Skeptics accept climate science as one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories in the world today (we have more evidence for this theory than we have for the link between tobacco and lung cancer and very nearly more than we have for evolution - and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence against it).
Look, it doesn't make sense to say that there is evidence for or against "climate science" -- that just doesn't make sense. But is there evidence for or against a particular climate model? Absolutely. Every time they adjust a model or present a new one, that is evidence that the previous models were flawed.
You sound pretty angry about misuse of the term "censorship" -- and it turns out you don't even know what it means. A website that disables comments because they find them objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient is exactly what censorship is.
Kind of like if I stop myself from writing in my own journal something that I think future readers may find objectionable or might impugn my character, that is called "self-censorship" -- or do you not believe that concept exists either?
Hopefully... HOPEFULLY... early on another politician will capitalize on the majority who pay far more than they receive in benefits and campaign on restricting benefits instead, or making people work for benefits.
No... you're falling for the false dichotomy of "public school" vs "non-taxpayer funded".
For a simple example of non-public schools that are taxpayer funded, check out voucher programs. Going back to my example of food, your dichotomy is like saying "it's either government run restaurants and grocery stores, or nothing" which leaves out the possibility of welfare checks and food stamps.
Your mathematical argument assumes that the worldwide population of people of African descent were included in the creation and grade scaling of the IQ test. That is a false assumption.
If an IQ test is designed in America, and given to a population of Africans, and they all score a 75 IQ, that means that the African population performs on the test equivalently to the 5th percentile of Americans. It's irrelevant what the size of the African population is.
Maybe you should post non-AC to undo your bad moderation?
That's like asking how people can afford to eat if we don't make food a nationalized industry. Somehow it happens. Education is a huge market and there will be a school that caters to every level of society, just like there are fine dining restaurants and McDonalds. Both get you your calories.
It's not necessarily a function of power, just goals. I've heard German unions described as working with the business, and considering the achievement of business goals a way to ensure a stable job for their members, whereas American unions are described as having a more hostile relationship and working under the assumption that anything the business does is trying to screw the employees.
Maybe not 60 kids per class, but if we bump our average from 24 to 30 that would take a lot of teachers off the payroll (or alternately, let us stop hiring new teachers for a while and let it change gradually) and open up money for other things that might help kids more than class size politics.
How does that make good schools the problem? Rather, good schools show the solution -- parents have to have a big stake in their children's education.
So maybe we should start fining parents for bad grades or misbehavior and/or rewarding parents for good grades and attendance. It would make sense to tie it to welfare support since those kids are higher risk.
Is it really "white flight" or is it just changing demographics? You're not going to be able to count on whites to prop up your school averages anymore. http://www.childstats.gov/amer...
something which doesn't normally happens to other people or groups, is not evidence of the existence of a hidden reason for said people or group to deserve it.
Umm.. yes it is. Your logic relies on the assumption that there aren't hidden reasons. In the real world (not the "just" world), security decisions often rely on hidden reasons.
In any case of buying stocks or mutual funds you are not investing into the business the company is doing.
If you did that, you'd be competing with your own investment.
You are making a bet on how the shares will perform on the stock market.
Pretty much, and that's called investing. You don't believe in that definition, I know, but lmgtfy:
invest invest/Submit verb gerund or present participle: investing 1. expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.
I haven't read the article of course, but calling the argument pedantic, pointless, and misleading depends on why the argument was put forward. If the solar company thought they'd simplify for the dumb small town residents, who knows. Maybe they are making an installation like what you've described and they said "this won't affect your crops at all."
Hence it pisses people off when Apple avoids tax and they cannot.
Here's what I don't get about people who are pissed off that Apple avoids tax. They always bring up how much we pay for infrastructure, defense, etc. Do you just not understand who the infrastructure is for? It's for the people who live here, whether they work for Apple or not. Yes, they need roads to get to work at Apple, so yes, in some way roads are critical to Apple. But that's just coincidental, because if Apple weren't here those same people would need those same roads to get to some other job, or to the welfare office. Apple is clearly not the issue.
Think about Ireland's perspective. They don't have these huge successful native companies, they do have roads, water systems, police, town halls, health clinics, schools, waste treatment plants, etc. They have ALL THE SAME SHIT. Do you see that? And they have to pay for it. They don't have these big companies to demonize and whine about, yet they still have all the same crap we do to enable those big companies. So if they can get Apple to move there, and contribute just a tiny bit extra to the economy, they understand that to be a win. They aren't blinded by this strange entitlement that THEIR roads enabled Apple to become great, so Apple needs to pay for THEIR roads.
Companies like Apple are American companies because they were founded here. It wasn't our roads and sewer systems that enabled those companies, it was our culture. Unfortunately, that culture is being eroded by greed and entitlement and the idea that anybody successful owes their success to all the unsuccessful people.
I'm guessing that Volvo is banking on changes to laws if this becomes common. The concept of felony driving violations will simply go away, at least with respect to self-driving vehicles.
If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.
Well now that depends. Fresh organic produce can be delivered by drone. Can the starving hordes take out a drone? Not at altitude, and especially not if there have been a few more decades of encroaching gun/weapon control. As for the lonely homeowner with a shotgun, keep in mind guns can and will be automated (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)
That said, I think that dystopian vision is pretty unlikely. The reality is that people are social creatures and therefore other people have innate value to us. I mean look at how much money our society already spends on professional and college sports.
Yet your BN brick-n-mortar bookstore sells a book at the same price as amazon.com.
Not to take away from the rest of your post, but have you been to a Barnes and Noble in the last few years? They do not sell books at the same price as Amazon. They do not even sell books at the same price as their own website! If you go to bn.com, you will find that they match amazon.com or get close. But if you go into a store, you will find a much higher price.
I actually go to Barnes and Noble a lot (magazines, cafe, kids section with my toddler) and check on this sort of thing once in a while since I ran into 10+ years ago. It hasn't changed.
Yeah.. let me stop you right there. That's wrong. We have weekends because of religion, not unions. Too many employees are (or were) religious, and too many business owners as well.
They didn't go on strike, they sued Boeing before the National Labor Relations Board.
So a union sued a company to prevent it from adding jobs in America, because it was in a state that didn't have a machinists union. This was to be a second production line so they could fill their huge backlog of orders more quickly and take market share from Airbus. They were not moving jobs, they were not laying off people in Washington state... the union prevented Boeing from adding NEW jobs for other Americans.
One problem with unions is they pit Americans against Americans. When an automaker wants to open a factory in the South, which is still America btw, the unions protest. So they are too extreme in their protectionism and that pisses off a lot of people. Same with Boeing, they wanted to build their next plane in like Tennessee or something, the unions went on strike.
The other big perceptional problem is that unions protect lazy and ineffective workers. Protecting against unfair business practices is one thing, but the stereotype of the union requiring 3 guys standing around watching 1 guy dig and 1 guy hold a "SLOW" sign (road construction) is just too damning. That's not what we need or want, because once again, that goes beyond protecting Americans and into dividing us. Paying 4x the labor cost (for that example) is a cost that the rest of us have to absorb, and that sucks. Then people start thinking, "Oh, I know why high speed rail is so goddamn expensive... fucking unions!" And they have a point. It's really unions plus excessive environmentalism.
Your futile efforts to preserve everything are nothing but a symptom of your inability to accept your own mortality.
That may be true for some people, but it's pretty ridiculous if you think that's true for everyone.
People also preserve memories so that they can recall them later for their own pleasure. When you're 80 years old and you've got a great-grandchild who's 2, you'll pull out your old picture of your own son when he was 2, and your old but newer picture of his son when he was 2, and you'll say "Wow look at that resemblance!!!" and you'll actually feel happy. Your son will feel happy. Your grandson will feel happy.
It's sad that you're not aware of that alternate use of preserving memories. Are your memories all unhappy or something?
Even if you die on a cross or you end up buried in a pyramid, people will forget you
That's hilarious. It's not "good enough" for you to be remembered and actually worshipped as a God by billions of people? That's not impressive? I think your standards are a litttttle bit too high.
"Regatta" is an example of cultural bias that is okay. It's a standard English word that you'll find in a dictionary, and if it's the example that I've seen (it was an SAT question of the form a is to b as x is to y) then it's being used properly. People in this country are expected (even if not obligated) to learn English. In school, students who don't know English well are given remedial English lessons, so there's pretty much official recognition that English is going to be the lingua franca of learning.
A kid who doesn't know English well is probably going to be a burden on the gifted and talented program. He should learn English and then take the test again later.
That's true, but there is a difference between blaming kids and blaming adults. Those deadbeat dads and moms were once children, but then they became adults and perpetuated the shitty parenting they had received. I think it's fair to expect a relatively normal intelligence human adult to be able to exercise impulse control and understand the consequences of their actions. So you can't really say "Yeah but when they were kids, x y z happened, so now the adults are blameless." (I mean, unless x y z were very damaging and traumatic events.)
"a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."
Are you being dense on purpose? That's referring to the people in the safe space. Good God, man. Go to a LGBT safe space and tell them they need to stop bashing straight white males and start respecting them. Go to a woman's safe space and tell them #NotAllMen and that you women had better start showing some respect because respect for all is the point of safe spaces.
I'm 100% sure you've seen these safe spaces in action, just like I have, and you know that you're just spewing absolute nonsense right now. You, I believe, are a straight white male. I'm 99% sure you've been told, prior to or during a safe space encounter, that you need to not be defensive and just listen to what people are saying. If something is offensive, ask yourself what experiences made this person be offensive to you. Etc, etc, other bullshit. I say 99% because you may have been there incognito.
Come on. Be forthcoming with me for a few seconds. Do you honestly not know what I'm talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
Skeptics accept climate science as one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories in the world today (we have more evidence for this theory than we have for the link between tobacco and lung cancer and very nearly more than we have for evolution - and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence against it).
Look, it doesn't make sense to say that there is evidence for or against "climate science" -- that just doesn't make sense. But is there evidence for or against a particular climate model? Absolutely. Every time they adjust a model or present a new one, that is evidence that the previous models were flawed.
You sound pretty angry about misuse of the term "censorship" -- and it turns out you don't even know what it means. A website that disables comments because they find them objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient is exactly what censorship is.
Kind of like if I stop myself from writing in my own journal something that I think future readers may find objectionable or might impugn my character, that is called "self-censorship" -- or do you not believe that concept exists either?
Hopefully... HOPEFULLY... early on another politician will capitalize on the majority who pay far more than they receive in benefits and campaign on restricting benefits instead, or making people work for benefits.
Blackwater Security
No... you're falling for the false dichotomy of "public school" vs "non-taxpayer funded".
For a simple example of non-public schools that are taxpayer funded, check out voucher programs. Going back to my example of food, your dichotomy is like saying "it's either government run restaurants and grocery stores, or nothing" which leaves out the possibility of welfare checks and food stamps.
Your mathematical argument assumes that the worldwide population of people of African descent were included in the creation and grade scaling of the IQ test. That is a false assumption.
If an IQ test is designed in America, and given to a population of Africans, and they all score a 75 IQ, that means that the African population performs on the test equivalently to the 5th percentile of Americans. It's irrelevant what the size of the African population is.
Maybe you should post non-AC to undo your bad moderation?
That's like asking how people can afford to eat if we don't make food a nationalized industry. Somehow it happens. Education is a huge market and there will be a school that caters to every level of society, just like there are fine dining restaurants and McDonalds. Both get you your calories.
It's not necessarily a function of power, just goals. I've heard German unions described as working with the business, and considering the achievement of business goals a way to ensure a stable job for their members, whereas American unions are described as having a more hostile relationship and working under the assumption that anything the business does is trying to screw the employees.
Plenty of high performing schools have large class sizes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/edu...
Maybe not 60 kids per class, but if we bump our average from 24 to 30 that would take a lot of teachers off the payroll (or alternately, let us stop hiring new teachers for a while and let it change gradually) and open up money for other things that might help kids more than class size politics.
How does that make good schools the problem? Rather, good schools show the solution -- parents have to have a big stake in their children's education.
So maybe we should start fining parents for bad grades or misbehavior and/or rewarding parents for good grades and attendance. It would make sense to tie it to welfare support since those kids are higher risk.
Is it really "white flight" or is it just changing demographics? You're not going to be able to count on whites to prop up your school averages anymore. http://www.childstats.gov/amer...
something which doesn't normally happens to other people or groups, is not evidence of the existence of a hidden reason for said people or group to deserve it.
Umm.. yes it is. Your logic relies on the assumption that there aren't hidden reasons. In the real world (not the "just" world), security decisions often rely on hidden reasons.
In any case of buying stocks or mutual funds you are not investing into the business the company is doing.
If you did that, you'd be competing with your own investment.
You are making a bet on how the shares will perform on the stock market.
Pretty much, and that's called investing. You don't believe in that definition, I know, but lmgtfy:
invest
invest/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: investing
1. expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture.
I haven't read the article of course, but calling the argument pedantic, pointless, and misleading depends on why the argument was put forward. If the solar company thought they'd simplify for the dumb small town residents, who knows. Maybe they are making an installation like what you've described and they said "this won't affect your crops at all."
Hence it pisses people off when Apple avoids tax and they cannot.
Here's what I don't get about people who are pissed off that Apple avoids tax. They always bring up how much we pay for infrastructure, defense, etc. Do you just not understand who the infrastructure is for? It's for the people who live here, whether they work for Apple or not. Yes, they need roads to get to work at Apple, so yes, in some way roads are critical to Apple. But that's just coincidental, because if Apple weren't here those same people would need those same roads to get to some other job, or to the welfare office. Apple is clearly not the issue.
Think about Ireland's perspective. They don't have these huge successful native companies, they do have roads, water systems, police, town halls, health clinics, schools, waste treatment plants, etc. They have ALL THE SAME SHIT. Do you see that? And they have to pay for it. They don't have these big companies to demonize and whine about, yet they still have all the same crap we do to enable those big companies. So if they can get Apple to move there, and contribute just a tiny bit extra to the economy, they understand that to be a win. They aren't blinded by this strange entitlement that THEIR roads enabled Apple to become great, so Apple needs to pay for THEIR roads.
Companies like Apple are American companies because they were founded here. It wasn't our roads and sewer systems that enabled those companies, it was our culture. Unfortunately, that culture is being eroded by greed and entitlement and the idea that anybody successful owes their success to all the unsuccessful people.
I'm guessing that Volvo is banking on changes to laws if this becomes common. The concept of felony driving violations will simply go away, at least with respect to self-driving vehicles.
If your society collapses because people can't afford to eat, then you're just a guy with a nice house fending off the starving hordes with a shotgun. And your delivery of fresh organic produce isn't coming this week.
Well now that depends. Fresh organic produce can be delivered by drone. Can the starving hordes take out a drone? Not at altitude, and especially not if there have been a few more decades of encroaching gun/weapon control. As for the lonely homeowner with a shotgun, keep in mind guns can and will be automated (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)
That said, I think that dystopian vision is pretty unlikely. The reality is that people are social creatures and therefore other people have innate value to us. I mean look at how much money our society already spends on professional and college sports.
Yet your BN brick-n-mortar bookstore sells a book at the same price as amazon.com.
Not to take away from the rest of your post, but have you been to a Barnes and Noble in the last few years? They do not sell books at the same price as Amazon. They do not even sell books at the same price as their own website! If you go to bn.com, you will find that they match amazon.com or get close. But if you go into a store, you will find a much higher price.
I actually go to Barnes and Noble a lot (magazines, cafe, kids section with my toddler) and check on this sort of thing once in a while since I ran into 10+ years ago. It hasn't changed.
Things we have because of unions:
Weekends
Yeah.. let me stop you right there. That's wrong. We have weekends because of religion, not unions. Too many employees are (or were) religious, and too many business owners as well.
Ah, this is the one I was thinking of with respect to Boeing: http://labornotes.org/2015/09/...
That's the union perspective, here's another one: http://townhall.com/columnists...
They didn't go on strike, they sued Boeing before the National Labor Relations Board.
So a union sued a company to prevent it from adding jobs in America, because it was in a state that didn't have a machinists union. This was to be a second production line so they could fill their huge backlog of orders more quickly and take market share from Airbus. They were not moving jobs, they were not laying off people in Washington state... the union prevented Boeing from adding NEW jobs for other Americans.
One problem with unions is they pit Americans against Americans. When an automaker wants to open a factory in the South, which is still America btw, the unions protest. So they are too extreme in their protectionism and that pisses off a lot of people. Same with Boeing, they wanted to build their next plane in like Tennessee or something, the unions went on strike.
The other big perceptional problem is that unions protect lazy and ineffective workers. Protecting against unfair business practices is one thing, but the stereotype of the union requiring 3 guys standing around watching 1 guy dig and 1 guy hold a "SLOW" sign (road construction) is just too damning. That's not what we need or want, because once again, that goes beyond protecting Americans and into dividing us. Paying 4x the labor cost (for that example) is a cost that the rest of us have to absorb, and that sucks. Then people start thinking, "Oh, I know why high speed rail is so goddamn expensive... fucking unions!" And they have a point. It's really unions plus excessive environmentalism.
Your futile efforts to preserve everything are nothing but a symptom of your inability to accept your own mortality.
That may be true for some people, but it's pretty ridiculous if you think that's true for everyone.
People also preserve memories so that they can recall them later for their own pleasure. When you're 80 years old and you've got a great-grandchild who's 2, you'll pull out your old picture of your own son when he was 2, and your old but newer picture of his son when he was 2, and you'll say "Wow look at that resemblance!!!" and you'll actually feel happy. Your son will feel happy. Your grandson will feel happy.
It's sad that you're not aware of that alternate use of preserving memories. Are your memories all unhappy or something?
Even if you die on a cross or you end up buried in a pyramid, people will forget you
That's hilarious. It's not "good enough" for you to be remembered and actually worshipped as a God by billions of people? That's not impressive? I think your standards are a litttttle bit too high.
"Regatta" is an example of cultural bias that is okay. It's a standard English word that you'll find in a dictionary, and if it's the example that I've seen (it was an SAT question of the form a is to b as x is to y) then it's being used properly. People in this country are expected (even if not obligated) to learn English. In school, students who don't know English well are given remedial English lessons, so there's pretty much official recognition that English is going to be the lingua franca of learning.
A kid who doesn't know English well is probably going to be a burden on the gifted and talented program. He should learn English and then take the test again later.
That's true, but there is a difference between blaming kids and blaming adults. Those deadbeat dads and moms were once children, but then they became adults and perpetuated the shitty parenting they had received. I think it's fair to expect a relatively normal intelligence human adult to be able to exercise impulse control and understand the consequences of their actions. So you can't really say "Yeah but when they were kids, x y z happened, so now the adults are blameless." (I mean, unless x y z were very damaging and traumatic events.)
"a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."
Are you being dense on purpose? That's referring to the people in the safe space. Good God, man. Go to a LGBT safe space and tell them they need to stop bashing straight white males and start respecting them. Go to a woman's safe space and tell them #NotAllMen and that you women had better start showing some respect because respect for all is the point of safe spaces.
I'm 100% sure you've seen these safe spaces in action, just like I have, and you know that you're just spewing absolute nonsense right now. You, I believe, are a straight white male. I'm 99% sure you've been told, prior to or during a safe space encounter, that you need to not be defensive and just listen to what people are saying. If something is offensive, ask yourself what experiences made this person be offensive to you. Etc, etc, other bullshit. I say 99% because you may have been there incognito.
Come on. Be forthcoming with me for a few seconds. Do you honestly not know what I'm talking about?