As to a model of what, clearly a model of your mother having sex with me last night.
You deserve that response for asking a completely fucking stupid question. Obviously a climate model. Ask more offensively stupid questions and I'll respect with proportional contempt.
Except there are dozens of published climate models, so asking me to supply one that you would obviously just disregard would be as you say "offensively stupid". By contrary I wondered if you were talking about a political model explaining liberal/libertarian positions based on the motivations I proposed since all you're talking about is the bogus motivations you're assigning to liberals.
As to being an oil shill, I wish. Then I would still say what I believe and get paid for my trouble.
You missed the point. I was making the example that you'd find it offensive to have your integrity questioned and your beliefs reduced to a ridiculous caricature. So why do you do it to other people?
You claim you want to have a good discussion then follow it up by saying I either have to agree with you or admit I point guns at people, I'm sorry but this is obviously a waste of my time.
One: Without a model you have no reliable predictive capability. If you have a model, present it now or admit that you have no predictive capability.
A model of what?
Two: Your solutions were very limited. You excluded shifting industrial practices to less wasteful methods using non-coercive means. You are very comfortable with putting a gun in someone's face, cocking the hammer back, and saying "Do what I say or I'll kill you."
Are you an Oil funded shill who wants poor sick people to die in the streets?
No?
So then why do you expect your caricature to describe me?
So not only is your coercive policy offensive and divisive. But it is also utterly ineffective because you lack the ability to force people outside your political sphere to do your bidding. You can't point a gun at the Chinese or the Indians.
Yet Europe has cut emissions so it's apparently possible (though extremely difficult). When there's a big enough problem international cooperation is possible, particularly when trade agreements can have bigger impacts than the cuts.
You say you're cynical... I believe you. I think however you don't realize that I know exactly how cynical you really are. You are attempting to manipulate the situation for your profit and power.
I'm going to put this politely.
You're as insightful a judge of character as you think you are.
Three: As to your notion that the left are cynical libertarians. That is nonsense. They're almost uniformly hardcore statists which means they are not libertarians. That's like calling Communists cynical capitalists. Its a meaningless comparison.
If I go with your definition, they're so cynical as to bear no resemblance to libertarians.
Libertarians believe the market will regulate itself in a healthy way.
Liberals are cynical the self-regulation will be healthy, so they step in to correct it.
Russia is full of people nostaligic for the old soviet union. I love how whenever leftists get embarressed by left wing groups they always call them right wing.
Except AGW beliefs aren't based on economics but social identification. Russia probably leans left economically, but from a social perspective they are far right bordering on fascism. If you want to talking about the NAZIs (why the hell are we talking about NAZIs??) Hitler wasn't notable for his left leaning economic policies, the problem was social policies, and those are best described as far right.
You have made clear from your words that you want to play political games and have no interest in an honest discussion. I have noted that and have adjusted my posture towards you to reflect that decision.
Yes, you want an honest discussion by accusing me of pointing a gun in peoples faces.
3) AI's will not be WEIRD, not 'evil'. They will want to do strange things, not kill us, or hurt us. They won't try to kill us, but instead try to create a massive, network devoted to deciding which species of from has more bacteria in it's toe. And we won't understand why they want to do this.
It doesn't have to want to hurt us. If it decides we're a threat to completing it's objective it will want to neutralize that threat in some fashion unless we give it a reason to do otherwise.
The original article doesn't give any details as to what this "exploit" is in android. Even if it is a real exploit, no new phones will be made with Android 4.3, and at this point, no manufacturer would push an update to an old device even if Google did fix it.
Possibly, though those phones may still be officially supported and it's hard to test that prediction if no patch exists. There's also the case of rooted phones where users could apply the patch themselves.
As to Google throwing Microsoft under the bus, that is utter crap. Google privately disclosed a vulnerability to MS, and *TOLD THEM* they had 90 days. After 90 days, Google publicly released the vulnerability. This is standard stuff. Giving a deadline is the only way to keep vulnerabilities out of the NSA toolkit and force MS to actually fix it.
And Microsoft told Google they were releasing the patch on day 92.
What is the rationale for not granting a 2 day extension? Would you really be so understanding if it was Microsoft that published the vulnerability two days before Google was ready to push their patch?
I actually offered specific reasons, based on science, as to why I felt regulations were necessary. I laid out why alternative approaches were unwise or couldn't be counted on.
You ignored these arguments entirely and launched into a weird diatribe claiming my side has all these hidden motives and started talking about those instead, you're the one that changed the topic from science to politics.
How am I supposed to respond to that? All I can do is deny the false premise you're trying to base the discussion on.
Even if legally in the clear, just dealing with an LEA when someone uses your machine as a child porn host is going to be unpleasant.
Imagine this in the UK:
Police:"We think you have kiddy porn on your computer, what are the contents of these encrypted files?"
You: "I don't know"
Police: "Tell us the password"
You: "I don't know it"
Judge: "Go to jail until you tell us the password!"
Why assume the courts will make the stupidest possible interpretation of the laws? In the vast majority of cases where someone is claiming this (and it end up on slashdown) the evidence suggests that they're lying.
Having your hard drives confiscated as evidence for an investigation is a legitimate risk but prison is not. Courts don't run like a software program, imprisoning people because of a bug.
This is something that people of a left bent seem to have a very hard time getting about their opposition. I think they're so determined to demonize them that they don't actually bother to understand them.
We understand we simply don't believe there are good alternatives.
Allow me to connect the dots here: The major problem with the AGW solutions is that they are enacted through federal and state taxes and regulations on business.
Consider that the environment doesn't care how you go about it. All the environment would care about is that you stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. There are other ways to go about it.
Not really. There's basically only three solutions.
First is the caps, taxes, or regs that you're talking about and the right really hates.
Second is climate engineering. But this isn't really a fix as much as a band-aid. For all the complaints about the reliability around the science of global warming the science around climate engineering would be even worse. For climate change at least we already have a full scale experiment going with our climate, all we really have for climate engineering is models. Climate engineering also ignores some very serious problems like ocean acidification.
Finally there's a technological breakthrough, cheap clean energy or carbon scrubbing. This is obviously the best solution but it's not something we can count on, we can hope for Deus ex Machina but until one shows up we need an actual solution.
What you must acknowledge is that AGW politics give an excuse for people of a leftward bent to do something they wanted to do anyway. They wanted to tax and regulate business before all this environmental stuff. Then Al Gore comes along and says "we need to do the stuff we already wanted to do to save the world!" Well shockingly that didn't go down well with his political opposition that didn't buy that line of shit for a second.
I think you're wrong here. Maybe those people exist, but I think a majority of the people you'd consider to be on the left are quite different.
Essentially I think a lot of the left is best described as cynical libertarians. We love the idea of the unfettered market and don't want regulations. However, something then pops up in the market that really seems to be a problem, and the only way to fix it seems to be regulations.
Maybe this is a bad approach but it is the underlying motivation. Inventing problems just so we can create arbitrary regulations simply isn't a thing.
Keep in mind, it just isn't the evil soulless republicans that aren't on board with this nonsense... most of east Asia thinks its shit as well, as does most of south america, Russia thinks its crap, and africa/middle east just don't care.
I don't know about South American but at least the leadership in Asia is scared shitless, there's a lot of reason to think their food supply gets absolutely hammered.
Russia is basically run by what maps to the right wing flank of the Tea Party, so it's not surprising they reject AGW. The Middle East has social conservatism joined with a huge pro-Oil culture, and along with Africa they're mired far too deep in their developmental problems to think that far ahead.
I don't know all the details but my understanding is the evidence suggests he did have some actual covert missions into Cambodia, he was also ambushed in Christmas '68 where he may have strayed into Cambodia.
We're talking about 18 years from the incident to the testimony, memories is notoriously unreliable, even vivid ones. My guess is he remembers an ambush during Christmas that he strongly associates with Cambodia and he remembers being sent on covert missions to Cambodia, the ambush simply got associated with the covert missions.
I never said that opposition to war was anti-military and vilifying soldiers, I said that John Kerry vilified soldiers and was anti-military. You may want to look at some of the things he said when he returned from Vietnam.
Do you mean that the typical war opponent is anti-military and vilifying soldiers, and Kerry was a typical war opponent. Or that the typical war opponent is fine, but Kerry by contrast was anti-military and vilifying soldiers? If so what is your evidence?
Scientists have as much (or as little) integrity as the next guy. Fortunately the scientific method yields tools for outing the ones who acted with little integrity. Unfortunately, scientists with little integrity tend to move the discussion into into politics before the integrity problem can catch up with them, after which science kinda goes out the window.
Manning stands accused of the latter. Some of his emails focused on how to discredit folks who dispute his findings suggest those accusations have some merit. If you want to keep politics out of science, you simply can't engage on a political level.
The culture determines integrity, and the scientific culture has a ton of integrity.
As for Manning your narrative would imply that he's moved away from the science, but the reality is that he's still heavily involved in the science. Note that people are experts at compartmentalizing, if Manning has in fact shown less integrity in his public relations work (a point I don't concede) there's no reason to believe that's bled over into his research.
2) They're succeed by finding new things and changing the established thinking.
No. Just no. Finding a new way to confirm an old theory is just as successful science as testing a new theory. Finding a way to refute an established theory is highly successful science which rarely happens, and finding the new theory that fits all the data -and- whose predictions survive the test of time is rare genius.
Test of time is important. If you have to incrementally revise the theory as new data comes in, it's not a very solid theory.
That's not quite right.
Incremental revisions to theories are how science happens. You need to read the relativity of wrong.
3) They use the peer review system to enforce rigorous standards.
A theory which, sadly, has been discredited in the past decade or so.
as soon as he returned he began vilifying the people he served with. The only people who thought Kerry's war service was a strength were people who were as anti-military as John Kerry.
Why does opposition to war automatically mean you're anti-military and vilifying soldiers?
Have you considered that people who oppose war simply want to minimize the number of people who are killed, and to avoid putting soldiers in the kind of situations that lead to people committing atrocities?
If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
You are LOSING the political battle. Stop fighting. Everything since Al Gore started organizing this movement has been one political miscalculation after another.
Why would you expect otherwise?
I'll agree that Gore is a bad spokesperson in that his participation automatically politicized it.
But I also think that politicization was inevitable. Climate change comes from scientists, climate change hurts big oil, even if the business impact was small can you imagine the Republicans letting a political opportunity like that go to waste? The right will unify against climate change every single time.
At this point the only hope for climate change action is a complete implosion of the Tea Party (giving Democrats the Presidency and big majorities in the houses), or a few years of crazy record breaking temperatures (we just had one) couple with several major weather related natural disasters that really scare people.
Well, considering that the word "swiftboating" is derived from accusations against John Kerry that were true. when someone says they are being "swiftboated" they are admitting that the attacks against them are based in truth.
You're missing the point entirely.
Typical political attacks aim for an opponent's weaknesses, broken campaign promises, personal indiscretions, etc.
Swiftboating is the opposite, it attacks an opponent's strengths and tries to turn them into vulnerabilities. With Kerry a big selling point was his war service and purple hearts, swiftboating created a second narrative where he was unpatriotic and a bad soldier.
The same thing happened in '12 where Romney's business experience was turned into a negative by associating him with layoffs and the rich people who broke the economy. And to a lesser extent in '08 with Obama and his academic credentials and intellectual reputation, many people started implying that his academic career was the result of affirmative action.
What's happening to scientists is the same idea. There's three big reasons to believe scientists.
1) They have a ton of integrity.
2) They're succeed by finding new things and changing the established thinking.
3) They use the peer review system to enforce rigorous standards.
Climate change opponents attack all of these qualities. They attack scientists' integrity by alleging mass fraud. They deny the revolutionary aspect by claiming scientists don't want to point out problems with climate change. And finally they claim the peer review system is used to stifle dissent and create a false consensus.
The plan is to discredit climate change by discrediting science itself, the opponents can't gain credibility, but if they discredit scientists they don't have to, it just becomes a case of he-said she-said.
It's slashdot everything is massively oversimplified:) But I think the basic idea (West is enabling Israel to make some very bad decisions) is accurate.
Either way getting further into it is a bad idea for my time management.
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Personally, I don't think it is as big a part in solving that problem as you seem to think. My personal take on this is that it is a very convenient straw man to use ("we're only doing this to help the poor Palestinians", with no limitation on what "this" is). History suggests that very few Muslim and Arab leaders care much about the actual Palestinians. Should that problem magically (because no other option seems likely at this point) disappear, Muslims will just pick (manufacture?) another one.
Regardless, I'm curious. How do you get peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? I'd like you to try to limit your suggestions to things that had not been tried before (as those, obviously, do not work).
Also, saying that solving one problem is a key factor in solving another means that if the first is impossible, so is the other.
Shachar
There's obviously something that's inflaming tensions and I think it's a cop-out to just blame religion. Religion plays a part but is generally dominated by practical realities.
I'm in favor of understanding terrorists and other people as a general skill in interpersonal relationships, as well as foreign policy.
However, do you understand that they were upset about a cartoon? It wasn't about support for dictators, it wasn't bombs in Syrian suburbs, it was a cartoon. Please at least show you understand that.
I'm fully understanding of that, which is why none of my points involve infringing our freedom of speech.
Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process.
You got it wrong. We are not expecting them to apologize to us for the others. We are expecting them to act as their grandfathers and other ancestors once did and clean their own house, stop their local heresies. To do as their ancestors did, ancestors who did so for no other reason than that the extremists were wrong. The problem in the west is that we don't see much evidence of this INTERNAL debate. Some isolated voices but largely silence.
What evidence do you expect? Do you expect CNN to carry stories about how Imam X in Jordan criticized Imam Y in Lebanon for his hyperbolic language on the attire of Israeli women?
One thing we do know is the North American Islamic community is very proactive about outing extremists to law enforcement. The typical profile of a Western raised terrorist isn't some Arab taught to hate by his parents and local Mosque, eventually getting recruited by Imam and strapping on a suicide vest. It's a lone wolf who either converted to Islam or wasn't very religious before-hand and they get their religion and radicalization from extremist sites on the Internet.
It's like asking us to talk some sense into Russians because we're both white and from Christian cultures.
But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened.
The mass graves of the Saddam regime indicate that deaths were already occurring.
At anywhere near the same level? Highly doubtful.
Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?
When Beck picks up a gun or bomb rather than a microphone I'll gladly condemn him. To fail to do so because he is an American or a Christian would make me part of his crime by tolerating him by remaining silent.
The historical fact is that extremist ideologies occur periodically in the region. However the moderates have, over and over, stamped it out themselves. The radical interpretation of Islam proposed by these extremists were (are) considered heretical by the majority. Moderates used to preach against these heresies. Moderates used to stop these extremists. They need to do so again.
The way moderates find extremists in their communities is by reaching out to them (or at least those around them) and convincing them that peace is better.
Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process. They're percieved as siding with us instead of siding with their own culture. So when they then go back to fringe elements they're percieved as outsiders and lose their power to pursuade.
Moreover by constantly asking them we signal that we don't trust them, that we think they're extremists too. This will alientate them and drive them towards extremism.
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Not really. Most countries in the region don't truly care about the Palestinians. They do care about the existence of Israel but the suffering of the Palestinians is a tool to support an agenda, not a problem be solved.
I don't know enough to speculate on their states of mind or sincerity.
What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+?
That is quite twisted logic and wording. The factions involved need little excuse to fight and mistrust each other. Start from there and give one faction brutal dictatorial power that repressed and subjugated the other for decades. That brutal dictatorship is what caused the fighting and ethnic cleansing type behavior.
Obivously the country needed to be in bad shape for that to happen. But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened. You would feel pissed off if a Muslim country jumped into a Western power keg and set it off?
Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.
It goes both ways. You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.
And they always do.
Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?
You forgot the part where the Shia dominated government pissed off the Sunni's to the point of revolt.
Either way there's no such thing as a flawless war. Bush probably screwed up disbanding ISIS but the alternative might have been a Shia revolt or a military coup by the Sunni army. And if the US stayed in Iraq (after convincing the Iraqi's to let them) things might be better, or they might be in an '06 level surge of violence with ISIS spreading to Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey instead.
It's possible to bring about peace and liberty with violence, but it's so difficult that it's far wiser to not even try.
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Err...sure. Do you have a proposal? Note that you specify peaceful, so it has to be one that will satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians at the same time. This is despite the fact that neither side has shown any particular willingness to compromise. Oh, and it has to stay peaceful. It can't be like what happened in Gaza, where the Israelis gave the Gazans relative independence and the Gazans then built tunnels that they used to attack Israel.
Frankly I don't think it's that tough. Israel withdraws to the '67 borders and agrees to Palestinian control of East Jerusalem, if possible they also give some sort of awknowledgement of the right of return. It will take a while but Palestinian extremism will start to die down and the violence will decrease.
The problem now is that Israel has always had the uncritical backing of the US which basically makes them a tiny country that with the military might of a superpower. Whenever they're given a choice between taking land and compromise they rationally choose to take land because they have the US military as insurance against things getting out of hand, and in the future if they lose that backing the extra land will make them more powerful in their own right.
The original creation of Israel was very unjust to the Palestinians (foreign population comes in with backing of the West and gets most of the land). But now it's a historic injustice which you can't reverse. If Israel creates a settlement on Palestinian land tomorrow it should be torn down. If you let the settlement stand for another 50 years with several generations of inhabitants then it's probably going to stay.
I suspect that's the current Israeli strategy, continue to take as much Palestinian land for as long as you can and stall peace for as long as you can. Eventually you'll be forced to stop, and then you'll just sit on the current settlements until the Palestinians get used to it. At that point you have both peace and a ton of land. Of course in the meantime it's extremely unjust and it's inflaming and destabilizing large portions of the middle east.
The solution is the US makes continued aid conditional on no new settlements. The west can't credibibly take away the military backing but they can impose diplomatic and economic pressure so Israel can no longer act without consequence.
i dont disagree with anything you said except for that last line. If i want to draw a cartoon, I should not have to worry about people killing me. and if i do, then i think its fair to kill them first
Well if you try to kill them first you'll just create more people you need to kill.
Besides, I didn't say you can't do anything that makes people angry and potentially makes more terrorists. I said you should make sure it's worth it. I believe free speech is worth it.
and what do you suggest we do? simply walk away and let them take over? I dont think we should have gone there to begin with, we should just let them kill each other. but its too late for that now. ISIS popped up because we left before the job was finished (again a job we never should have taken but we did, so we should finish it)
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Secondary, don't go overboard fighting terrorism. How do you suppose people here would react if Iran were dropping bombs in US suburbs to kill Christian terrorists, killing many civilians in the process? What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+? I think terrorism drops signficantly if we simply stop fighting it so hard for a few years.
Thirdly, less support for Middle East dictators who happen to be pro-West. People don't like those who aid their suppressors.
Fourth, don't freak out about every foreign government that is identifiably Islamic. Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.
None of this is to say that terrorists are remotely justified, but for stuff like this it's best to think of people as existing on a bell curve where the left tail is complete pacifism and the right is terrorism. In the west the mean is closer to pacifist and the standard deviation is small, so our extremist groups tend to look more like the Westborough Baptist Church. But every aggravating action that occurs increases the standard deviation and pushes the mean further to the right, This creates more terrorists at the right hand tail.
The point is that any action that would make you angry if you were a Muslim is going to create more terrorists, so before we do something that would piss off a lot of people we really need to consider if it's worth it.
appeasement clearly has not worked. sometimes hard actions need to be taken
Like invading countries and launching drone strikes until ISIS popped up?
Don't confuse hard actions with violent actions. If you want to reduce Islamic terrorism it's time to grow up and start addressing the underlying geo-political causes.
Slashdot Mirror
As to a model of what, clearly a model of your mother having sex with me last night.
You deserve that response for asking a completely fucking stupid question. Obviously a climate model. Ask more offensively stupid questions and I'll respect with proportional contempt.
Except there are dozens of published climate models, so asking me to supply one that you would obviously just disregard would be as you say "offensively stupid". By contrary I wondered if you were talking about a political model explaining liberal/libertarian positions based on the motivations I proposed since all you're talking about is the bogus motivations you're assigning to liberals.
As to being an oil shill, I wish. Then I would still say what I believe and get paid for my trouble.
You missed the point. I was making the example that you'd find it offensive to have your integrity questioned and your beliefs reduced to a ridiculous caricature. So why do you do it to other people?
You claim you want to have a good discussion then follow it up by saying I either have to agree with you or admit I point guns at people, I'm sorry but this is obviously a waste of my time.
One:
Without a model you have no reliable predictive capability. If you have a model, present it now or admit that you have no predictive capability.
A model of what?
Two:
Your solutions were very limited. You excluded shifting industrial practices to less wasteful methods using non-coercive means. You are very comfortable with putting a gun in someone's face, cocking the hammer back, and saying "Do what I say or I'll kill you."
Are you an Oil funded shill who wants poor sick people to die in the streets?
No?
So then why do you expect your caricature to describe me?
So not only is your coercive policy offensive and divisive. But it is also utterly ineffective because you lack the ability to force people outside your political sphere to do your bidding. You can't point a gun at the Chinese or the Indians.
Yet Europe has cut emissions so it's apparently possible (though extremely difficult). When there's a big enough problem international cooperation is possible, particularly when trade agreements can have bigger impacts than the cuts.
You say you're cynical... I believe you. I think however you don't realize that I know exactly how cynical you really are. You are attempting to manipulate the situation for your profit and power.
I'm going to put this politely.
You're as insightful a judge of character as you think you are.
Three:
As to your notion that the left are cynical libertarians. That is nonsense. They're almost uniformly hardcore statists which means they are not libertarians. That's like calling Communists cynical capitalists. Its a meaningless comparison.
If I go with your definition, they're so cynical as to bear no resemblance to libertarians.
Libertarians believe the market will regulate itself in a healthy way.
Liberals are cynical the self-regulation will be healthy, so they step in to correct it.
Russia is full of people nostaligic for the old soviet union. I love how whenever leftists get embarressed by left wing groups they always call them right wing.
Except AGW beliefs aren't based on economics but social identification. Russia probably leans left economically, but from a social perspective they are far right bordering on fascism. If you want to talking about the NAZIs (why the hell are we talking about NAZIs??) Hitler wasn't notable for his left leaning economic policies, the problem was social policies, and those are best described as far right.
You have made clear from your words that you want to play political games and have no interest in an honest discussion. I have noted that and have adjusted my posture towards you to reflect that decision.
Yes, you want an honest discussion by accusing me of pointing a gun in peoples faces.
3) AI's will not be WEIRD, not 'evil'. They will want to do strange things, not kill us, or hurt us. They won't try to kill us, but instead try to create a massive, network devoted to deciding which species of from has more bacteria in it's toe. And we won't understand why they want to do this.
It doesn't have to want to hurt us. If it decides we're a threat to completing it's objective it will want to neutralize that threat in some fashion unless we give it a reason to do otherwise.
The original article doesn't give any details as to what this "exploit" is in android. Even if it is a real exploit, no new phones will be made with Android 4.3, and at this point, no manufacturer would push an update to an old device even if Google did fix it.
Possibly, though those phones may still be officially supported and it's hard to test that prediction if no patch exists. There's also the case of rooted phones where users could apply the patch themselves.
As to Google throwing Microsoft under the bus, that is utter crap. Google privately disclosed a vulnerability to MS, and *TOLD THEM* they had 90 days. After 90 days, Google publicly released the vulnerability. This is standard stuff. Giving a deadline is the only way to keep vulnerabilities out of the NSA toolkit and force MS to actually fix it.
And Microsoft told Google they were releasing the patch on day 92.
What is the rationale for not granting a 2 day extension? Would you really be so understanding if it was Microsoft that published the vulnerability two days before Google was ready to push their patch?
Well no.
I actually offered specific reasons, based on science, as to why I felt regulations were necessary. I laid out why alternative approaches were unwise or couldn't be counted on.
You ignored these arguments entirely and launched into a weird diatribe claiming my side has all these hidden motives and started talking about those instead, you're the one that changed the topic from science to politics.
How am I supposed to respond to that? All I can do is deny the false premise you're trying to base the discussion on.
All I can say is to the extent you described my beliefs and my intentions your words ring completely false.
Perhaps you describe you and your side's actions and beliefs sincerely, in which case you're fighting a war against an imaginary foe.
Imagine this in the UK:
Police:"We think you have kiddy porn on your computer, what are the contents of these encrypted files?"
You: "I don't know"
Police: "Tell us the password"
You: "I don't know it"
Judge: "Go to jail until you tell us the password!"
Why assume the courts will make the stupidest possible interpretation of the laws? In the vast majority of cases where someone is claiming this (and it end up on slashdown) the evidence suggests that they're lying.
Having your hard drives confiscated as evidence for an investigation is a legitimate risk but prison is not. Courts don't run like a software program, imprisoning people because of a bug.
This is something that people of a left bent seem to have a very hard time getting about their opposition. I think they're so determined to demonize them that they don't actually bother to understand them.
We understand we simply don't believe there are good alternatives.
Allow me to connect the dots here:
The major problem with the AGW solutions is that they are enacted through federal and state taxes and regulations on business.
Consider that the environment doesn't care how you go about it. All the environment would care about is that you stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. There are other ways to go about it.
Not really. There's basically only three solutions.
First is the caps, taxes, or regs that you're talking about and the right really hates.
Second is climate engineering. But this isn't really a fix as much as a band-aid. For all the complaints about the reliability around the science of global warming the science around climate engineering would be even worse. For climate change at least we already have a full scale experiment going with our climate, all we really have for climate engineering is models. Climate engineering also ignores some very serious problems like ocean acidification.
Finally there's a technological breakthrough, cheap clean energy or carbon scrubbing. This is obviously the best solution but it's not something we can count on, we can hope for Deus ex Machina but until one shows up we need an actual solution.
What you must acknowledge is that AGW politics give an excuse for people of a leftward bent to do something they wanted to do anyway. They wanted to tax and regulate business before all this environmental stuff. Then Al Gore comes along and says "we need to do the stuff we already wanted to do to save the world!" Well shockingly that didn't go down well with his political opposition that didn't buy that line of shit for a second.
I think you're wrong here. Maybe those people exist, but I think a majority of the people you'd consider to be on the left are quite different.
Essentially I think a lot of the left is best described as cynical libertarians. We love the idea of the unfettered market and don't want regulations. However, something then pops up in the market that really seems to be a problem, and the only way to fix it seems to be regulations.
Maybe this is a bad approach but it is the underlying motivation. Inventing problems just so we can create arbitrary regulations simply isn't a thing.
Keep in mind, it just isn't the evil soulless republicans that aren't on board with this nonsense... most of east Asia thinks its shit as well, as does most of south america, Russia thinks its crap, and africa/middle east just don't care.
I don't know about South American but at least the leadership in Asia is scared shitless, there's a lot of reason to think their food supply gets absolutely hammered.
Russia is basically run by what maps to the right wing flank of the Tea Party, so it's not surprising they reject AGW. The Middle East has social conservatism joined with a huge pro-Oil culture, and along with Africa they're mired far too deep in their developmental problems to think that far ahead.
I don't know all the details but my understanding is the evidence suggests he did have some actual covert missions into Cambodia, he was also ambushed in Christmas '68 where he may have strayed into Cambodia.
We're talking about 18 years from the incident to the testimony, memories is notoriously unreliable, even vivid ones. My guess is he remembers an ambush during Christmas that he strongly associates with Cambodia and he remembers being sent on covert missions to Cambodia, the ambush simply got associated with the covert missions.
I never said that opposition to war was anti-military and vilifying soldiers, I said that John Kerry vilified soldiers and was anti-military. You may want to look at some of the things he said when he returned from Vietnam.
Do you mean that the typical war opponent is anti-military and vilifying soldiers, and Kerry was a typical war opponent. Or that the typical war opponent is fine, but Kerry by contrast was anti-military and vilifying soldiers? If so what is your evidence?
1) They have a ton of integrity.
Scientists have as much (or as little) integrity as the next guy. Fortunately the scientific method yields tools for outing the ones who acted with little integrity. Unfortunately, scientists with little integrity tend to move the discussion into into politics before the integrity problem can catch up with them, after which science kinda goes out the window.
Manning stands accused of the latter. Some of his emails focused on how to discredit folks who dispute his findings suggest those accusations have some merit. If you want to keep politics out of science, you simply can't engage on a political level.
The culture determines integrity, and the scientific culture has a ton of integrity.
As for Manning your narrative would imply that he's moved away from the science, but the reality is that he's still heavily involved in the science. Note that people are experts at compartmentalizing, if Manning has in fact shown less integrity in his public relations work (a point I don't concede) there's no reason to believe that's bled over into his research.
2) They're succeed by finding new things and changing the established thinking.
No. Just no. Finding a new way to confirm an old theory is just as successful science as testing a new theory. Finding a way to refute an established theory is highly successful science which rarely happens, and finding the new theory that fits all the data -and- whose predictions survive the test of time is rare genius.
Test of time is important. If you have to incrementally revise the theory as new data comes in, it's not a very solid theory.
That's not quite right.
Incremental revisions to theories are how science happens. You need to read the relativity of wrong.
3) They use the peer review system to enforce rigorous standards.
A theory which, sadly, has been discredited in the past decade or so.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Is it perfect? No.
Do we have a better alternative? No.
as soon as he returned he began vilifying the people he served with. The only people who thought Kerry's war service was a strength were people who were as anti-military as John Kerry.
Why does opposition to war automatically mean you're anti-military and vilifying soldiers?
Have you considered that people who oppose war simply want to minimize the number of people who are killed, and to avoid putting soldiers in the kind of situations that lead to people committing atrocities?
If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
You are LOSING the political battle. Stop fighting. Everything since Al Gore started organizing this movement has been one political miscalculation after another.
Why would you expect otherwise?
I'll agree that Gore is a bad spokesperson in that his participation automatically politicized it.
But I also think that politicization was inevitable. Climate change comes from scientists, climate change hurts big oil, even if the business impact was small can you imagine the Republicans letting a political opportunity like that go to waste? The right will unify against climate change every single time.
At this point the only hope for climate change action is a complete implosion of the Tea Party (giving Democrats the Presidency and big majorities in the houses), or a few years of crazy record breaking temperatures (we just had one) couple with several major weather related natural disasters that really scare people.
I don't see either happening.
Well, considering that the word "swiftboating" is derived from accusations against John Kerry that were true. when someone says they are being "swiftboated" they are admitting that the attacks against them are based in truth.
You're missing the point entirely.
Typical political attacks aim for an opponent's weaknesses, broken campaign promises, personal indiscretions, etc.
Swiftboating is the opposite, it attacks an opponent's strengths and tries to turn them into vulnerabilities. With Kerry a big selling point was his war service and purple hearts, swiftboating created a second narrative where he was unpatriotic and a bad soldier.
The same thing happened in '12 where Romney's business experience was turned into a negative by associating him with layoffs and the rich people who broke the economy. And to a lesser extent in '08 with Obama and his academic credentials and intellectual reputation, many people started implying that his academic career was the result of affirmative action.
What's happening to scientists is the same idea. There's three big reasons to believe scientists.
1) They have a ton of integrity.
2) They're succeed by finding new things and changing the established thinking.
3) They use the peer review system to enforce rigorous standards.
Climate change opponents attack all of these qualities. They attack scientists' integrity by alleging mass fraud. They deny the revolutionary aspect by claiming scientists don't want to point out problems with climate change. And finally they claim the peer review system is used to stifle dissent and create a false consensus.
The plan is to discredit climate change by discrediting science itself, the opponents can't gain credibility, but if they discredit scientists they don't have to, it just becomes a case of he-said she-said.
It's slashdot everything is massively oversimplified :) But I think the basic idea (West is enabling Israel to make some very bad decisions) is accurate.
Either way getting further into it is a bad idea for my time management.
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Personally, I don't think it is as big a part in solving that problem as you seem to think. My personal take on this is that it is a very convenient straw man to use ("we're only doing this to help the poor Palestinians", with no limitation on what "this" is). History suggests that very few Muslim and Arab leaders care much about the actual Palestinians. Should that problem magically (because no other option seems likely at this point) disappear, Muslims will just pick (manufacture?) another one.
Regardless, I'm curious. How do you get peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? I'd like you to try to limit your suggestions to things that had not been tried before (as those, obviously, do not work).
Also, saying that solving one problem is a key factor in solving another means that if the first is impossible, so is the other.
Shachar
There's obviously something that's inflaming tensions and I think it's a cop-out to just blame religion. Religion plays a part but is generally dominated by practical realities.
As for my solution I laid out my thoughts in another comment.
I'm in favor of understanding terrorists and other people as a general skill in interpersonal relationships, as well as foreign policy.
However, do you understand that they were upset about a cartoon? It wasn't about support for dictators, it wasn't bombs in Syrian suburbs, it was a cartoon. Please at least show you understand that.
I'm fully understanding of that, which is why none of my points involve infringing our freedom of speech.
Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process.
You got it wrong. We are not expecting them to apologize to us for the others. We are expecting them to act as their grandfathers and other ancestors once did and clean their own house, stop their local heresies. To do as their ancestors did, ancestors who did so for no other reason than that the extremists were wrong. The problem in the west is that we don't see much evidence of this INTERNAL debate. Some isolated voices but largely silence.
What evidence do you expect? Do you expect CNN to carry stories about how Imam X in Jordan criticized Imam Y in Lebanon for his hyperbolic language on the attire of Israeli women?
One thing we do know is the North American Islamic community is very proactive about outing extremists to law enforcement. The typical profile of a Western raised terrorist isn't some Arab taught to hate by his parents and local Mosque, eventually getting recruited by Imam and strapping on a suicide vest. It's a lone wolf who either converted to Islam or wasn't very religious before-hand and they get their religion and radicalization from extremist sites on the Internet.
It's like asking us to talk some sense into Russians because we're both white and from Christian cultures.
But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened.
The mass graves of the Saddam regime indicate that deaths were already occurring.
At anywhere near the same level? Highly doubtful.
Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?
When Beck picks up a gun or bomb rather than a microphone I'll gladly condemn him. To fail to do so because he is an American or a Christian would make me part of his crime by tolerating him by remaining silent.
The historical fact is that extremist ideologies occur periodically in the region. However the moderates have, over and over, stamped it out themselves. The radical interpretation of Islam proposed by these extremists were (are) considered heretical by the majority. Moderates used to preach against these heresies. Moderates used to stop these extremists. They need to do so again.
The way moderates find extremists in their communities is by reaching out to them (or at least those around them) and convincing them that peace is better.
Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process. They're percieved as siding with us instead of siding with their own culture. So when they then go back to fringe elements they're percieved as outsiders and lose their power to pursuade.
Moreover by constantly asking them we signal that we don't trust them, that we think they're extremists too. This will alientate them and drive them towards extremism.
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Not really. Most countries in the region don't truly care about the Palestinians. They do care about the existence of Israel but the suffering of the Palestinians is a tool to support an agenda, not a problem be solved.
I don't know enough to speculate on their states of mind or sincerity.
What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+?
That is quite twisted logic and wording. The factions involved need little excuse to fight and mistrust each other. Start from there and give one faction brutal dictatorial power that repressed and subjugated the other for decades. That brutal dictatorship is what caused the fighting and ethnic cleansing type behavior.
Obivously the country needed to be in bad shape for that to happen. But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened. You would feel pissed off if a Muslim country jumped into a Western power keg and set it off?
Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.
It goes both ways. You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.
And they always do.
Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?
You forgot the part where the Shia dominated government pissed off the Sunni's to the point of revolt.
Either way there's no such thing as a flawless war. Bush probably screwed up disbanding ISIS but the alternative might have been a Shia revolt or a military coup by the Sunni army. And if the US stayed in Iraq (after convincing the Iraqi's to let them) things might be better, or they might be in an '06 level surge of violence with ISIS spreading to Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey instead.
It's possible to bring about peace and liberty with violence, but it's so difficult that it's far wiser to not even try.
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Err...sure. Do you have a proposal? Note that you specify peaceful, so it has to be one that will satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians at the same time. This is despite the fact that neither side has shown any particular willingness to compromise. Oh, and it has to stay peaceful. It can't be like what happened in Gaza, where the Israelis gave the Gazans relative independence and the Gazans then built tunnels that they used to attack Israel.
Frankly I don't think it's that tough. Israel withdraws to the '67 borders and agrees to Palestinian control of East Jerusalem, if possible they also give some sort of awknowledgement of the right of return. It will take a while but Palestinian extremism will start to die down and the violence will decrease.
The problem now is that Israel has always had the uncritical backing of the US which basically makes them a tiny country that with the military might of a superpower. Whenever they're given a choice between taking land and compromise they rationally choose to take land because they have the US military as insurance against things getting out of hand, and in the future if they lose that backing the extra land will make them more powerful in their own right.
The original creation of Israel was very unjust to the Palestinians (foreign population comes in with backing of the West and gets most of the land). But now it's a historic injustice which you can't reverse. If Israel creates a settlement on Palestinian land tomorrow it should be torn down. If you let the settlement stand for another 50 years with several generations of inhabitants then it's probably going to stay.
I suspect that's the current Israeli strategy, continue to take as much Palestinian land for as long as you can and stall peace for as long as you can. Eventually you'll be forced to stop, and then you'll just sit on the current settlements until the Palestinians get used to it. At that point you have both peace and a ton of land. Of course in the meantime it's extremely unjust and it's inflaming and destabilizing large portions of the middle east.
The solution is the US makes continued aid conditional on no new settlements. The west can't credibibly take away the military backing but they can impose diplomatic and economic pressure so Israel can no longer act without consequence.
i dont disagree with anything you said except for that last line. If i want to draw a cartoon, I should not have to worry about people killing me. and if i do, then i think its fair to kill them first
Well if you try to kill them first you'll just create more people you need to kill.
Besides, I didn't say you can't do anything that makes people angry and potentially makes more terrorists. I said you should make sure it's worth it. I believe free speech is worth it.
and what do you suggest we do? simply walk away and let them take over? I dont think we should have gone there to begin with, we should just let them kill each other. but its too late for that now. ISIS popped up because we left before the job was finished (again a job we never should have taken but we did, so we should finish it)
The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.
Secondary, don't go overboard fighting terrorism. How do you suppose people here would react if Iran were dropping bombs in US suburbs to kill Christian terrorists, killing many civilians in the process? What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+? I think terrorism drops signficantly if we simply stop fighting it so hard for a few years.
Thirdly, less support for Middle East dictators who happen to be pro-West. People don't like those who aid their suppressors.
Fourth, don't freak out about every foreign government that is identifiably Islamic. Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.
None of this is to say that terrorists are remotely justified, but for stuff like this it's best to think of people as existing on a bell curve where the left tail is complete pacifism and the right is terrorism. In the west the mean is closer to pacifist and the standard deviation is small, so our extremist groups tend to look more like the Westborough Baptist Church. But every aggravating action that occurs increases the standard deviation and pushes the mean further to the right, This creates more terrorists at the right hand tail.
The point is that any action that would make you angry if you were a Muslim is going to create more terrorists, so before we do something that would piss off a lot of people we really need to consider if it's worth it.
appeasement clearly has not worked. sometimes hard actions need to be taken
Like invading countries and launching drone strikes until ISIS popped up?
Don't confuse hard actions with violent actions. If you want to reduce Islamic terrorism it's time to grow up and start addressing the underlying geo-political causes.