Even if it were true that the pollution isn't going to have catastrophic economic and migrant effects (which it isn't unless you watch Fox news) we can still make a better world.. so why not?
What you are actually saying is:
we can still make a better world through government force and compulsion
That's what we are talking about here. And that premise is false: we can not make a better world through government force and compulsion. Both socialist and fascist states tried and failed miserably. In fact, fascists had nature conservation and environmental protection as major policy objectives.
The only way we can make a better world is through voluntary interactions, cooperation, and non-violence; that is, the antithesis of government force and compulsion.
Saying "it costs too much, it's too much of an economic burden!" is about as short-sighted as you can get. [...] We have the technology to move away from 100-year-old energy sources, why not use it?
I know this may be hard for educated, privileged, middle-class Americans to grasp, but when costs of goods and services go up (and energy is the single largest input to most goods and services), that has real-world consequences. For you, it may mean one trip less to Disneyland. For people in less wealthy nations, it may mean lack of life-saving medical treatments, lack of housing, lack of heating, or lack of food.
Furthermore, there is no realistic way you can force people to use carbon neutral technologies until they actually are fully cost competitive. Oh, sure, you can impose them in a few countries, but other countries are not going to play along, which just means that production shifts there. US and European politicians know that, which is why none of them have even come close to something that pushes their countries to carbon neutrality. Climate change is simply being used as an excuse to push policies that have no significant impact on climate change, but allows politicians to realize economic and social objective.
We, as a species, keep shitting all over the planet we live on, and through the magic of denial, expect there's going to be no consequences
People do understand the consequences; we simply reach different conclusions from you. The real problem is that a significant minority of "our species" have fallen prey to hysteria, fear mongering, and political propaganda.
(1) First of all, Europe has net neutrality legislation, so Khanna's statement that this is the Internet with "no net neutrality" is false (makes you wonder whether he is simply ignorant or deliberately misleading people).
(2) Look at the prices: you can get unlimited packages for $5 for specific services. A cheap, small data plan plus $5 for unlimited Netflix+YouTube? That sounds awesome to me.
I don't agree that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Regarldess what label (e.g 'liberal').
We agree: Islam is not incompatible with democracy; but then, neither are slavery, racism, fascism, forced sterilization, socialism, and all sorts of other oppressive policies and ideologies. How do we know? Because they have all occurred in democracies: there have been, and continue to be, a lot of really awful democracies in the world. What Islam is incompatible with is not democracy, but liberalism, tolerance, and equal rights.
And if you looked over various 'islamic' countries, you would see
I have almost certainly been to more Islamic countries than you ever will. I have probably also slept with more (ex-)Muslim men than you, who have generally taken a rather dim view of Islam themselves.
We only got to America because some guy with big dreams convinced a queen that he'd find a faster route to India.
I know deGrasse Tyson has been pushing that idea, but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Columbus' voyage was overwhelmingly a privately financed and insured business venture with an expectation of profit. It was risky, but no riskier than modern startups.
If you're waiting for market incentive, it'll be possibly centuries.
The market incentives are there: massive amounts of metals and other valuable materials in space. Commercial space exploration will take off within a few decades, unless government interferes.
That.. is a good number of decades away. We've only barely touched probes on a couple of comets within the solar system where we have a firm grasp of their location and how to get there.
NASA won't be able to do it in less than a few decades because it is an inefficient, lumbering behemoth. But the technology exists, and if there was some market incentive, we could do it cheaply.
Because they are simply just 150 - 300 years out of the middle ages. They simply are few hundred years in mental/social development behind.
Well, so you agree then that what we call "Christianity" today is compatible with liberal democracy, while what we call "Islam" today is "a few hundred years in mental/social development behind" and hence both totalitarian and incompatible with liberal democracy.
Whether Islam will be able to turn into something that is compatible with liberal democracy in a few hundred years or not is of no interest to current political decisions. We can certainly not allow Islam to follow the same path that Christianity followed towards liberalization, because Christian liberalization involved mass murder and destruction on a global scale.
And instead of polluting your readers minds with the hate of your ignorance
To quote you again: Muslims "simply are few hundred years in mental/social development behind". So you just agreed with me on the essential point.
You are showing signs of a pretty severe case of last-post-itis there, kid. As for reading, try reading anything, really. You keep grasping at fact-free statements or half-truths and then trying to sling them at me when you can't build an argument
It's just amazing how you project your own faults onto others.
Do you parents still have health insurance for you?
I've been on my own two feet since I was a teenager half a century ago. I used to be a progressive and a moderate leftist but I have grown up. Obviously you have never grown up, never learned from life.
I will accept your absence of a source as confirmation that you made that up.
See, I think that approach to getting information explains why you are so confused.
you would have done yourself a great favor some time ago to stop replying and start reading
Reading what? You have provided no sources and not made a coherent argument; mostly what you have been doing is equivocating. The point of arguing with you is to see how people like you tick, nothing more.
It is no small wonder that someone as ignorant and inflammatory as yourself has so many foes and not yet a single fan here.
A large number of the people on your friends list used to be my "friends" on Slashdot on my old low-digit uid. That was back when Slashdot was still primarily about technology and when Democrats and progressives were still fairly liberal. Slashdot has deteriorated into a political rag, and many of those people have become old-style progressives or worse as they have become older and wealthier. You go on being "friends" with them: it's the company you deserve.
This is the kind of event the space program ought to be better prepared for.
Even if this particular object may be be unreachable with current technology, we should have robotic probes that can approach and even crash into/land on objects that appear unexpectedly.
Except that it has been understood for some time that a single establishment that allows smoking will end up poisoning not only people who are customers, but also people who are nearby, people who know customers, people who are tangential clients, etc. The pollution has to go somewhere once it is created, and the establishments would go broke if they were to invest in proper equipment to handle it.
Smoke filters are cheap and effective. Many businesses have them simply to improve air quality in general.
Nobody has a right to forcibly expose others to this.
Your "argument" consists of a mix of lies, equivocations, and made-up facts.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State
I just checked and you are wrong. Tobacconists, cigar bars, and private clubs are exempt from smoking bans in NY. (California exempts tobacconists and cigar bars, but not private clubs.)
Because in a bar or restaurant you can end up with people unwillingly inhaling the toxic second hand smoke.
You are in the bar/restaurant voluntarily. If you don't like the air, leave. If you stay, you inhale the toxic second hand smoke willingly.
You can also end up with passers-by and neighbors who are also exposed against their will. Air is a communal resource.
That merely requires enforcing that businesses don't release toxic fumes into the environment.
Go poison yourself at home, and leave the rest of the country out of it. We have a right to not be harmed by your bad choices.
I'm a non-smoker, non-vaper, and non-drinker. I don't like the emissions from either smoking or vaping and I don't frequent establishments where people engage in either activity.
No, the difference between us is that I'm an actual liberal whereas you are a fascist.
With the same argument you could argue there are no Christian art forms except "painting" Bibles.
Correct! Glad you're keeping up.
Christianity itself makes a strong distinction between church and state
No it does not. That is a modern invention.
I said that Christianity "makes a strong distinction between church and state"; as such it is part of a group of religions that allows for separation of church and state (Buddhism is another one of those). It's also not a "modern invention"; separation of church and state has been implemented many times over the past several millennia. In the West, however, separation of church and state was first implemented by Christians (not atheists as you might think).
Lol, which part you mean?
All of it: total submission to Allah and his will and rule, government of Muslims by Muslims, religious rules for everything from prayer to personal hygiene.
Affected that the government is pushing Islam or using Sharia law, no. E.g. Marocco, Tunisia, before Erdogan Turkey, now more and more Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia. All countries with mostly Islamic population.
I have dated guys from several of those countries and they are horrible countries for gay men due to Islam; homosexuality is punished with imprisonment in many of them. Atheism is illegal in several of those countries. So your idea that they demonstrate that Islam can be liberal is ludicrous and ignorant.
Of course it is. In the old times the califs where elected. At least when the last one had no hires. About many things always was voted. Of course only amoung the nobility, as in the Roman republic.
I said liberal democracy is simply not compatible with Islam. Democracy that violates the rights of minorities and that violates individual liberties, is, of course, compatible with Islam.
And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.
Correct, I do not have a right to poison you against your will. But it's your choice whether you enter a private business that permits smoking or not, and if you do choose to enter a business that permits smoking, you are being poisoned with your consent.
So what you are actually defending isn't being protected from "being poisoned against your will", what you are actually defending is the ability of government to impose whatever regulations and restrictions it wants on any private business in order to make it conform to your preferences.
(Additionally, there is no evidence that second hand e-cigarette vapor poisons anyone, so your defense of the ban is also not based in science or facts.)
We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain.
In fact, smoking in retail tobacco shops and private smoke lounges is legally permitted in California (and I imagine elsewhere too). And if bar owners overwhelmingly prefer a smoke free environment, what would be the harm in giving bar owners the choice? Why do you have this compulsive need to make the entire world conform to your preferences?
However you do not have the right to poison me in other places.... Telling people they cannot poison others does not come the slightest bit close to mandatory sterilization.
You're misusing the term "to poison". I suggest you rethink what you are saying and reformulate that. When you have thought this through, you will see that smoking restrictions and forced sterilizations aren't just accidental companions in both US progressivism and German fascism, but come from the same ideological roots.
Muslim countries, of course, have dance and music, but those are national or regional art forms, not Islamic art forms.
Islamic culture/ruling was not ever oppressive.
Islam is inherently and expressly totalitarian; read the Quran.
The Nazis were basically christians... nevertheless everywhere where they ruled, you would call them nazi oppressors, not christian oppressors.
Most Nazis were indeed Christians. But most Christians were not and are not either Nazis or totalitarians. Christianity itself makes a strong distinction between church and state, and that's why Christians are free to follow all sorts of different political ideologies. There are Christian monarchists, Christian socialists, Christian libertarians, Christian progressives, Christian fascists, Christian theocrats, Christian anarchists, etc. Islam is fundamentally different in its relationship between politics and religion.
Only a few countries are affected.
I don't know of any predominantly Muslim country that is not "affected" by the totalitarian nature of Islam. A few Muslim countries tried to secularize and become liberal democracies "from the top down", but they seem to be failing one by one; liberal democracy is simply not compatible with Islam.
You will subsidize dangerous, immoral, irresponsible, and self-destructive behavior regardless of what happens to Obamacare. It is either subsidized explicitly through a program like Obamacare or implicitly through higher medical bills as long as we continue to provide care regardless of ability to pay.
Yes, but there are different levels of care and different levels of subsidies. Obamacare used as its guiding principle that everybody should receive a generous, state-of-the-art level of care regardless of ability to pay. That's not sustainable, and it subsidizes the worst behaviors in people; it hurts the people most who it purports to help. It's an absurd and obscene way of designing a health care system, and it's not how other systems work.
Prior to Obamacare, you couldn't necessarily buy the insurance that reflected your actual risk either. You were often grossly overcharged if you purchased on the individual market- even if you were quite healthy and low risk.
Correct. That's because prior to ACA, the insurance market was already heavily distorted by subsidies, barriers to entry, regulations, and artificial monopolies. But instead of addressing those problems, ACA doubled down on those problems and made them worse.
substituting numbers as high as six feet at the extreme if the world continues to burn large volumes of fossil fuels throughout the century
The free market is on track to switch to largely renewable energy within 10-20 years in wealthy western nations, and within a few more decades in the rest of the world.
The only way that could fail is if ill-conceived government climate change policies create a long-lasting global recession. Fortunately, with the failure of left wing governments in both the US and Europe, that doesn’t seem likely.
If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe
The criterion for imposing government regulations on the use of private property generally ought to be at a minimum whether there is a compelling, demonstrable government interest and that the restrictions are the regulations are the minimum ones necessary to prevent harm. So, if you want to ban e-cigs on my private property by law, you need to show that they are actually harmful and that there is no other way of preventing that harm. Good luck making either of those two arguments. The criterion (at least in the US) clearly is not simply “a majority of people don’t like this/are worried about it, so they can outlaw it”.
it won’t help your case
I’m not sure what you think “my case” actually is. Of course, New York can get away with passing these laws, and of course people like you are going to rationalize those laws. I mean, people like you got away with compulsive sterilization and segregation with pretty much the same reasoning you are applying here. I’m just expressing my disapproval.
Can you not see how that is relevant to extracting meaning form the data, even though the sample size is huge?
I didn't say it wasn't "relevant", I said that a large biased sample gave your more information than no data at all. Can you not see that?
Of course, in the case of sentiment analysis, the discussion is moot anyway. First of all, we know that even people who believe themselves to hold tolerant and positive views of minorities often actually associate negative sentiments with those minorities. Second, even if we undersample the population of people with positive sentiments, that doesn't eliminate the large population of people with negative sentiments.
Incidentally, I am in a couple of those minorities, and what Google is doing is not helpful. You can't get rid of negative sentiments by pretending they don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are actually saying is:
we can still make a better world through government force and compulsion
That's what we are talking about here. And that premise is false: we can not make a better world through government force and compulsion. Both socialist and fascist states tried and failed miserably. In fact, fascists had nature conservation and environmental protection as major policy objectives.
The only way we can make a better world is through voluntary interactions, cooperation, and non-violence; that is, the antithesis of government force and compulsion.
I know this may be hard for educated, privileged, middle-class Americans to grasp, but when costs of goods and services go up (and energy is the single largest input to most goods and services), that has real-world consequences. For you, it may mean one trip less to Disneyland. For people in less wealthy nations, it may mean lack of life-saving medical treatments, lack of housing, lack of heating, or lack of food.
Furthermore, there is no realistic way you can force people to use carbon neutral technologies until they actually are fully cost competitive. Oh, sure, you can impose them in a few countries, but other countries are not going to play along, which just means that production shifts there. US and European politicians know that, which is why none of them have even come close to something that pushes their countries to carbon neutrality. Climate change is simply being used as an excuse to push policies that have no significant impact on climate change, but allows politicians to realize economic and social objective.
People do understand the consequences; we simply reach different conclusions from you. The real problem is that a significant minority of "our species" have fallen prey to hysteria, fear mongering, and political propaganda.
(1) First of all, Europe has net neutrality legislation, so Khanna's statement that this is the Internet with "no net neutrality" is false (makes you wonder whether he is simply ignorant or deliberately misleading people).
(2) Look at the prices: you can get unlimited packages for $5 for specific services. A cheap, small data plan plus $5 for unlimited Netflix+YouTube? That sounds awesome to me.
We agree: Islam is not incompatible with democracy; but then, neither are slavery, racism, fascism, forced sterilization, socialism, and all sorts of other oppressive policies and ideologies. How do we know? Because they have all occurred in democracies: there have been, and continue to be, a lot of really awful democracies in the world. What Islam is incompatible with is not democracy, but liberalism, tolerance, and equal rights.
I have almost certainly been to more Islamic countries than you ever will. I have probably also slept with more (ex-)Muslim men than you, who have generally taken a rather dim view of Islam themselves.
I know deGrasse Tyson has been pushing that idea, but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Columbus' voyage was overwhelmingly a privately financed and insured business venture with an expectation of profit. It was risky, but no riskier than modern startups.
The market incentives are there: massive amounts of metals and other valuable materials in space. Commercial space exploration will take off within a few decades, unless government interferes.
NASA won't be able to do it in less than a few decades because it is an inefficient, lumbering behemoth. But the technology exists, and if there was some market incentive, we could do it cheaply.
Well, so you agree then that what we call "Christianity" today is compatible with liberal democracy, while what we call "Islam" today is "a few hundred years in mental/social development behind" and hence both totalitarian and incompatible with liberal democracy.
Whether Islam will be able to turn into something that is compatible with liberal democracy in a few hundred years or not is of no interest to current political decisions. We can certainly not allow Islam to follow the same path that Christianity followed towards liberalization, because Christian liberalization involved mass murder and destruction on a global scale.
To quote you again: Muslims "simply are few hundred years in mental/social development behind". So you just agreed with me on the essential point.
No, I don't expect you to believe anything, nor do I expect to be able to change your minds through reason or facts.
However, since the tech industry is full of jerks like you, it's good to figure out how you tick and what delusions you operate under.
Thanks again for your input.
Extrasolar objects usually have trajectories and are in locations in the sky where we don't scan for them.
It's just amazing how you project your own faults onto others.
I've been on my own two feet since I was a teenager half a century ago. I used to be a progressive and a moderate leftist but I have grown up. Obviously you have never grown up, never learned from life.
See, I think that approach to getting information explains why you are so confused.
Reading what? You have provided no sources and not made a coherent argument; mostly what you have been doing is equivocating. The point of arguing with you is to see how people like you tick, nothing more.
A large number of the people on your friends list used to be my "friends" on Slashdot on my old low-digit uid. That was back when Slashdot was still primarily about technology and when Democrats and progressives were still fairly liberal. Slashdot has deteriorated into a political rag, and many of those people have become old-style progressives or worse as they have become older and wealthier. You go on being "friends" with them: it's the company you deserve.
This is the kind of event the space program ought to be better prepared for.
Even if this particular object may be be unreachable with current technology, we should have robotic probes that can approach and even crash into/land on objects that appear unexpectedly.
Smoke filters are cheap and effective. Many businesses have them simply to improve air quality in general.
Your "argument" consists of a mix of lies, equivocations, and made-up facts.
I just checked and you are wrong. Tobacconists, cigar bars, and private clubs are exempt from smoking bans in NY. (California exempts tobacconists and cigar bars, but not private clubs.)
You are in the bar/restaurant voluntarily. If you don't like the air, leave. If you stay, you inhale the toxic second hand smoke willingly.
That merely requires enforcing that businesses don't release toxic fumes into the environment.
I'm a non-smoker, non-vaper, and non-drinker. I don't like the emissions from either smoking or vaping and I don't frequent establishments where people engage in either activity.
No, the difference between us is that I'm an actual liberal whereas you are a fascist.
Correct! Glad you're keeping up.
I said that Christianity "makes a strong distinction between church and state"; as such it is part of a group of religions that allows for separation of church and state (Buddhism is another one of those). It's also not a "modern invention"; separation of church and state has been implemented many times over the past several millennia. In the West, however, separation of church and state was first implemented by Christians (not atheists as you might think).
All of it: total submission to Allah and his will and rule, government of Muslims by Muslims, religious rules for everything from prayer to personal hygiene.
I have dated guys from several of those countries and they are horrible countries for gay men due to Islam; homosexuality is punished with imprisonment in many of them. Atheism is illegal in several of those countries. So your idea that they demonstrate that Islam can be liberal is ludicrous and ignorant.
I said liberal democracy is simply not compatible with Islam. Democracy that violates the rights of minorities and that violates individual liberties, is, of course, compatible with Islam.
Correct, I do not have a right to poison you against your will. But it's your choice whether you enter a private business that permits smoking or not, and if you do choose to enter a business that permits smoking, you are being poisoned with your consent.
So what you are actually defending isn't being protected from "being poisoned against your will", what you are actually defending is the ability of government to impose whatever regulations and restrictions it wants on any private business in order to make it conform to your preferences.
(Additionally, there is no evidence that second hand e-cigarette vapor poisons anyone, so your defense of the ban is also not based in science or facts.)
In fact, smoking in retail tobacco shops and private smoke lounges is legally permitted in California (and I imagine elsewhere too). And if bar owners overwhelmingly prefer a smoke free environment, what would be the harm in giving bar owners the choice? Why do you have this compulsive need to make the entire world conform to your preferences?
You're misusing the term "to poison". I suggest you rethink what you are saying and reformulate that. When you have thought this through, you will see that smoking restrictions and forced sterilizations aren't just accidental companions in both US progressivism and German fascism, but come from the same ideological roots.
Muslim countries, of course, have dance and music, but those are national or regional art forms, not Islamic art forms.
Islam is inherently and expressly totalitarian; read the Quran.
Most Nazis were indeed Christians. But most Christians were not and are not either Nazis or totalitarians. Christianity itself makes a strong distinction between church and state, and that's why Christians are free to follow all sorts of different political ideologies. There are Christian monarchists, Christian socialists, Christian libertarians, Christian progressives, Christian fascists, Christian theocrats, Christian anarchists, etc. Islam is fundamentally different in its relationship between politics and religion.
I don't know of any predominantly Muslim country that is not "affected" by the totalitarian nature of Islam. A few Muslim countries tried to secularize and become liberal democracies "from the top down", but they seem to be failing one by one; liberal democracy is simply not compatible with Islam.
Here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Nazis were rabidly anti-smoking.
Yes, and they didn't have the technology to do it. Instead, they wasted billions on subsidies to their cronies.
Well, it certainly isn't a government policy win: government policy has utterly failed at making efficient electric a reality.
Yes, but there are different levels of care and different levels of subsidies. Obamacare used as its guiding principle that everybody should receive a generous, state-of-the-art level of care regardless of ability to pay. That's not sustainable, and it subsidizes the worst behaviors in people; it hurts the people most who it purports to help. It's an absurd and obscene way of designing a health care system, and it's not how other systems work.
Correct. That's because prior to ACA, the insurance market was already heavily distorted by subsidies, barriers to entry, regulations, and artificial monopolies. But instead of addressing those problems, ACA doubled down on those problems and made them worse.
The free market is on track to switch to largely renewable energy within 10-20 years in wealthy western nations, and within a few more decades in the rest of the world.
The only way that could fail is if ill-conceived government climate change policies create a long-lasting global recession. Fortunately, with the failure of left wing governments in both the US and Europe, that doesn’t seem likely.
By the way, your views have a long history.
The criterion for imposing government regulations on the use of private property generally ought to be at a minimum whether there is a compelling, demonstrable government interest and that the restrictions are the regulations are the minimum ones necessary to prevent harm. So, if you want to ban e-cigs on my private property by law, you need to show that they are actually harmful and that there is no other way of preventing that harm. Good luck making either of those two arguments. The criterion (at least in the US) clearly is not simply “a majority of people don’t like this/are worried about it, so they can outlaw it”.
I’m not sure what you think “my case” actually is. Of course, New York can get away with passing these laws, and of course people like you are going to rationalize those laws. I mean, people like you got away with compulsive sterilization and segregation with pretty much the same reasoning you are applying here. I’m just expressing my disapproval.
I didn't say it wasn't "relevant", I said that a large biased sample gave your more information than no data at all. Can you not see that?
Of course, in the case of sentiment analysis, the discussion is moot anyway. First of all, we know that even people who believe themselves to hold tolerant and positive views of minorities often actually associate negative sentiments with those minorities. Second, even if we undersample the population of people with positive sentiments, that doesn't eliminate the large population of people with negative sentiments.
Incidentally, I am in a couple of those minorities, and what Google is doing is not helpful. You can't get rid of negative sentiments by pretending they don't exist.