush it. Let change evolve slowly on a low-cost vector until the science is good enough to support more radical action.
So you suggest doing nothing to arrest the carbon emissions that appear to be fueling the climate change. That is, in effect, nothing. "Slowly evolving change" will not get it done. Certainly, some scenarios indicate that we've already passed the tipping point. And yet you advocate "caution". Like I said, insane.
Can I get you to concede that there are climate scientists unworthy of the title?
TFTFY. And yes, I will happily stipulate as much if you will admit that the vast majority of the tiny minority of "climate" scientists who still deny the overwhelming evidence have dubious credentials or have an interest in preventing meaningful change in energy policy, or both.
Wait for it..., wait for it... Yep. Crickets.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.
I beg to differ. The whole idea of social networks is to con the sheep into providing personal details that can be sold to those willing to pay for it.
...little people, for that's all you lot are. A bunch of beggars. We will decide what's best for you and we will tell our underlings who pretend to regulate us what that is. You will kindly shut up and enjoy your bread and circuses.
Regards,
Your Telecom Corporate Overlords
So, by your reasoning, ever single cell with distinct DNA is a "life", deserving of all the rights and privileges of a living, breathing human being. Sorry, not buying it. Try again. You may yet find a way to render your metaphysical beliefs into something approaching reason. Until that time, kindly keep your beliefs the fuck out of my liberties.
That only shows how bad and harmful such regulations are, and the best way to get done with them is to put it in competition the regulated service with something non regulated and let people vote with their wallets about what they prefer.
A more ignorant reply I can not remember seeing here on /. Unless, oh, I see. You don't give a shit about "the little people" for whose protection the regulations were enacted in the first place.
Just yet another small group relying on provincialist reasoning to deny the existence of something that vast majority of the world's experts agree, after carefully collating data collected on a truly global scale, does exist. Same ignorant denialist shit. Different day. If you substitute "Energy Industry Shill on Fox News" for "Swedish Farmers" would this even be news?
We'd be interested to see the data supporting your 99.9% number, but we know that you're just talking out of your ass so we'll just call bullshit right now.
Now let's talk about your misguided (not to mention grammatically awkward) notion that "Your doctor is no better of a person than anyone at the insurance company." What a remarkably naive notion that is. While there, is to be sure, a wide range of expertise (and character) among physicians, comparing those two populations is almost pointless. What is an important point is the fact that insurance companies, whose single over-riding motivation is profit for their shareholders, have been dictating to doctors how to care for their patients for the better part of three decades, and it shows. Compared to every other western nation, the value we get for our health care dollars is poor, at best. Get that part right, at least.
As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change.
That is mathematical nonsense. 15% of 100 thousand is 15 thousand. 15% of 100 million is 15 million. This "pocket change" notion is nonsense. The wealthy would notice a 15% hit just like those of more moderate means.
No. They would not. Basic living expenses, common to all incomes, do not change. The guy who's left with $85 million after taxes doesn't have to worry about choosing between paying the heating bill or feeding his kids. Ever.
Jeezuz. How is this not patently fucking obvious?
Amazon has their value mostly in guaranteed/fast/free shipping and low prices. How are they going to break into this market?
Wait... What? You mean delivering small, low margin items, on a local basis, is not a viable business model? Well, shit... Wish somebody'd told us.
- Kozmo.com
The numbers that actually matter to the average worker are quite clear - the economy is shit right now. No, "the market" is not a useful index for that. Not by a long shot.
The "flat tax" idea is seductive in it's simplicity, but extremely unfair in actual practice. For those living at the lowest income levels, n% is a meaningful bite out of their income. As you climb above those levels, n% approaches pocket change. The progressive tax tables in place today were conceived with the notion that every tax payer should feel the burden more or less equally. It worked well for a long time. Then the notion that "rich people need to be rewarded so that they do the right thing" began to gain favor, so the Reagan Tax Cuts came about, and things have gone downhill ever since. A flat tax is not the solution. A true progressive tax, at realistic rates and without any built in "favors" is what is needed.
If you "memories" have ever traversed a public network. Your tax dollars at work.
Backups, accessible via the same system that made them, are not backups. A backup is a thing that lives elsewhere and is not affected by anything that might happen on the primary system. All they had were "copies".
So you're suggesting that a K-12 focus on self-esteem doesn't result in outstanding academic ability?
This just in: difficult things are hard, and most people can't do them.
Especially those people. Right? You've either missed the point of TFA or you are a racist. Don't feel bad. Not everyone gets it. You're still a very special person, in your own way.
Why do you think people want something that sounds like "real life"?
Wrong question, my friend. People want something that sounds "alive". Let's be clear... I have nothing against electronic music. Some of my favorite pieces have no "real" instruments in them. But I also know that there is no substitute for a well crafted instrument in the hands of a master, and that includes the "vox humana". (Insert rant about Autotune here)
"Sounds just like" never quite does.
a jet craft with wheels isn't impressive, let's see wheel driven vehicle speed record attempts. jet engines are for flying, any other use is stupid
Not quite right. Any wheeled vehicle, that can go that fast, is damned fucking impressive. The powerplant has little to do with it at that point.
You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.
Fortunately, your average GOP voter will do what he's told if that will "keep him safe from teh terrorists", so all we have to do is explain that we're seeing to the safety of Americans and their children, and those voters will bend over willingly.
So, rail against the free market if you must, but as far as I'm concerned,,, yeah, I'm good.
Hooray for you. Setting aside, for now, the ridiculously loose definitions of "fiber" being used by the LEC's, your experience is unlike that of the vast majority of ISP customers in the U.S. And if you think that your ISP isn't mining the data that your activity is generating for all it's worth, you are not paying attention.
You wouldn't compete, or can't compete, so you lose. Now STFU.
QFT. Personally, I can add an example of "crazy" which included her living in a fantasy construct, pathologically lying, stealing thousands of dollars from me, faking a pregnancy and abortion (to get more cash from me), eventually getting institutionalized briefly after we broke up, and drunk texting me annually on her mother's death anniversary with passive-aggressive suicide notes (don't respond to those). I eventually changed my phone number I had for 10 years in order to escape.
Listen to the man.
There's a difference between "dating" and "letting the crazy person affect you to the point of theft, personal harm, etc.". Maybe I just have more experience with them and know when to pull out, so to speak. Not that that's a particularly cool badge to have earned, but I have been able to see where things were heading and jumped off the train. Still it was usually worth the ride.
I learned a long time ago that if you go on a date with a woman and she says "I'm crazy", BELIEVE HER. She IS crazy. Even if she's hot...
You say that as if it were a bad thing...
A classic case of corporate interests spending lavishly to buy influence on issues where their interests run counter to those of the public at large. Who was the tool here last week who insisted that this was not a problem?
Human brains, even the bigger one's here on /., often miss sarcasm. It's one of those subtle things that varies immensely with context, intelligence, context, etc.
Then again, software can hardly do worse than the Secret Service at differentiating things like "real" from "make believe". For you new kids, please see http://www.sjgames.com/SS/