Sometimes, when the system doesn't do what it should, people just have to take the law into their own hands.
I suppose that is the temptation. It does, however, make you a vigilante no matter how right or justified you think you are. I can understand the frustration when someone is getting away with something while others play by the rules (otherwise known as following the law), but it sort of defeats the purpose and utility of law if individuals get to decide when--or when not--to follow it.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics...
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Brown's mistake was assuming everything was going to stay the same and all he had to do was extrapolate.
Yes, that was a mistake. It's also a mistake to liken an equation attempting to predict human behavior with an equation attempting to predict the physical amount of a substance that is left, namely oil. Human beings can change themselves, oil reserves cannot.
As to www.peakoil.net being a scare-monger site, it's hard to imagine what they're trying to scare us into, unless it's thinking ahead. Or perhaps you might be afraid that Colin Camplbell, the founder of peakoil.net is a liberal. I don't know what his exact politics are, but check out his background, taken from this article:
Colin Campbell is both an academic and a businessman. Educated at Oxford and holding a Masters degree he has served as a geologist for Oxford University, Texaco, British Petroleum and Amoco (prior to the BP Amoco merger). He has served in executive positions with Shenandoah Oil, Amoco, Fina and was Chairman of the Nordic American Oil Company. He has served as a consultant on oil for the Bulgarian government as well as for Statoil, Mobil, Amerada, Total, Shell, Esso and for the firm Petroconsultants in Geneva. He is the Convener and Editor of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and a Trustee of the Oil Depletion Analysis Center in London.
Re:Let's not forget synthetics...and politics...
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't think that's quite the point. Gas prices are going up, to be sure, but the real issue is peak production. Sure, we won't absolutely run out of oil in the next few years, but we will probably be peaking in production while demand increases at the same time. You can guess what that'll do to the economy.
We've been led astray by believing the estimates of the OPEC nations with regards to their reserves. Well, the price they get, according to their agreement, is tied to how large their reserves are. There is zero incentive for any of the OPEC nations to provide an accurate estimate if it means lowering the number. In addition, many of the wells are pumping out large quantities of water that was pumped down into the oil fields to force out more oil. They are beginning to go "dry" so to speak.
there won't be any more of it, merely it'll be in a different place.
Well, then you proably won't mind if we dump some extra mercury in your drinking water. There won't be any more of it overall, it'll just be in a different place. Concentrated.
If the RIAA/MPAA shouldn't treat their customers like criminals you probably shouldn't treat your potential converts like dirt. I'm with ya, but just ease up on the name-calling a bit. And no calling me a moron just to be funny.:-)
...but it was more likely a physical chemistry issue than a nuclear issue.
You may very well be correct. But even if it's not cold fusion they're possibly going to learn something new or startling or useful about chemical reactions. I'm sure the alchemists, in their desire to turn base metals into gold stumbled upon many interesting things.
punishment for what in all actuality are petty crimes is greater than that of serious crimes such as rape, theft (the real kind of theft where you actually take property from someone else), and murder/manslaughter.
It seems pretty clear to me that in the eye of the corporation the view is in actuality reversed. Since the real danger to them is someone standing in their way of making a profit then lobbying for really tough sentencing for copying software is what they're after. A corporation's interest is the bottom line, and probably most often these crimes which the rest of us take as serious are not much of a concern to a corporation. Unless, of course, they are causing some public relations problems for said corporation. Or happen to be occuring in executive's neighborhoods.
Here's a prescription: scientific education helps treat and prevent anxiety, gullibility and irrational prejudice.
It may help, but it's not perfect. I know a really smart guy with a PhD in Geology. He's way into astrology. Lot's of educated people believe in weird things, not to mention all those university professors in Rwanda that engaged in some very violent prejudice.
With that line of reasoning, murder and mayhem in regular movies should also be verboten because they depict illegal activities.
Yes, you're right. My wording was poor. What Ozone Depletion wrote is a good correction of what I wrote.
"because it's illegal" is an incredibly poor justification for disallowing _any_ action, no matter how distasteful
On the contrary. It is an excellent justification if you stop to think that the reasoning came before the law, not the other way around. First the reason for the law, then the law. It's also a good social control for those who completely lack the ability to internalize values and who will only behave non-sociopathically if they think there will be a punishment for breaking the law. This would explain the terrible behavior of many CEOs today as they realize there will be no real punishment.:-)
Please. Kiddie porn and snuff films are not censored. They are images of illegal activities and prosecuting their distribution is censorship in the same way that making murder illegal is oppressing your right to free speech.
And it ultimately is a great insurance policy for the survival of the human species.
Can't argue with you on that, but let's be clear about this particular case: they are just going to visit, there are no plans to set up a colony.
Hm, possible surviving but that doesn't mean thriving. It's not clear to me that it is an insurance policy for our survival. It's just a guess, mind you, but I would think that the money needed to get to Mars, set up self-sufficient colonies that are psychologically livable as well as physically livable, would be far more efficiently spent here on the home rock. We have clever people here who will be inventing fabulous technology in the years to come. Couple that with just a little bit of population control through positive incentives and we would be better off here.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't go to Mars, just that it doesn't seem like the ideal escape hatch for humanity. Unless of course you're talking about a direct hit on Earth by a sizable meteorite, in which case I hope I'm not on the B ark....
the lifestyle differences between $15M/year and $12.75M/year are insignificant.
That is just incredibly insensitive. Do you have any idea what the upkeep and expense of a 156-foot yacht is? You're practically taking food right out of a wealthy person's mouth.
I've actually seen this one first hand. It's in the instructions for the heating packet for MREs (Meals Ready to Eat). I had taken my girlfriend out to Joshua Tree National Park where another friend of mine met us. I had taken the trouble to bring along a wok and all the ingredients for stir fry but my friend had brought along a box of these MREs filched from his recent stint in the service.
The kicker is that my (ex) girlfriend decided she'd rather have the MREs. I mean, come on, even bad stir fry is better than an MRE, and I know from first hand experience. Except for that one time I found a Band-Aid in my Buddha's Delight....
Precisely. It's not like finding humans on another continent ever stood in the way of plunder and pillage, let alone merely finding microbes. Most people just want what they want when they want it and to hell with anybody/anything else. We didn't get to dominate this planet by thinking sensitively. In the end the caveman wins.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that is the temptation. It does, however, make you a vigilante no matter how right or justified you think you are. I can understand the frustration when someone is getting away with something while others play by the rules (otherwise known as following the law), but it sort of defeats the purpose and utility of law if individuals get to decide when--or when not--to follow it.
Yes, that was a mistake. It's also a mistake to liken an equation attempting to predict human behavior with an equation attempting to predict the physical amount of a substance that is left, namely oil. Human beings can change themselves, oil reserves cannot.
As to www.peakoil.net being a scare-monger site, it's hard to imagine what they're trying to scare us into, unless it's thinking ahead. Or perhaps you might be afraid that Colin Camplbell, the founder of peakoil.net is a liberal. I don't know what his exact politics are, but check out his background, taken from this article:
We've been led astray by believing the estimates of the OPEC nations with regards to their reserves. Well, the price they get, according to their agreement, is tied to how large their reserves are. There is zero incentive for any of the OPEC nations to provide an accurate estimate if it means lowering the number. In addition, many of the wells are pumping out large quantities of water that was pumped down into the oil fields to force out more oil. They are beginning to go "dry" so to speak.
Check out www.peakoil.net for more information.
Well, whatever. All I know is that when I tried it my cat died....
Well, then you proably won't mind if we dump some extra mercury in your drinking water. There won't be any more of it overall, it'll just be in a different place. Concentrated.
Maybe because the monitor size/shape was perfect. Monochrome, small, non-flat screen. Just disembowel the old SE and rearrange it as needed.
Then you'd probably be dragged to your death.
If the RIAA/MPAA shouldn't treat their customers like criminals you probably shouldn't treat your potential converts like dirt. I'm with ya, but just ease up on the name-calling a bit. And no calling me a moron just to be funny. :-)
You may very well be correct. But even if it's not cold fusion they're possibly going to learn something new or startling or useful about chemical reactions. I'm sure the alchemists, in their desire to turn base metals into gold stumbled upon many interesting things.
It seems pretty clear to me that in the eye of the corporation the view is in actuality reversed. Since the real danger to them is someone standing in their way of making a profit then lobbying for really tough sentencing for copying software is what they're after. A corporation's interest is the bottom line, and probably most often these crimes which the rest of us take as serious are not much of a concern to a corporation. Unless, of course, they are causing some public relations problems for said corporation. Or happen to be occuring in executive's neighborhoods.
It may help, but it's not perfect. I know a really smart guy with a PhD in Geology. He's way into astrology. Lot's of educated people believe in weird things, not to mention all those university professors in Rwanda that engaged in some very violent prejudice.
I suppose without scientific education it would be much, much worse, however..
As a human being I am offended that you...are.
Yes, you're right. My wording was poor. What Ozone Depletion wrote is a good correction of what I wrote.
"because it's illegal" is an incredibly poor justification for disallowing _any_ action, no matter how distasteful
On the contrary. It is an excellent justification if you stop to think that the reasoning came before the law, not the other way around. First the reason for the law, then the law. It's also a good social control for those who completely lack the ability to internalize values and who will only behave non-sociopathically if they think there will be a punishment for breaking the law. This would explain the terrible behavior of many CEOs today as they realize there will be no real punishment. :-)
But perhaps I'm missing your point.
Please. Kiddie porn and snuff films are not censored. They are images of illegal activities and prosecuting their distribution is censorship in the same way that making murder illegal is oppressing your right to free speech.
Yes, but I believe the dog's name is Coco.
Can't argue with you on that, but let's be clear about this particular case: they are just going to visit, there are no plans to set up a colony.
Hm, possible surviving but that doesn't mean thriving. It's not clear to me that it is an insurance policy for our survival. It's just a guess, mind you, but I would think that the money needed to get to Mars, set up self-sufficient colonies that are psychologically livable as well as physically livable, would be far more efficiently spent here on the home rock. We have clever people here who will be inventing fabulous technology in the years to come. Couple that with just a little bit of population control through positive incentives and we would be better off here.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't go to Mars, just that it doesn't seem like the ideal escape hatch for humanity. Unless of course you're talking about a direct hit on Earth by a sizable meteorite, in which case I hope I'm not on the B ark....
Yes, but those thousand different uses are really just variations on a theme, aren't they? :-)
That is just incredibly insensitive. Do you have any idea what the upkeep and expense of a 156-foot yacht is? You're practically taking food right out of a wealthy person's mouth.
The kicker is that my (ex) girlfriend decided she'd rather have the MREs. I mean, come on, even bad stir fry is better than an MRE, and I know from first hand experience. Except for that one time I found a Band-Aid in my Buddha's Delight....
No, I don't think you're being too sensitive. :-)