Your mother got stuck at a walking-pace behind a rabbit all the way till the next town, while you "just followed it for 2-3 jumps, then briefly switched off my lights to let it go..."
So, apparently humans evolved greater intelligence in those 35 years.
The trouble with asking questions about global warming is... Just asking questions is, apparently, to align myself with "crackpots" and "junk science". Asking questions is unacceptable.
No, you were not "asking questions".
I checked back through all of the parent posts looking for question marks in your posts. You made many statements, many of which were explicitly or implicitly supportive of the denialist conspiracy theory position. The only time you used questions marks were in rhetorical questions, none of which were seeking answers to understand AGW or whether it was real.
There are two reasonable levels on which someone can approach something like this. One level is a desire to directly understand a subject well enough to directly understand what is true and why. Whether it is AGW, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, on anything else, questions seeking to understand the evidence and science are always welcome. I do not recall you asking any questions of this sort. Nonetheless, my previous post provided a basic answer to this sort of question - I explained the basic physics effect proving the AGW effect was an undeniable reality. I then noted that questions on the size of the effect and predictions into the future were more complicated (beyond the scope of my reply), and I implicitly indicated that scientists did possess answers to any questions on those more complicated aspects.
The second reasonable level to approach something like this, is to rely on respectable experts in a subject when one does not have the time, interest, or expertise to directly study a subject. If one is not interested in taking several years of medical school or understanding immunology or studying the methods and results of specific medical research studies, it is necessary and appropriate to believe the American Medical Association when they state that the Flue vaccine is safe and 99% effective in preventing you from getting the flu. If one is not interested in studying physics, then it is appropriate to rely on the expertise of professional physicists regarding Relativity. I do not recall you asking any questions seeking to take this approach. In fact what I recall is you making a statement "I don't trust or support either side". Nonetheless, I interpreted that statements potentially implying a reasonable question and reasonable attempt to take this approach. I provided information and links establishing the expert scientific position by any reasonable standard. *If* that is what you were looking for, *if* that is what you were trying to ask, then great I answered it. However *if* you are going to stick with "I don't trust... either side", *if* you are going to go with "I actively distrust the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, and even NASA", then I say that is conspiracy-theoryism.
You feel you're being attacked for asking questions. Well, ask a question. If you are seeking to discover whether reliable experts say AGW is real, or seeking to learn to what extent there is a genuine scientific controversy between experts, I think I already answered that but I will happy answer related questions in that direction. If you are seeking to directly understand the science involved, I already explained the basic principal establishing that AGW is undeniably real, I will happily answer questions on much of the general science involved and some aspects of the detailed science, but in many detailed aspects of the science I may have to point you to other sources for the answers.
There is a big difference between questions or reasonable-argument and conspiracy-theory-based active denialism. You have basically been complaining that some people have been told to "shu
I was saying how votes should be counted. I found it rather awkward that the grandparent post was explaining how the Electoral College was screwed up and needed to be fixed, and he still phrased the one-person-one-vote solution in terms of adding up state votes vs state votes.
Like I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't know how "settled" the AGW question is.
It's not hard to Google for authoritative sources. "Authoritative sources" means not blogs, not activist websites set up to propagandize one side or the other of the issue, it means any respected scientific body that existed before Climate Change ever became an issue, and which has issued an "Oh by the way here is our official statement on the subject". You'll find that most science academies on the planet have issued such a statement.
These odd surveys and polls of "scientists
You mean the supposed "scientists" at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Joint Science Academies', the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, and on and on and on.
Here's one statement released by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and co-signed by the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and 13 others, which states in part: Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
I bolded that last part because I wanted to point out that "inconsistent with an objective assessment" and "inconsistent with... the vast body of peer-reviewed science" are overly polite phrases for "crackpot".
These odd surveys and polls of "scientists" claiming to "prove" this and that seem so artificial and so obviously manipulated.
The NASA website says "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree" and they provide three sources for that figure: W. R. L. Anderegg, âoeExpert Credibility in Climate Change,â Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, âoeBeyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,â Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. It's perfectly understandable for the general public to have the impression that there is raging scientific controversy over the issue. The TV news networks will take any issue and apply the asinine technique of grabbing one person for each side and presenting them as if they are equally credible and represent equal positions. And there's massive propaganda being funded by the fossil fuel industry. And politicians have latched onto this as a partisan issue, with almost half of them making claims for each side of the issue. There is a public controversy, and there is a wide public perception of there being a raging scientific controversy. However if you look at the statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and from virtually every other National Academy of Science, and dismiss them, they are heading deep into conspiracy theory territory. And if you specifically look at the NASA page and their 97% figure backed up by three sources, and if you continue to put "scientist" in quotes and continue to put "prove" in quotes and di
It's funny how often that claim keeps being thrown out there. The Electoral College does exactly zero to prevent "mob rule". The only thing that the Electoral College does is grossly warp the weighting of votes and influence to empower an arbitrarily selected minority mob to rule.
There are two separate questions / issues / debates, and a big problem is that they have been getting mixed together and confused. One question is whether Global Warming is real and being caused by humans. The other question is what, if anything, we should do about it.
The first one is a scientific question, The second one is an economic and political question.
The first question is a matter of basic physics. Solar energy comes in through the atmosphere in the form of sunlight, hits the ground, and is re-radiated as infra-red radiation. The natural gasses of the atmosphere trap that infra-red radiation. It traps the energy, traps the heat, warming the planet. The "greenhouse gasses effect". The natural level of water and CO2 and methane and other gasses, the natural greenhouse effect, already warms the planet by 50 degrees. 50 degrees. It is trivial undeniable physics that increasing the amount of such gasses in the atmosphere will increase the heat-trapping effect. The only complicated part is calculating a number for the size of the effect, the hard part is predicting the future size of the effect, and it is most particularly difficult to predict the secondary effects it will trigger. The basic effect is simple enough to prove in a few sentences here. The more complicated parts, the calculations of the current size of the effect and the future course of the effect are the subject of science papers by expert professionals, and the scientific community has a reasonably good handle on those more complicated parts.
The scientific question, is this effect real and are humans causing it, is not a reasonable rational debate. Among scientists, there is only a tiny fringe who deny it, most of whom are directly employed by the coal/oil industry, a tiny fringe who are doing essentially zero scientific work and producing essentially zero science papers challenging it, and what they do say and do is considered to be biased or easily refuted crackpottery by almost 100% of the expert in the field. "Many" people deny the moon landing, but "many" does not constitute a genuine scientific controversy, not when that "many" constitutes a tiny percentage, not when they are failing to produce any scientific work considered even remotely respectable by the general scientific community. Every field has crackpots, the mere existence of crackpots (or industry funded disinformation junk science) does not make it valid to claim something is scientifically controversial.
The second question, what if anything, we should do about it, is not a scientific question. That is a social, economic, and political question. That is an area where there can be reasonable and rational disagreement, reasonable and rational discussion, reasonable and rational debate.
However you cannot have a reasonable and rational discussion on that subject with someone who is ranting that the entire scientific community is engaging in some evil comicbook conspiracy to enslave the planet. You cannot engage in reasonable rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist who has list touch with reality, who interprets all facts and evidence as a hoax, and who interprets every discussion on the subject as some bizarre Illuminati scheme to conquer the world.
If you are discussing the the NASA budget and future missions, and some people start ranting that the moon landing was a hoax, then the only way to proceed with a reasonable rational discussion is to carry on the discussion without them You either physically throw the luny denialists out of the room, or you metaphorically throw them out of the room by simply ignoring them.
The best option is of course if you can still rationally reach the denialists, manage to give them enough good information that they snap themselves out of it and enable them to reasonably rationally participate on the second question. There's no hoax, no Illuminati, it's not about conquering the world or "control". If we try to do something about it it will be very costly and disruptive, if we do *nothing* about it it
Corporations don't exist without us choosing to make a law creating them.
Corporations cannot vote, unless that law specifically granting them a power to vote.
Corporations cannot get married, unless that law specifically grants them a power to get married.
Corporations cannot sue in court, or be sued, unless that law provides for them to sue/be-sued in court.
Corporations cannot buy or sell anything, cannot own property, unless that law provides for the creation of corporations with the ability to buy/sell/own property.
Corporations don't exist at all, without a law specifically providing for their creation, and defining them, and specifically providing legal authority for them to do anything.
So no, corporations don't exist unless we create them, and corporations have no right to own property unless we define a legal mechanism saying they can own property, and no they cannot SPEAK unless we provide some legal authority and mechanism for them to speak. And to the extent we do allow corporations to vote/marry/appear-in-court/own-property/speak, they can only do so to whatever extent the law provides for them to do so.
Corporations are not people. Corporations do not actually exist. Corporations are a legal fiction, an imaginary legal entity that can be assigned ownership of property, and which can contract to buy and sell and distribute profits in accordance with law, and we can damn well have that law state that corporations have no legal right to lobby for changes in the law, we can damn well have the law state that corporations are prohibited from spending one-cent on lobbying.
If you feel otherwise, and think that freedom expression is not a fundamental right, but rather a privilege that can be withdrawn in some cases
No, you have it backwards. "Speech" is something which does not need to be extended to corporations.
The law does not need to empower these fictional legal entities to contract for the purchase Just as of political advertizing or to hire lobbyists. The law does not have to empower a corporate CEO to order an employee to lobby legislators as an employment duty. Just as the law does not empower a corporate CEO to order an employee to vote for a specific candidate as one of his employment duties.
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but way you put it made me cringe a bit. "Wyomings" shouldn't be outvoting "Californias" because states shouldn't get to vote at all.
It should take 1+ Wyomingians to outvote 1 Califorinian, and it should take 1+ Californians to outvote 1 Wyomingian.
And a person in a swing state is worth exponentially more so than either Californians or Wyomingites. So what?
Uhhhh.... yeah..... there's two main parts to the argument why the Electoral College is crap. Are you attempting to refute the "unequal representation" flaw in the Electoral College by citing that the Electoral College is ALSO flawed for lumping votes into state-wide blocks?
Citing the second flaw in the system in no way refutes the first flaw. And arguing that there's two problems rather than one is hardly an argument in defense of the Electoral College.
Our system is designed to protect minority interests against mob mentality. I'd say that's a virtue.
Parts of our system were designed for that purpose. However the Three Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College were designed to balance the political influence of pro-slavery politics against anti-slavery politics. The Constitution required ratification from the various politicians of the various states, and one of the prime political calculations they were doing was the math on how many votes pro-slavery and anti-slavery interests were going to get in electing the president.
There is absolutely nothing in our Electoral College system that does anything to "protect minority interests against mob mentality". What our electoral College system does is (1) arbitrarily give some people more than four times as much vote as others which merely empowering an arbitrary minority-mob to trample legitimate majority interests, and (2) wildly empower fringe interests in randomly-selected "swing states" to dominate, distort, and hold hostage national politics.
Life isn't fair. It never will be
Agreed. However when you find a lump of shit in your soup, it's still a good idea to throw it out and make new soup. The new soup won't be perfect... it will still have specks of dust and dirt.... possibly even microscopic specs of feces.... but that is hardly an argument sit there and keep eating soup with a big fat turd in it.
The Electoral College is a turd with no redeeming qualities. (Unless you happen to live in Wyoming or Vermont, and you selfishly consider it a "redeeming quality" the Electoral College gives you more than three times the representation as a Californian or a Texan.)
In the US, tt's completely fair and working as designed.
Jefferson and Madison and a few of the others were smart men with uncommonly noble intentions, however it is naive to forget that they were dealing with the reality of politics of their day, and that the politics they had to deal with were often as bad or worse than the politics we have to deal with today.
Might I remind you that the Three-Fifths Compromise was also part of the "completely fair and working as designed" system put in place in the Constitution. Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person when counting up population for the House of Representatives. It was working as designed, right up until two-percent of the entire US population had to be killed in the Civil War to get it repealed.
Both the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College are the result of SLAVERY-POLITICS. They were not some noble and perfect system for better government, they were designed and selected for the purpose of balancing the political power of Slave-States vs Free-States.
The Constitution had to be ratified by the petty politicians of the various states, politicians who first and foremost were concerned with their own political power and their own political agendas. The Three-Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College are nothing more than arbitrary bullshit political compromises catering to Slave-politics, designed to give pro-slavery and anti-slavery political forces equal political power, so that neither side would reject and kill off the Constitution.
As for Federalist 10, it has no relevance to the existing Electoral College. Federalist 10 would only be relevant if you were to propose electing unpledged electors. (The positive or negative value of electing unpledged electors to the Electoral College may be an interesting theoretical exorcise, however I'm sure you'll agree that modern Elector-elections would immediately devolve into partisan politics.)
However that still fails to address the central criticism being leveled at the existing Electoral College. There is absolutely nothing in Federalist 10 to justify wildly disproportionate representation of voters. A Wyoming voter gets more than four times the representation as a California voter, and a Vermont voter gets more than three times the representation as a Texas voter. That does nothing to combat factors or any "tyranny of the majority". That merely gives arbitrary factions disproportionate power and replaces any possible "tyranny of the majority" with a "tyranny of an arbitrarily overrepresented minority".
It's to prevent one group of "interests" or "factions" as Madison put it, from squashing the liberties of others.
With pledged Electors, the Electoral College has zero connection to Federalist 10 and does exactly zero to counter "interests" or "factions" from squashing the liberties of others. And with the grossly disproportionate representation in the Electoral College it greatly magnifies that problem. Our Electoral College now empowers arbitrary minority "interests" or "factions" to squash the liberties of the majority. Our Electoral College completely subverts the point of Federalist 10.
If what you're saying tracked closely with reality, one would expect to see presidential campaigns spend four times as much, per person, in Wyoming than in California.
That's a non sequitur.
Just because Wyomingians does get more than four times the vote of Californians does not mean it follows that a politician will campaign in Wyoming. First of all, there is a far lower percentage of undecided or persuadable voters in Wyoming than in Ohio or Florida. There's no point spending time trying to win over people who will vote for/against you no matter what you say. Secondly, we're not talking about one flaw in the voting system, we're talking about two. We don't simply have a popular vote with some people getting four times as many votes. We have some votes counting four times as much AND votes awarded in block-groups. Campaigning in Wyoming and persuading 1,000 people to change their vote has zero effect on the outcome of the Wyoming vote-block, while campaigning in Florida and persuading 1,000 people to change their vote would have flipped the entire Florida vote-block in the 2000 election.
Throw them both in jail until one confesses. If they want to act like children they can be treated like children..
What the fuck is wrong with you?
You're suggesting putting an INNOCENT person in prison for the "crime" of either (1) truthfully denying he did it, or (2) remaining silent on advice of his lawyer when there is likely nothing he COULD say other than a useless truthful denial.
Note that there is no reason to expect that the guilty party will EVER confess.
Further note that, if the guilty party isn't confessing then you are creating a no-win scenario for the innocent party. In fact you are creating a very substantial possibility that the innocent one could give a false confession because he has no reason not to, and he has nothing better to do. Hell, if the guilty one isn't confessing than it's actually entirely logical for the innocent one to confess. At least in that case he can hope that guilty one will re-offend and get caught, establishing the other's guilt at which point he can recant his false confession. That could be an innocent man's best hope of ever getting out of prison in your IDIOTIC proposal.
one is guilty of conspiracy because he's lying for the other
Did you read an article that I didn't? Because the one I saw gave absolutely ZERO reason to believe any such thing. Based on the limited information available in the article I would presume that each either denied doing it themselves or remained silent on the advice of their lawyer. What makes you assert anyone conspired or lied?
On x86 systems Microsoft needs computers to be compatible with older versions of Windows. On x86 systems the Microsoft Hardware Certification says that manufacturers must include an option to disable UEFI SecureBoot, and must allow the owner to load his own keys. However on systems with an ARM processor Microsoft doesn't need to worry about hardware being compatible with versions of Windows because there are no versions of Windows for ARM. On ARM systems Microsoft has mandated that MANUFACTURERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO INCLUDE ANY OPTION TO DISABLE UEFI SECUREBOOT. On ARM systems Microsoft has mandated that MANUFACTURERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO INCLUDE ANY POSSIBILITY OF OWNERS LOADING THEIR OWN KEYS.
Microsoft has made it crystal clear that they can and will use UEFI to lock computers AGAINST their owners and to anti-competively lock out any possibility to load alternate operating systems when they do not have to worry about compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Currently ARM processors are primarily used in smartphones, however at least one manufacturer, Qualcomm, has announced they will be manufacturing ARM based PCs. Microsoft has mandated that owners of these PCs be denied any possibility of disabling the system and denied any possibility of loading your own keys.
Microsoft has announced the Windows 7 End Of Life date to be January 14, 2020. On that date Microsoft is no longer concerned with x86 computers being compatible with pre-UEFI operating systems. On that date Microsoft can drop the "Disable SecureBoot" legacy support. On that date there is every reason to expect Microsoft take their ARM-style no-legacy-support terms and impose them on all PC manufacturers.
Your "If you don't like it, disable it" is already false on some systems today, and there is good reason to suspect Microsoft may forbid it on all systems in a few years.
There is a serious communication failure here. I considered the possibility that it's a problem on my end failing to understand, but I don't think so. Perhaps you are so immersed in some ideological background that your post is so riddled with unstated assumptions and meanings as to make it incomprehensible to a random intelligent reader, or perhaps you have some psychological or communication peculiarity, or..... or.... I'm having trouble imaging any other plausible explanations.
The concept is way too lengthy to try and post
If are unwilling or unable to say what your point is then you obviously cannot expect anyone to to understand your point. And you certainly cannot expect anyone to accept or agree with some unknown unstated concept in your head.
Study Plato's Republic.
I'm not going to run out and read Plato's Republic in some (potentially hopeless) attempt to decipher your post.
If you understand what the "Noble Lie" really is, and how it's used you will see that it's a critical piece of society.
I get the basic concept that they are well-intentioned myths, intended to make society better. However I also believe there is significant dispute over whether they actually are "critical" to society, and I believe there is significant question whether they actually achieve a net benefit.
If you intend some different or more specific meaning for "Noble Lie" then you are going to have to tell me what it is. Well, actually you only have to tell me what it is if you intend to engage in successful communication.
The context following my message should have made it abundantly clear where I was stating that you were wrong.
However much you believe it should have been clear, it was not. It still is not. Whatever your intention was, whatever your belief is, the fact is that you completely failed to communicate anything at all.
Whatever you thought your "context" was supposed to communicate, it didn't. If you have a point to make, I suggest you try stating it directly.
You gave an absolutely false argument to prove your point
I still don't have the faintest clue how or why you are claiming my argument was false.
I showed that it was false.
Did you draw a picture and hold it up in front of your monitor? Because I saw no such thing anywhere in the post I read.
I'm sorry for getting snarky, but it is rather frustrating and irritating having you repeatedly claiming that you've 'proven me wrong' after I spent my entire last post explaining to you that I could find not one shred of any such argument or explanation in your entire last post. By my count where were about fourteen separate times in my last post indicating that I found your last post lacking in critical information or explanation.
Your newest post has not improved upon that, it hasn't brought any clarity at all.
The difference between Theist and Atheist is this: There is no real damage done to an Atheist no how severe the crime.
All I can say is... WHAT THE FUCK? Did I just have a stoke? Am I suddenly brain damaged and I'm completely misinterpreting those words? Or did you actually just make the bathit-insane assertion that gouging someone's eyes out is ok and "no real damage done" so long as the victim is an atheist?
This same concept is not true of any Religion be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, etc...
WHAT concept? I can only guess it's a reference to what came immediately before it, which was your utterly bizarre comment apparently indicating that rape is fine and dandy, so long as you only rape atheists.
Now before you start to nit-pick about Jews and goyim or Muslim and infidel
Oh, don't worry about nit-picking. I can't nit-pick details wh
Slashdot Mirror
Your mother got stuck at a walking-pace behind a rabbit all the way till the next town, while you "just followed it for 2-3 jumps, then briefly switched off my lights to let it go..."
So, apparently humans evolved greater intelligence in those 35 years.
-
Everything was fine before those goddamn "Windmill Disruption Dampeners". My cat died of LEUKEMIA three days after you installed them.
-
I have a suspicion that continuous low-frequency noise is more annoying than A-weighting or even K-weighting would indicate
Yeah, because a high pitch whine is the very definition of not-annoying. chuckle.
-
Don't forget led and mercury. Not getting enough minerals can cause a wide range of health problems.
-
Quit getting hysterical. It's only 5ppb in the human environment. It's completely safe at those levels.
-
The trouble with asking questions about global warming is...
Just asking questions is, apparently, to align myself with "crackpots" and "junk science". Asking questions is unacceptable.
No, you were not "asking questions".
I checked back through all of the parent posts looking for question marks in your posts. You made many statements, many of which were explicitly or implicitly supportive of the denialist conspiracy theory position. The only time you used questions marks were in rhetorical questions, none of which were seeking answers to understand AGW or whether it was real.
There are two reasonable levels on which someone can approach something like this. One level is a desire to directly understand a subject well enough to directly understand what is true and why. Whether it is AGW, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, on anything else, questions seeking to understand the evidence and science are always welcome. I do not recall you asking any questions of this sort. Nonetheless, my previous post provided a basic answer to this sort of question - I explained the basic physics effect proving the AGW effect was an undeniable reality. I then noted that questions on the size of the effect and predictions into the future were more complicated (beyond the scope of my reply), and I implicitly indicated that scientists did possess answers to any questions on those more complicated aspects.
The second reasonable level to approach something like this, is to rely on respectable experts in a subject when one does not have the time, interest, or expertise to directly study a subject. If one is not interested in taking several years of medical school or understanding immunology or studying the methods and results of specific medical research studies, it is necessary and appropriate to believe the American Medical Association when they state that the Flue vaccine is safe and 99% effective in preventing you from getting the flu. If one is not interested in studying physics, then it is appropriate to rely on the expertise of professional physicists regarding Relativity. I do not recall you asking any questions seeking to take this approach. In fact what I recall is you making a statement "I don't trust or support either side". Nonetheless, I interpreted that statements potentially implying a reasonable question and reasonable attempt to take this approach. I provided information and links establishing the expert scientific position by any reasonable standard. *If* that is what you were looking for, *if* that is what you were trying to ask, then great I answered it. However *if* you are going to stick with "I don't trust... either side", *if* you are going to go with "I actively distrust the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, and even NASA", then I say that is conspiracy-theoryism.
You feel you're being attacked for asking questions. Well, ask a question. If you are seeking to discover whether reliable experts say AGW is real, or seeking to learn to what extent there is a genuine scientific controversy between experts, I think I already answered that but I will happy answer related questions in that direction. If you are seeking to directly understand the science involved, I already explained the basic principal establishing that AGW is undeniably real, I will happily answer questions on much of the general science involved and some aspects of the detailed science, but in many detailed aspects of the science I may have to point you to other sources for the answers.
There is a big difference between questions or reasonable-argument and conspiracy-theory-based active denialism. You have basically been complaining that some people have been told to "shu
A liberal is more likely to understand and appreciate the spider.
And fill its bucket.
-
I was saying how votes should be counted. I found it rather awkward that the grandparent post was explaining how the Electoral College was screwed up and needed to be fixed, and he still phrased the one-person-one-vote solution in terms of adding up state votes vs state votes.
-
Like I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't know how "settled" the AGW question is.
It's not hard to Google for authoritative sources.
"Authoritative sources" means not blogs, not activist websites set up to propagandize one side or the other of the issue, it means any respected scientific body that existed before Climate Change ever became an issue, and which has issued an "Oh by the way here is our official statement on the subject". You'll find that most science academies on the planet have issued such a statement.
These odd surveys and polls of "scientists
You mean the supposed "scientists" at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Joint Science Academies', the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, and on and on and on.
Here's one statement released by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and co-signed by the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and 13 others, which states in part:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
I bolded that last part because I wanted to point out that "inconsistent with an objective assessment" and "inconsistent with... the vast body of peer-reviewed science" are overly polite phrases for "crackpot".
These odd surveys and polls of "scientists" claiming to "prove" this and that seem so artificial and so obviously manipulated.
The NASA website says "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree" and they provide three sources for that figure:
W. R. L. Anderegg, âoeExpert Credibility in Climate Change,â Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, âoeBeyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,â Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
It's perfectly understandable for the general public to have the impression that there is raging scientific controversy over the issue. The TV news networks will take any issue and apply the asinine technique of grabbing one person for each side and presenting them as if they are equally credible and represent equal positions. And there's massive propaganda being funded by the fossil fuel industry. And politicians have latched onto this as a partisan issue, with almost half of them making claims for each side of the issue. There is a public controversy, and there is a wide public perception of there being a raging scientific controversy. However if you look at the statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and from virtually every other National Academy of Science, and dismiss them, they are heading deep into conspiracy theory territory. And if you specifically look at the NASA page and their 97% figure backed up by three sources, and if you continue to put "scientist" in quotes and continue to put "prove" in quotes and di
It's funny how often that claim keeps being thrown out there. The Electoral College does exactly zero to prevent "mob rule". The only thing that the Electoral College does is grossly warp the weighting of votes and influence to empower an arbitrarily selected minority mob to rule.
-
If you're driving along the highway at 65MPH, and you come upon a thousand foot stretch of road that rises ten feet, you'll hardly notice the slope.
If you're driving along the highway at 65MPH, and you come upon a ten foot stretch of road that rises ten feet, you're dead.
-
There are two separate questions / issues / debates, and a big problem is that they have been getting mixed together and confused. One question is whether Global Warming is real and being caused by humans. The other question is what, if anything, we should do about it.
The first one is a scientific question, The second one is an economic and political question.
The first question is a matter of basic physics. Solar energy comes in through the atmosphere in the form of sunlight, hits the ground, and is re-radiated as infra-red radiation. The natural gasses of the atmosphere trap that infra-red radiation. It traps the energy, traps the heat, warming the planet. The "greenhouse gasses effect". The natural level of water and CO2 and methane and other gasses, the natural greenhouse effect, already warms the planet by 50 degrees. 50 degrees. It is trivial undeniable physics that increasing the amount of such gasses in the atmosphere will increase the heat-trapping effect. The only complicated part is calculating a number for the size of the effect, the hard part is predicting the future size of the effect, and it is most particularly difficult to predict the secondary effects it will trigger. The basic effect is simple enough to prove in a few sentences here. The more complicated parts, the calculations of the current size of the effect and the future course of the effect are the subject of science papers by expert professionals, and the scientific community has a reasonably good handle on those more complicated parts.
The scientific question, is this effect real and are humans causing it, is not a reasonable rational debate. Among scientists, there is only a tiny fringe who deny it, most of whom are directly employed by the coal/oil industry, a tiny fringe who are doing essentially zero scientific work and producing essentially zero science papers challenging it, and what they do say and do is considered to be biased or easily refuted crackpottery by almost 100% of the expert in the field. "Many" people deny the moon landing, but "many" does not constitute a genuine scientific controversy, not when that "many" constitutes a tiny percentage, not when they are failing to produce any scientific work considered even remotely respectable by the general scientific community. Every field has crackpots, the mere existence of crackpots (or industry funded disinformation junk science) does not make it valid to claim something is scientifically controversial.
The second question, what if anything, we should do about it, is not a scientific question. That is a social, economic, and political question. That is an area where there can be reasonable and rational disagreement, reasonable and rational discussion, reasonable and rational debate.
However you cannot have a reasonable and rational discussion on that subject with someone who is ranting that the entire scientific community is engaging in some evil comicbook conspiracy to enslave the planet. You cannot engage in reasonable rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist who has list touch with reality, who interprets all facts and evidence as a hoax, and who interprets every discussion on the subject as some bizarre Illuminati scheme to conquer the world.
If you are discussing the the NASA budget and future missions, and some people start ranting that the moon landing was a hoax, then the only way to proceed with a reasonable rational discussion is to carry on the discussion without them You either physically throw the luny denialists out of the room, or you metaphorically throw them out of the room by simply ignoring them.
The best option is of course if you can still rationally reach the denialists, manage to give them enough good information that they snap themselves out of it and enable them to reasonably rationally participate on the second question. There's no hoax, no Illuminati, it's not about conquering the world or "control". If we try to do something about it it will be very costly and disruptive, if we do *nothing* about it it
Corporations don't exist without us choosing to make a law creating them.
Corporations cannot vote, unless that law specifically granting them a power to vote.
Corporations cannot get married, unless that law specifically grants them a power to get married.
Corporations cannot sue in court, or be sued, unless that law provides for them to sue/be-sued in court.
Corporations cannot buy or sell anything, cannot own property, unless that law provides for the creation of corporations with the ability to buy/sell/own property.
Corporations don't exist at all, without a law specifically providing for their creation, and defining them, and specifically providing legal authority for them to do anything.
So no, corporations don't exist unless we create them, and corporations have no right to own property unless we define a legal mechanism saying they can own property, and no they cannot SPEAK unless we provide some legal authority and mechanism for them to speak. And to the extent we do allow corporations to vote/marry/appear-in-court/own-property/speak, they can only do so to whatever extent the law provides for them to do so.
Corporations are not people. Corporations do not actually exist. Corporations are a legal fiction, an imaginary legal entity that can be assigned ownership of property, and which can contract to buy and sell and distribute profits in accordance with law, and we can damn well have that law state that corporations have no legal right to lobby for changes in the law, we can damn well have the law state that corporations are prohibited from spending one-cent on lobbying.
If you feel otherwise, and think that freedom expression is not a fundamental right, but rather a privilege that can be withdrawn in some cases
No, you have it backwards. "Speech" is something which does not need to be extended to corporations.
The law does not need to empower these fictional legal entities to contract for the purchase Just as of political advertizing or to hire lobbyists. The law does not have to empower a corporate CEO to order an employee to lobby legislators as an employment duty. Just as the law does not empower a corporate CEO to order an employee to vote for a specific candidate as one of his employment duties.
-
Am I going to get a new logical fallacy with every reply to this thread?
You're ugly, therefore you're wrong.
-
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but way you put it made me cringe a bit. "Wyomings" shouldn't be outvoting "Californias" because states shouldn't get to vote at all.
It should take 1+ Wyomingians to outvote 1 Califorinian, and it should take 1+ Californians to outvote 1 Wyomingian.
-
And a person in a swing state is worth exponentially more so than either Californians or Wyomingites. So what?
Uhhhh.... yeah..... there's two main parts to the argument why the Electoral College is crap. Are you attempting to refute the "unequal representation" flaw in the Electoral College by citing that the Electoral College is ALSO flawed for lumping votes into state-wide blocks?
Citing the second flaw in the system in no way refutes the first flaw. And arguing that there's two problems rather than one is hardly an argument in defense of the Electoral College.
Our system is designed to protect minority interests against mob mentality. I'd say that's a virtue.
Parts of our system were designed for that purpose. However the Three Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College were designed to balance the political influence of pro-slavery politics against anti-slavery politics. The Constitution required ratification from the various politicians of the various states, and one of the prime political calculations they were doing was the math on how many votes pro-slavery and anti-slavery interests were going to get in electing the president.
There is absolutely nothing in our Electoral College system that does anything to "protect minority interests against mob mentality". What our electoral College system does is (1) arbitrarily give some people more than four times as much vote as others which merely empowering an arbitrary minority-mob to trample legitimate majority interests, and (2) wildly empower fringe interests in randomly-selected "swing states" to dominate, distort, and hold hostage national politics.
Life isn't fair. It never will be
Agreed. However when you find a lump of shit in your soup, it's still a good idea to throw it out and make new soup. The new soup won't be perfect... it will still have specks of dust and dirt.... possibly even microscopic specs of feces.... but that is hardly an argument sit there and keep eating soup with a big fat turd in it.
The Electoral College is a turd with no redeeming qualities. (Unless you happen to live in Wyoming or Vermont, and you selfishly consider it a "redeeming quality" the Electoral College gives you more than three times the representation as a Californian or a Texan.)
-
In the US, tt's completely fair and working as designed.
Jefferson and Madison and a few of the others were smart men with uncommonly noble intentions, however it is naive to forget that they were dealing with the reality of politics of their day, and that the politics they had to deal with were often as bad or worse than the politics we have to deal with today.
Might I remind you that the Three-Fifths Compromise was also part of the "completely fair and working as designed" system put in place in the Constitution. Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person when counting up population for the House of Representatives. It was working as designed, right up until two-percent of the entire US population had to be killed in the Civil War to get it repealed.
Both the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College are the result of SLAVERY-POLITICS. They were not some noble and perfect system for better government, they were designed and selected for the purpose of balancing the political power of Slave-States vs Free-States.
The Constitution had to be ratified by the petty politicians of the various states, politicians who first and foremost were concerned with their own political power and their own political agendas. The Three-Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College are nothing more than arbitrary bullshit political compromises catering to Slave-politics, designed to give pro-slavery and anti-slavery political forces equal political power, so that neither side would reject and kill off the Constitution.
As for Federalist 10, it has no relevance to the existing Electoral College. Federalist 10 would only be relevant if you were to propose electing unpledged electors. (The positive or negative value of electing unpledged electors to the Electoral College may be an interesting theoretical exorcise, however I'm sure you'll agree that modern Elector-elections would immediately devolve into partisan politics.)
However that still fails to address the central criticism being leveled at the existing Electoral College. There is absolutely nothing in Federalist 10 to justify wildly disproportionate representation of voters. A Wyoming voter gets more than four times the representation as a California voter, and a Vermont voter gets more than three times the representation as a Texas voter. That does nothing to combat factors or any "tyranny of the majority". That merely gives arbitrary factions disproportionate power and replaces any possible "tyranny of the majority" with a "tyranny of an arbitrarily overrepresented minority".
It's to prevent one group of "interests" or "factions" as Madison put it, from squashing the liberties of others.
With pledged Electors, the Electoral College has zero connection to Federalist 10 and does exactly zero to counter "interests" or "factions" from squashing the liberties of others. And with the grossly disproportionate representation in the Electoral College it greatly magnifies that problem. Our Electoral College now empowers arbitrary minority "interests" or "factions" to squash the liberties of the majority. Our Electoral College completely subverts the point of Federalist 10.
-
If what you're saying tracked closely with reality, one would expect to see presidential campaigns spend four times as much, per person, in Wyoming than in California.
That's a non sequitur.
Just because Wyomingians does get more than four times the vote of Californians does not mean it follows that a politician will campaign in Wyoming. First of all, there is a far lower percentage of undecided or persuadable voters in Wyoming than in Ohio or Florida. There's no point spending time trying to win over people who will vote for/against you no matter what you say. Secondly, we're not talking about one flaw in the voting system, we're talking about two. We don't simply have a popular vote with some people getting four times as many votes. We have some votes counting four times as much AND votes awarded in block-groups. Campaigning in Wyoming and persuading 1,000 people to change their vote has zero effect on the outcome of the Wyoming vote-block, while campaigning in Florida and persuading 1,000 people to change their vote would have flipped the entire Florida vote-block in the 2000 election.
-
Throw them both in jail until one confesses. If they want to act like children they can be treated like children..
What the fuck is wrong with you?
You're suggesting putting an INNOCENT person in prison for the "crime" of either (1) truthfully denying he did it, or (2) remaining silent on advice of his lawyer when there is likely nothing he COULD say other than a useless truthful denial.
Note that there is no reason to expect that the guilty party will EVER confess.
Further note that, if the guilty party isn't confessing then you are creating a no-win scenario for the innocent party. In fact you are creating a very substantial possibility that the innocent one could give a false confession because he has no reason not to, and he has nothing better to do. Hell, if the guilty one isn't confessing than it's actually entirely logical for the innocent one to confess. At least in that case he can hope that guilty one will re-offend and get caught, establishing the other's guilt at which point he can recant his false confession. That could be an innocent man's best hope of ever getting out of prison in your IDIOTIC proposal.
-
one is guilty of conspiracy because he's lying for the other
Did you read an article that I didn't? Because the one I saw gave absolutely ZERO reason to believe any such thing. Based on the limited information available in the article I would presume that each either denied doing it themselves or remained silent on the advice of their lawyer. What makes you assert anyone conspired or lied?
-
It's a cute quote, but wrong.
It's easy to make water "not wet", simply heat it into to 500 degree vapor.
On the other hand trying to make bits uncopyable is stupid and impossible.
-
If you don't like it, disable it. You can also add your own certs.
Oh really?
Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
On x86 systems Microsoft needs computers to be compatible with older versions of Windows. On x86 systems the Microsoft Hardware Certification says that manufacturers must include an option to disable UEFI SecureBoot, and must allow the owner to load his own keys. However on systems with an ARM processor Microsoft doesn't need to worry about hardware being compatible with versions of Windows because there are no versions of Windows for ARM. On ARM systems Microsoft has mandated that MANUFACTURERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO INCLUDE ANY OPTION TO DISABLE UEFI SECUREBOOT. On ARM systems Microsoft has mandated that MANUFACTURERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO INCLUDE ANY POSSIBILITY OF OWNERS LOADING THEIR OWN KEYS.
Microsoft has made it crystal clear that they can and will use UEFI to lock computers AGAINST their owners and to anti-competively lock out any possibility to load alternate operating systems when they do not have to worry about compatibility with older versions of Windows.
Currently ARM processors are primarily used in smartphones, however at least one manufacturer, Qualcomm, has announced they will be manufacturing ARM based PCs. Microsoft has mandated that owners of these PCs be denied any possibility of disabling the system and denied any possibility of loading your own keys.
Microsoft has announced the Windows 7 End Of Life date to be January 14, 2020. On that date Microsoft is no longer concerned with x86 computers being compatible with pre-UEFI operating systems. On that date Microsoft can drop the "Disable SecureBoot" legacy support. On that date there is every reason to expect Microsoft take their ARM-style no-legacy-support terms and impose them on all PC manufacturers.
Your "If you don't like it, disable it" is already false on some systems today, and there is good reason to suspect Microsoft may forbid it on all systems in a few years.
-
Nice catch. I wish I saw your post much sooner, I had mod points a few days ago and I let them expire.
-
A good project manager can figure out how to get you to the moon without knowing anything about aerodynamics.
Interesting metaphor... one which hooks my attention on the rather notable absence of AIR for 99.9% of the trip. Chuckle.
-
There is a serious communication failure here. I considered the possibility that it's a problem on my end failing to understand, but I don't think so. Perhaps you are so immersed in some ideological background that your post is so riddled with unstated assumptions and meanings as to make it incomprehensible to a random intelligent reader, or perhaps you have some psychological or communication peculiarity, or..... or.... I'm having trouble imaging any other plausible explanations.
The concept is way too lengthy to try and post
If are unwilling or unable to say what your point is then you obviously cannot expect anyone to to understand your point. And you certainly cannot expect anyone to accept or agree with some unknown unstated concept in your head.
Study Plato's Republic.
I'm not going to run out and read Plato's Republic in some (potentially hopeless) attempt to decipher your post.
If you understand what the "Noble Lie" really is, and how it's used you will see that it's a critical piece of society.
I get the basic concept that they are well-intentioned myths, intended to make society better. However I also believe there is significant dispute over whether they actually are "critical" to society, and I believe there is significant question whether they actually achieve a net benefit.
If you intend some different or more specific meaning for "Noble Lie" then you are going to have to tell me what it is. Well, actually you only have to tell me what it is if you intend to engage in successful communication.
The context following my message should have made it abundantly clear where I was stating that you were wrong.
However much you believe it should have been clear, it was not. It still is not. Whatever your intention was, whatever your belief is, the fact is that you completely failed to communicate anything at all.
Whatever you thought your "context" was supposed to communicate, it didn't. If you have a point to make, I suggest you try stating it directly.
You gave an absolutely false argument to prove your point
I still don't have the faintest clue how or why you are claiming my argument was false.
I showed that it was false.
Did you draw a picture and hold it up in front of your monitor? Because I saw no such thing anywhere in the post I read.
I'm sorry for getting snarky, but it is rather frustrating and irritating having you repeatedly claiming that you've 'proven me wrong' after I spent my entire last post explaining to you that I could find not one shred of any such argument or explanation in your entire last post. By my count where were about fourteen separate times in my last post indicating that I found your last post lacking in critical information or explanation.
Your newest post has not improved upon that, it hasn't brought any clarity at all.
The difference between Theist and Atheist is this: There is no real damage done to an Atheist no how severe the crime.
All I can say is... WHAT THE FUCK?
Did I just have a stoke? Am I suddenly brain damaged and I'm completely misinterpreting those words? Or did you actually just make the bathit-insane assertion that gouging someone's eyes out is ok and "no real damage done" so long as the victim is an atheist?
This same concept is not true of any Religion be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, etc...
WHAT concept? I can only guess it's a reference to what came immediately before it, which was your utterly bizarre comment apparently indicating that rape is fine and dandy, so long as you only rape atheists.
Now before you start to nit-pick about Jews and goyim or Muslim and infidel
Oh, don't worry about nit-picking. I can't nit-pick details wh