And those wise people in "government" -- if only given sufficient power -- will get us out of this problem? What gives you faith that, among all the competing possibilities, the right one(s) will be chosen? The problem with the government is its power... to screw things up more than any private person could do. Well meaning, intelligent people can be wrong, and with the power of the government behind them, horribly wrong. Look at recent legislation--the best of intentions, but the results? Just one example: back when Carter was president, he imposed gas rationing. "Government" looked at gas usage from the past summer, noted that a lot of gas was used at the vacation spots (the Maryland/Delaware shore for DC) and allocated a lot of gas there. Unfortunately, people couldn't get there because there wasn't enough gas allocated to DC, so people couldn't drive to the shore, so the gas stations at the shore had lots of gas but no people. Just an example that, luckily, didn't cause major harm. If Shell alone had made that decision, perhaps Exxon would not have made the same decision, and no problem would have arisen. Command economies just don't work. That government is best that governs least--because people are fallible, limit their power and thus limit the damage they can do. Of course, if you like being forced to pay for ethanol . . .
"The argument was specifically related to the increasing cost of extraction. (In a nutshell, there's a reason we're now getting our oil from wells a mile underwater)."
1. Isn't the reason we're drilling in the Gulf is that the government has prevented drilling elsewhere? That you don't mention that undermines your argument hugely--did the article not mention it either? 2. If we are running out of oil, then the price will rise, making other sources preferable through pricing. The government's taxing oil to make its price rise 'artificially' might be justifiable on other grounds (e.g., national security) but not simply to hasten the natural process that prices rise through scarcity. And despite what the above posters say, AGW is not "proved" nor is the rise in temperature proved either. Take a look at the siting of temperature stations, for example. 3. When government puts its finger on the scale, friends of the government benefit, unforeseen (and usually negative) consequences almost always follow, etc.
We don't pay people to work for us to "motivate" them to work for us. We pay them for their labor. It's an exchange. Learning is--somewhat--the opposite. Teachers are paid by one group (taxpayers and parents) to teach another group (students). The groups begin to overlap at the college level. The K-12 students have little or no choice about what they learn, which is de-motivating by itself. So your comparison is not all that helpful.
My problems with the article include the fact that he only shared the results with TIME. Also, despite some of the comments, there doesn't seem to be any testing of the long-term effects. And, despite the hyping of his research as compared to other educational research, there are studies showing (as one would expect) that paying people to learn lessens intrinsic motivation. Like a drug, one would expect that students with external motivation would rely more and more on that at the expense of intrinsic motivation.
Doesn't it follow, if the drug "works," that your ability to sue for mental pain and suffering be conditioned on your taking a course of the drug first?
Before the automatic "US is _______ " response, which certainly shifts blame away from you and the other 6 billion, why not look at, say, the Asian Brown Cloud (CNN: "A dense blanket of pollution, dubbed the "Asian Brown Cloud," is hovering over South Asia, with scientists warning it could kill millions of people in the region, and pose a global threat. In the biggest-ever study of the phenomenon, 200 scientists warned that the cloud, estimated to be two miles (three kilometers) thick, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/0 8/12/asia.haze/). That pollution is killing people, and has been killing people, for years, unlike "greenhouse gasses" that may (or will) affect the future .
What about the appalling record of the USSR, of which Chernobyl was not the worst--have you heard what happened to the Aral Sea?
But it's easier to do nothing in your own country and blame America (the great Satan).
From the article: The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
That is a huge change (and bear in mind that's the "upper estimate") and shows that this has about the same rigor as, say, sociology or, maybe, economics. Basically, we don't really understand this incredibly complex weather system because it's way too complex with its huge number of sub-systems and sub-sub-systems, etc., that we are still discovering (putting aside understanding how they work and why). It's only to be expected that the IPCC messes up on a major prediction.
And why did the IPCC lower the range? It turns out that the aerosols that were banned way back because they were "evil" had a beneficial effect -- with respect to global warming. Who knew?
And that's the point: we don't know. We all want to solve the problem NOW, but in extremely large scale systems that's extremely difficult. We might look at a coding practice for a guideline: change only one thing at a time, then see what happens. If everything's OK, try another small change. Changing a lot of stuff at once is almost certain to make the system worse and much more difficult to get right.
Of course it is, but in small doses it was used in the past as a stimulant. It was also used topically (way before Retin A) to clear up one's skin and to gain that dead white skin look that fashion sometimes decrees--usually, however, while still living.
Here in the home of Kerry and Kennedy, a couple of people tried to record their interaction with police. They were prosecuted under the state's privacy laws. And the police were full of righteous indignation about the "invasion of their privacy." As were we all...
One site to check is http://www.junkscience.com/ . I read a long time ago that if you run the climate predicting models backward they should predict the past (time's arrow being irrelevant here) but they don't. I also remember that one of the beginnings of chaos theory was based on finding that a weather model produced dramatically different results simply because of a very small change in one datum. "The butterfly flaps its wings . .." etc. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect%5D. When economists can predict interest rates accurately, I may start believing that weather models are useful beyond a short period.
A tablet, however, has few, if any, of the problems you note. It has the advantages of note-taking with the additional advantages of organization/storage (as long as you label the file intelligently) and hand-writing recognition (though that can be iffy).
One of the benefits of/. is that experts in particular areas can comment on technical issues and get modded up or down based on their expertise or lack thereof (or humor). When the subject is political, however, the modding seems based on bias, which, to me, makes the system pointless unless, as in this post, the person has actual experience that relates to the topic--that has some merit, at least.
That phrase: "it might upset their imaginary world." Are you Neo because you know REALITY but the others are lost in the Matrix? Should I be flattered that you condescend to share your insight with the rest of us?
Without taking a position on ID v. evolution, just a note of caution: The Nobel in Medicine was just awarded to two men who were ridiculed when they first proposed their theory. They were not the first, nor will they be the last, to be attacked by "the scientific community" who KNEW what was right and what was stupid. Scientists are humans--it should not be unexpected that they refuse to change cherished beliefs, that they ridicule new theories, that they protect their own, etc. So let us not ourselves simply accept statements by "scientists" that one theory is "true" and that another is trash, but rather realize that what is true today may be only partially true tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
And those wise people in "government" -- if only given sufficient power -- will get us out of this problem? What gives you faith that, among all the competing possibilities, the right one(s) will be chosen? The problem with the government is its power ... to screw things up more than any private person could do. Well meaning, intelligent people can be wrong, and with the power of the government behind them, horribly wrong. Look at recent legislation--the best of intentions, but the results? Just one example: back when Carter was president, he imposed gas rationing. "Government" looked at gas usage from the past summer, noted that a lot of gas was used at the vacation spots (the Maryland/Delaware shore for DC) and allocated a lot of gas there. Unfortunately, people couldn't get there because there wasn't enough gas allocated to DC, so people couldn't drive to the shore, so the gas stations at the shore had lots of gas but no people. Just an example that, luckily, didn't cause major harm. If Shell alone had made that decision, perhaps Exxon would not have made the same decision, and no problem would have arisen. Command economies just don't work. That government is best that governs least--because people are fallible, limit their power and thus limit the damage they can do. Of course, if you like being forced to pay for ethanol . . .
"The argument was specifically related to the increasing cost of extraction. (In a nutshell, there's a reason we're now getting our oil from wells a mile underwater)."
1. Isn't the reason we're drilling in the Gulf is that the government has prevented drilling elsewhere? That you don't mention that undermines your argument hugely--did the article not mention it either?
2. If we are running out of oil, then the price will rise, making other sources preferable through pricing. The government's taxing oil to make its price rise 'artificially' might be justifiable on other grounds (e.g., national security) but not simply to hasten the natural process that prices rise through scarcity. And despite what the above posters say, AGW is not "proved" nor is the rise in temperature proved either. Take a look at the siting of temperature stations, for example.
3. When government puts its finger on the scale, friends of the government benefit, unforeseen (and usually negative) consequences almost always follow, etc.
We don't pay people to work for us to "motivate" them to work for us. We pay them for their labor. It's an exchange. Learning is--somewhat--the opposite. Teachers are paid by one group (taxpayers and parents) to teach another group (students). The groups begin to overlap at the college level. The K-12 students have little or no choice about what they learn, which is de-motivating by itself. So your comparison is not all that helpful.
My problems with the article include the fact that he only shared the results with TIME. Also, despite some of the comments, there doesn't seem to be any testing of the long-term effects. And, despite the hyping of his research as compared to other educational research, there are studies showing (as one would expect) that paying people to learn lessens intrinsic motivation. Like a drug, one would expect that students with external motivation would rely more and more on that at the expense of intrinsic motivation.
wrong. Lots of adults do "hard" things because they want to ... or have you never seen adults jogging, or in gyms working out?
Doesn't it follow, if the drug "works," that your ability to sue for mental pain and suffering be conditioned on your taking a course of the drug first?
Before the automatic "US is _______ " response, which certainly shifts blame away from you and the other 6 billion, why not look at, say, the Asian Brown Cloud (CNN: "A dense blanket of pollution, dubbed the "Asian Brown Cloud," is hovering over South Asia, with scientists warning it could kill millions of people in the region, and pose a global threat. In the biggest-ever study of the phenomenon, 200 scientists warned that the cloud, estimated to be two miles (three kilometers) thick, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/0 8/12/asia.haze/). That pollution is killing people, and has been killing people, for years, unlike "greenhouse gasses" that may (or will) affect the future .
What about the appalling record of the USSR, of which Chernobyl was not the worst--have you heard what happened to the Aral Sea?
But it's easier to do nothing in your own country and blame America (the great Satan).
From the article: The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
That is a huge change (and bear in mind that's the "upper estimate") and shows that this has about the same rigor as, say, sociology or, maybe, economics. Basically, we don't really understand this incredibly complex weather system because it's way too complex with its huge number of sub-systems and sub-sub-systems, etc., that we are still discovering (putting aside understanding how they work and why). It's only to be expected that the IPCC messes up on a major prediction.
And why did the IPCC lower the range? It turns out that the aerosols that were banned way back because they were "evil" had a beneficial effect -- with respect to global warming. Who knew?
And that's the point: we don't know. We all want to solve the problem NOW, but in extremely large scale systems that's extremely difficult. We might look at a coding practice for a guideline: change only one thing at a time, then see what happens. If everything's OK, try another small change. Changing a lot of stuff at once is almost certain to make the system worse and much more difficult to get right.
Of course it is, but in small doses it was used in the past as a stimulant. It was also used topically (way before Retin A) to clear up one's skin and to gain that dead white skin look that fashion sometimes decrees--usually, however, while still living.
Here in the home of Kerry and Kennedy, a couple of people tried to record their interaction with police. They were prosecuted under the state's privacy laws. And the police were full of righteous indignation about the "invasion of their privacy." As were we all ...
One site to check is http://www.junkscience.com/ . I read a long time ago that if you run the climate predicting models backward they should predict the past (time's arrow being irrelevant here) but they don't. I also remember that one of the beginnings of chaos theory was based on finding that a weather model produced dramatically different results simply because of a very small change in one datum. "The butterfly flaps its wings . . ." etc. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect%5D. When economists can predict interest rates accurately, I may start believing that weather models are useful beyond a short period.
A tablet, however, has few, if any, of the problems you note. It has the advantages of note-taking with the additional advantages of organization/storage (as long as you label the file intelligently) and hand-writing recognition (though that can be iffy).
One of the benefits of /. is that experts in particular areas can comment on technical issues and get modded up or down based on their expertise or lack thereof (or humor). When the subject is political, however, the modding seems based on bias, which, to me, makes the system pointless unless, as in this post, the person has actual experience that relates to the topic--that has some merit, at least.
That phrase: "it might upset their imaginary world." Are you Neo because you know REALITY but the others are lost in the Matrix? Should I be flattered that you condescend to share your insight with the rest of us?
Without taking a position on ID v. evolution, just a note of caution: The Nobel in Medicine was just awarded to two men who were ridiculed when they first proposed their theory. They were not the first, nor will they be the last, to be attacked by "the scientific community" who KNEW what was right and what was stupid. Scientists are humans--it should not be unexpected that they refuse to change cherished beliefs, that they ridicule new theories, that they protect their own, etc. So let us not ourselves simply accept statements by "scientists" that one theory is "true" and that another is trash, but rather realize that what is true today may be only partially true tomorrow.