But they didn't ask for aid, they asked for intervention. They want other people to use their guns and planes and ships to fight other people who are, like the pirates, just trying to make a living. So why should we do that? Why are the Somalis more entitled than anybody else?
What they did not do is ask for aid and work to build an environment that can receive that aid. When you have terrorist groups running the country and your major industry is piracy, who is able to help?
any pirates who would attack scientific intstruments are committing property crime. the death penalty seems a little harsh.
They're not just committing property crime, they're engaging in piracy. If they happened to stumble across a ship with people on it, they would attack that as well. It's not like a graffiti artist who goes out spray painting -- if he runs across a group of people he's not going to take out an axe and kill them; pirates will. So killing them for property crime is a legitimate preventive measure.
as for the pirates that attack people, well, somalia doesn't really have a government to speak of.
Yes, that's why ships need to enforce their own security as GP said.
you might want to read about what motivates them in the first place. i.e. there is a massive drought in the region right now, millions of people are starving... as i write this.
Funny enough, the reason they're starving is that aid is cut off to them because they are under the control of a terrorist group, al shabab. People have a choice, they can turn to terrorism and piracy to get what they want, or they can work with others in a civilized manner. They're never going to terrorize their way into saving millions of lives.
if i were in their shoes, and you asked me if i wanted to be a pirate, and maybe eat, i dont know what i would say. you see, i've never been starving to death and watched my whole family die.
Sure, on the ground level things may be confusing, but surely you, sitting here at your computer, have a bit more clarity than that, no? You see that supporting terrorism and piracy won't make things end well for your country, right? Your choices put millions of lives at risk, including your own family's lives, just so that you can "earn" your booty by the sword rather than swallow your pride and beg.
Okay forget the effects on the country, let's talk about your morality. Let's say your desperate situation is right. So just how far would you go to save your own hide and that of your family? Would you sell your daughter to a pedophile to save your other children? Would you join a militia and rape and kill hundreds of innocent villagers to earn some food for yourself and your family? If you see piracy differently than those situations then you're just valuing the lives of "decadent Westerners" lower than the lives of "poor innocent Somalis" -- just like the pirates.
So pirates vs "safari freaks" -- that's a bit biased isn't it? Why are the safari freaks any different from pirates, even in your rather twisted view? Do you have some romantic idea of pirates as noble, honorable, brave men who turned to piracy out of the most severe desperation? In reality they are freaks as well.
The millionaire who lives in the city is subsidizing you. The millionaire who lives in the country is subsidizing you. Guess what.. it doesn't matter if you live in the country or the city, you're not paying your share unless you're in the top few percent of income earners. Urban/rural tax difference is a sham.
Or let's put it this way. If it's so awesome and cheap living in the country, why don't you move there? Oh, because living in the city is actually pretty valuable? Now who's the one who wants it all?
You can not compare people who live in rural areas with minorities - for the simple reason that they CHOOSE TO LIVE THERE.
Because there's one difference between the two groups, they cannot be compared?
Did it not occur to you to look at all the ways in which they ARE the same? Like economically disadvantaged and with fewer educational resources, two important traits?
They also deal with lower incomes, longer commutes, fewer entertainment options, etc.
And taxes.. the top 5% of income earners pay about 60% of federal taxes. Meanwhile, about 80% of the population lives in urban areas. MOST people living in cities are not paying their share either.
Well, NZ probably hasn't had major food disruptions since the 80s when they got rid of those subsidies and is rich enough to tolerate minor problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis I thought people had realized, from that incident, that food security and domestic protections for farmers are really important. I guess not everybody drew the same conclusions from seeing people without strong domestic farm aid AND without enough money to compete with places like NZ starving in the streets when their imports were reduced.
They should pay the full cost of Internet access when others pay the full cost for services they use. So.. no more welfare programs, no more state budget for non-state-wide projects that don't benefit everybody equally, etc. It's too complicated.
Oh man, are you in for a treat the next time you go out to a movie. You would not believe the breadth and duration of the advertising before movies. Previews? Pshh.
That was the trend in my area a few years ago but it's entirely reversed. Now there are a small handful of previews then it's showtime. I had gotten used to walking into the theater 10 minutes late and still sitting through some previews... last time I did that I missed the first 5 minutes of the movie.
Sounds like modern art syndrome to me. I'm sure if you go to a GE office building, you will find ugly pieces of modern art. It does not mean GE is trying to subvert the human ideals of beauty or that they are the cause of bad art, it means they bought into the same crap so many others do. Buy it because it's famous and respected, not because you like it yourself.
GE didn't hire the guy to produce misleading figures, they hired him because he's a well-respected data visualization expert (even in many comments here) who happens to produce misleading figures.
So if we made a photo ID a requirement for public housing and food assistance, problem solved?
I assume there are mechanisms to stop people from signing up for public housing and food assistance multiple times. If no ID is required, how are they enforcing that? Why not use the same mechanisms when it comes to voting?
Companies like Goldman Sachs have little to benefit from bringing down Exxon or Shell.
If you know a company is going to collapse you can make a ton of money.
Sure, but there are better methods than setting up a worldwide conspiracy that could be easily uncovered by any decent researcher.
Yes, I'm not sure why you brought up a conspiracy of scientists to begin with. The action is happening through politics, not science. That's where the economic motivation is.
Also, your method would assume that all major governments have their goals aligned. This is simply not true. Russia's economy is for a large portion based on oil and gas exports, and they would hate to lose that in return for some extra regulation. Other countries like China are rapidly building coal plants to provide electricity to their citizens, and have little interest in slowing that down. And, obviously, some countries like China do not have a problem with increasing regulation if they wanted to do that on a whim.
I suggest you read about the economic incentives in the Kyoto Protocol. You sound like you have no idea about what's actually at stake for developed vs developing countries economically. For instance, Russia actually did support Kyoto because, while they do export oil, they have a low carbon footprint themselves. They would continue to export oil, and they would also be paid extra by the countries buying oil for the "privilege" of burning the oil.
China loves the Kyoto protocol for the same reason. They will continue doing exactly what they are doing, but suddenly they will be paid billions of dollars per year extra. And they already have a huge advantage in that they are just starting to build their power infrastructure, so they can put a heavy emphasis on carbon-free solutions like nuclear power.
Of course, most of the developed world doesn't give a fuck about them.
I've got news for you, most of the developing world doesn't give a fuck either. This is all about the money.
They're not cavemen, they're not illiterate simpletons with no access to news. We have drone strikes in Pakistan already, with no troops on the ground, and guess what, everybody in Pakistan knows about them, knows who is doing it, and knows why it's being done. People aren't stupid.
Not enough to justify setting up a giant, global conspiracy of scientists.
Do you think companies like Goldman Sachs couldn't think of a way to make lots of money if they knew that Exxon and Shell, some of the biggest companies in the world, could be brought down overnight with a bit of coaxing and lobbying?
How about industries like nuclear power -- and the megacompanies that go along with them like GE, Hitachi, Areva? Do you think GE wouldn't be happy to say "Hey you know the billions of dollars of natural gas turbines you just installed? Well, they're illegal now, would you be interested in buying a few reactors before you are run out of business?"
It's incredibly unlikely that the entire world economy is participating in some grand coverup scheme to save the hides of the oil industry.
Because governments have little interest in doing that anyway.
Oh, yeah, governments are never interested in increasing regulation (and thus their own power).
Note how little progress is made on climate summits to make any kind of change.
Yeah I noted how every poor country in the world was massively in favor of enacting climate change legislation, which just happens to favor them economically by giving passes to their growing industries and also forcing "rich" countries to buy carbon offsets from them. Note that that the carbon offsets appear magically from out of thin air because these poor countries were victimized and exploited by the evil West for so long, so they never got the chance to grow and blossom and all that... thank God we now have the chance to pay for our sins with cold hard cash, huh?
Why would we have to do it in person? We have drones you know.
Rapists murderers and sociopaths from US prisons wouldn't get very far if they were dropped into a Muslim country. They would stick out like sore thumbs and unlike here "profiling" is not only rampant, it is accepted as an obvious thing to do.
I'm baffled as to why so many Slashdotters insist on being fossil fuel industry shills.
There's your mistake, you don't believe skeptics are actually skeptical, you think they are all plants by the oil companies.
It's good to be skeptical, yes, but they should be skeptical of the propaganda spread by those who have an economic interest in denying anthropogenic global warming
You can't be skeptical about everything forever, at some point you pick a side... Most people who are genuinely skeptical start off being skeptical about both sides, but then decide one makes more sense. They adopt that side. Then they are skeptical of any propaganda designed to make them change sides.
Another thing that gets confused is that there are people who believe in anthropogenic global warming but are skeptical that we need to stop it. They generally get lumped in with the non-believers because whenever a concrete plan is proposed, they are on the same side: do nothing because it's not a problem.
Also, two questions: 1. Can you not imagine any economic interests in promoting anthropogenic global warming? 2. Why didn't you mention the governmental interest in promoting anthropogenic global warming?
It's now a fallacy to make an argument that you don't have a good answer for? Convenient. Ah yes, the "'anchor baby' fallacy" fallacy, I'm sure La Raza appreciates you maintaining your constant vigil for fallaciously fallacious arguments.
Are you really sure? So you're saying if like ten thousand Mexicans lined up at the border and just marched into the country they wouldn't even be arrested, because it's not a crime, just a little old civil issue? I guess it's a failure of the law then. Coming into the country improperly should be a crime. I think many people feel that way. It's certainly the popular perception. The law has to catch up I suppose.
Anyway about cheap farm workers, they said the same thing about slavery. When you have the illusion of cheap labor, people tend to resist spending money for technological industrial solutions that are cheaper and more productive in the long run. It's no coincidence that the North had no slaves, and in every industry from logging to weapons manufacturing they strove to use automation, machinery, and technology as much as possible. Meanwhile the South was content to use "free labor" to inefficiently harvest crops. Oh you have more crops to harvest... just buy/breed more slaves! That will work forever!
I really don't care if peaches and blueberries are more expensive in the short term. And who knows what other solutions there are waiting to be found. I live in North Carolina and I would love it if community agriculture took off. Imagine that, cities planned with enough space to let people grow their own food and share with the community.
Umm, but that's all done on purpose. And the reason we're anti-illegal-immigrant is that illegal immigrants subvert that purpose. Is it that complicated??
Slashdot Mirror
But they didn't ask for aid, they asked for intervention. They want other people to use their guns and planes and ships to fight other people who are, like the pirates, just trying to make a living. So why should we do that? Why are the Somalis more entitled than anybody else?
What they did not do is ask for aid and work to build an environment that can receive that aid. When you have terrorist groups running the country and your major industry is piracy, who is able to help?
Their problems are self-created.
any pirates who would attack scientific intstruments are committing property crime. the death penalty seems a little harsh.
They're not just committing property crime, they're engaging in piracy. If they happened to stumble across a ship with people on it, they would attack that as well. It's not like a graffiti artist who goes out spray painting -- if he runs across a group of people he's not going to take out an axe and kill them; pirates will. So killing them for property crime is a legitimate preventive measure.
as for the pirates that attack people, well, somalia doesn't really have a government to speak of.
Yes, that's why ships need to enforce their own security as GP said.
you might want to read about what motivates them in the first place. i.e. there is a massive drought in the region right now, millions of people are starving... as i write this.
Funny enough, the reason they're starving is that aid is cut off to them because they are under the control of a terrorist group, al shabab. People have a choice, they can turn to terrorism and piracy to get what they want, or they can work with others in a civilized manner. They're never going to terrorize their way into saving millions of lives.
if i were in their shoes, and you asked me if i wanted to be a pirate, and maybe eat, i dont know what i would say. you see, i've never been starving to death and watched my whole family die.
Sure, on the ground level things may be confusing, but surely you, sitting here at your computer, have a bit more clarity than that, no? You see that supporting terrorism and piracy won't make things end well for your country, right? Your choices put millions of lives at risk, including your own family's lives, just so that you can "earn" your booty by the sword rather than swallow your pride and beg.
Okay forget the effects on the country, let's talk about your morality. Let's say your desperate situation is right. So just how far would you go to save your own hide and that of your family? Would you sell your daughter to a pedophile to save your other children? Would you join a militia and rape and kill hundreds of innocent villagers to earn some food for yourself and your family? If you see piracy differently than those situations then you're just valuing the lives of "decadent Westerners" lower than the lives of "poor innocent Somalis" -- just like the pirates.
Another option should be remote-piloting a predator drone. More expensive but entirely safe (for the operator).
So pirates vs "safari freaks" -- that's a bit biased isn't it? Why are the safari freaks any different from pirates, even in your rather twisted view? Do you have some romantic idea of pirates as noble, honorable, brave men who turned to piracy out of the most severe desperation? In reality they are freaks as well.
There's no such thing as a terrorist.
Is that in the same sense that there's no such thing as a retail sales clerk and no such thing as a computer programmer?
The millionaire who lives in the city is subsidizing you. The millionaire who lives in the country is subsidizing you. Guess what.. it doesn't matter if you live in the country or the city, you're not paying your share unless you're in the top few percent of income earners. Urban/rural tax difference is a sham.
Or let's put it this way. If it's so awesome and cheap living in the country, why don't you move there? Oh, because living in the city is actually pretty valuable? Now who's the one who wants it all?
You can not compare people who live in rural areas with minorities - for the simple reason that they CHOOSE TO LIVE THERE.
Because there's one difference between the two groups, they cannot be compared?
Did it not occur to you to look at all the ways in which they ARE the same? Like economically disadvantaged and with fewer educational resources, two important traits?
They also deal with lower incomes, longer commutes, fewer entertainment options, etc.
And taxes.. the top 5% of income earners pay about 60% of federal taxes. Meanwhile, about 80% of the population lives in urban areas. MOST people living in cities are not paying their share either.
Well, NZ probably hasn't had major food disruptions since the 80s when they got rid of those subsidies and is rich enough to tolerate minor problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_price_crisis I thought people had realized, from that incident, that food security and domestic protections for farmers are really important. I guess not everybody drew the same conclusions from seeing people without strong domestic farm aid AND without enough money to compete with places like NZ starving in the streets when their imports were reduced.
They should pay the full cost of Internet access when others pay the full cost for services they use. So.. no more welfare programs, no more state budget for non-state-wide projects that don't benefit everybody equally, etc. It's too complicated.
Oh man, are you in for a treat the next time you go out to a movie. You would not believe the breadth and duration of the advertising before movies. Previews? Pshh.
That was the trend in my area a few years ago but it's entirely reversed. Now there are a small handful of previews then it's showtime. I had gotten used to walking into the theater 10 minutes late and still sitting through some previews... last time I did that I missed the first 5 minutes of the movie.
I would like an invite! jrbrock gmail
Sounds like modern art syndrome to me. I'm sure if you go to a GE office building, you will find ugly pieces of modern art. It does not mean GE is trying to subvert the human ideals of beauty or that they are the cause of bad art, it means they bought into the same crap so many others do. Buy it because it's famous and respected, not because you like it yourself.
GE didn't hire the guy to produce misleading figures, they hired him because he's a well-respected data visualization expert (even in many comments here) who happens to produce misleading figures.
So if we made a photo ID a requirement for public housing and food assistance, problem solved?
I assume there are mechanisms to stop people from signing up for public housing and food assistance multiple times. If no ID is required, how are they enforcing that? Why not use the same mechanisms when it comes to voting?
Companies like Goldman Sachs have little to benefit from bringing down Exxon or Shell.
If you know a company is going to collapse you can make a ton of money.
Sure, but there are better methods than setting up a worldwide conspiracy that could be easily uncovered by any decent researcher.
Yes, I'm not sure why you brought up a conspiracy of scientists to begin with. The action is happening through politics, not science. That's where the economic motivation is.
Also, your method would assume that all major governments have their goals aligned. This is simply not true. Russia's economy is for a large portion based on oil and gas exports, and they would hate to lose that in return for some extra regulation. Other countries like China are rapidly building coal plants to provide electricity to their citizens, and have little interest in slowing that down. And, obviously, some countries like China do not have a problem with increasing regulation if they wanted to do that on a whim.
I suggest you read about the economic incentives in the Kyoto Protocol. You sound like you have no idea about what's actually at stake for developed vs developing countries economically. For instance, Russia actually did support Kyoto because, while they do export oil, they have a low carbon footprint themselves. They would continue to export oil, and they would also be paid extra by the countries buying oil for the "privilege" of burning the oil.
China loves the Kyoto protocol for the same reason. They will continue doing exactly what they are doing, but suddenly they will be paid billions of dollars per year extra. And they already have a huge advantage in that they are just starting to build their power infrastructure, so they can put a heavy emphasis on carbon-free solutions like nuclear power.
Of course, most of the developed world doesn't give a fuck about them.
I've got news for you, most of the developing world doesn't give a fuck either. This is all about the money.
They're not cavemen, they're not illiterate simpletons with no access to news. We have drone strikes in Pakistan already, with no troops on the ground, and guess what, everybody in Pakistan knows about them, knows who is doing it, and knows why it's being done. People aren't stupid.
Not enough to justify setting up a giant, global conspiracy of scientists.
Do you think companies like Goldman Sachs couldn't think of a way to make lots of money if they knew that Exxon and Shell, some of the biggest companies in the world, could be brought down overnight with a bit of coaxing and lobbying?
How about industries like nuclear power -- and the megacompanies that go along with them like GE, Hitachi, Areva? Do you think GE wouldn't be happy to say "Hey you know the billions of dollars of natural gas turbines you just installed? Well, they're illegal now, would you be interested in buying a few reactors before you are run out of business?"
It's incredibly unlikely that the entire world economy is participating in some grand coverup scheme to save the hides of the oil industry.
Because governments have little interest in doing that anyway.
Oh, yeah, governments are never interested in increasing regulation (and thus their own power).
Note how little progress is made on climate summits to make any kind of change.
Yeah I noted how every poor country in the world was massively in favor of enacting climate change legislation, which just happens to favor them economically by giving passes to their growing industries and also forcing "rich" countries to buy carbon offsets from them. Note that that the carbon offsets appear magically from out of thin air because these poor countries were victimized and exploited by the evil West for so long, so they never got the chance to grow and blossom and all that... thank God we now have the chance to pay for our sins with cold hard cash, huh?
Yeah... no economic incentive *at all*...
Why would we have to do it in person? We have drones you know.
Rapists murderers and sociopaths from US prisons wouldn't get very far if they were dropped into a Muslim country. They would stick out like sore thumbs and unlike here "profiling" is not only rampant, it is accepted as an obvious thing to do.
I'm baffled as to why so many Slashdotters insist on being fossil fuel industry shills.
There's your mistake, you don't believe skeptics are actually skeptical, you think they are all plants by the oil companies.
It's good to be skeptical, yes, but they should be skeptical of the propaganda spread by those who have an economic interest in denying anthropogenic global warming
You can't be skeptical about everything forever, at some point you pick a side... Most people who are genuinely skeptical start off being skeptical about both sides, but then decide one makes more sense. They adopt that side. Then they are skeptical of any propaganda designed to make them change sides.
Another thing that gets confused is that there are people who believe in anthropogenic global warming but are skeptical that we need to stop it. They generally get lumped in with the non-believers because whenever a concrete plan is proposed, they are on the same side: do nothing because it's not a problem.
Also, two questions:
1. Can you not imagine any economic interests in promoting anthropogenic global warming?
2. Why didn't you mention the governmental interest in promoting anthropogenic global warming?
There's a new "web worker" api which I think is similar to multithreading.
It's now a fallacy to make an argument that you don't have a good answer for? Convenient. Ah yes, the "'anchor baby' fallacy" fallacy, I'm sure La Raza appreciates you maintaining your constant vigil for fallaciously fallacious arguments.
Are you really sure? So you're saying if like ten thousand Mexicans lined up at the border and just marched into the country they wouldn't even be arrested, because it's not a crime, just a little old civil issue? I guess it's a failure of the law then. Coming into the country improperly should be a crime. I think many people feel that way. It's certainly the popular perception. The law has to catch up I suppose.
Anyway about cheap farm workers, they said the same thing about slavery. When you have the illusion of cheap labor, people tend to resist spending money for technological industrial solutions that are cheaper and more productive in the long run. It's no coincidence that the North had no slaves, and in every industry from logging to weapons manufacturing they strove to use automation, machinery, and technology as much as possible. Meanwhile the South was content to use "free labor" to inefficiently harvest crops. Oh you have more crops to harvest... just buy/breed more slaves! That will work forever!
I really don't care if peaches and blueberries are more expensive in the short term. And who knows what other solutions there are waiting to be found. I live in North Carolina and I would love it if community agriculture took off. Imagine that, cities planned with enough space to let people grow their own food and share with the community.
So... your solution for people is "please ignore everything that upsets you, I promise it'll be okay, thanks" ?
That's NOT how a democracy works!
Umm, but that's all done on purpose. And the reason we're anti-illegal-immigrant is that illegal immigrants subvert that purpose. Is it that complicated??
Isn't crossing the border illegally a crime?
So being an illegal immigrant is not a crime by itself (it shouldn't be a crime to exist), but it is irrefutable evidence that a crime was committed?