Well, admittedly, 'Massive' is a subjective term, but so is 'Huge'. Let's try to find some tonnage references to begin to flesh out this issue.
Second, I never intended to slight the British bombing campaign. Their effort was exhaustive and the damage they contributed only adds to my point.
Third, I assume your main point was on the details of my arguments but not the thrust of the argument itself as you say nothing about my third point or the argument as a whole.
If they only employeed more folks, the media/politicos would scream about how this company's failure shows that capitalism doesn't work.
Ignorance of economics is not an excuse.
Re:"Every Species on Earth", except the prokaryote
on
Every Species on Earth
·
· Score: 1
Damn straight! But even then they'll pose them so they seem even cuddlier.
Of course they are ahead of us. We are a democracy and any substantial protest brings us to a screeching halt. (Think: nuclear power)
And as a totalitarian state, not particularly worried about ethics, foreign opinion, or foetuses, they have a very large source of research material.
But I expected better from many of you. They aren't doing this to increase their population. They aren't even doing this for stem cell research per se. They have plenty of stem cells from their very aggressive population control program. No, what they want is money. They want to clone embryos to sell to us squeamish westerners. They have to develop the technique of cloning them, so they can clone the stem cell lines we hypocritically approve of, then sell them back to us. What a wacky world we live in!
All this talk about species this and species that, it's so very nineteenth century. It's as if genetics had never been discovered. Like trying to use Newton to explain atoms.
After all, a species is an taxonomic construct, an artifact. It is a convenient way to order the vast phylogenetic diversity. But it is a macrobiological world-view made quaint when viewed against our knowledge of microbiology.
We collect trash, we recycle rubbish, but it has to go to someone. If they lie about proper processing of that trash, corruption not being unknown in the waste disposal industry also known as the Mafia Assistance Program, then they are at fault. If they dump it in an under regulated location, the PRC say, then they are clearly the cause of the problem.
Now, if and when the local authorities find the dump, they have a responsibility to a) clean it up and b) prosecute the dumper.
If and when the client, the US user, discovers the fraud, they have a responsibility to change waste managers or suffer culpability for future acts.
Er...I don't think anyone said the US paid someone to do something bad to someone else.
We collect trash, we recycle rubbish, but it has to go to someone. If they lie about proper processing of that trash, corruption not being unknown in the waste disposal industry also known as the Mafia Assistance Program, then they are commiting fraud. If they dump it in an under regulated location, the PRC say, then they are commiting en environmental crime.
Now, if and when the local authorities, the PRC again, find the dump, they have a responsibility to a) clean it up and b) prosecute the dumper.
If and when the client, the US user, discovers the fraud, they have a responsibility to change waste managers or suffer culpability for future acts.
Actually, without massive material support to the USSR and continuous bombing of German logistical and material targets, I doubt very seriously that the Soviets would have won.
The Germans could have easily launched another, better campaign in '43 if not for the resources lost to bombing and the viable threat of invasion in the west.
Also, who knows where the German research community would have done if given more materials, time, and safe facilities in which to work.
Let me get this straight. We are now supposed to make vast sweeping changes to our economy, our society, and our lives, on the basis of the number of scientific papers?
Wait, I'm printing some more up right now...It seems the greatest number of papers argue, there is no evolution, there can be no change in climate...cause God said so....and there is no global warming.
Oh, I bet you want to add something about the efficacy of the papers we count, right? Well well, lucky us, We have Mr. Lombards book to use as a guideline.
Errr....You know the difference between a crack-pot theory and orthodoxy is the difference between Velikovsky and L & W Alvarez. Or is that the other way around?
No wait....they were all called crack pots by the 'Experts'.
These probabilities being thrown around are only as good as the science behind them, which is the whole point of Lombards book.
Indeed, without a clear understanding of the mechanisms involved, how can we justify any particular action?
There are other climate models that show the chances of us being thrown into another ice age are greater than some of the models predictions of global warming. At what percentage of probability will we be convinced that global cooling is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits? The risk is grave and less hypothetical than global warming assessments as we know the effects catastrophic effects of an ice age from fairly intimate experience!
To argue that we can't afford to wait until we actually understand what's going on is a position bereft of efficacy. To act without an understanding of the consequences of your action or even if that action is required or helpful, is at it's base, irrational.
It is sad how many 'Technically Inclined' people cannot make a distinction between rhetoric and scientific debate. SA has been promoting hack science for some time now. So sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, admittedly, 'Massive' is a subjective term, but so is 'Huge'. Let's try to find some tonnage references to begin to flesh out this issue.
Second, I never intended to slight the British bombing campaign. Their effort was exhaustive and the damage they contributed only adds to my point.
Third, I assume your main point was on the details of my arguments but not the thrust of the argument itself as you say nothing about my third point or the argument as a whole.
If they only employeed more folks, the media/politicos would scream about how this company's failure shows that capitalism doesn't work. Ignorance of economics is not an excuse.
Damn straight! But even then they'll pose them so they seem even cuddlier.
Um...some body hasn't been keeping up with current events.
Of course they are ahead of us. We are a democracy and any substantial protest brings us to a screeching halt. (Think: nuclear power)
And as a totalitarian state, not particularly worried about ethics, foreign opinion, or foetuses, they have a very large source of research material.
But I expected better from many of you. They aren't doing this to increase their population. They aren't even doing this for stem cell research per se. They have plenty of stem cells from their very aggressive population control program. No, what they want is money. They want to clone embryos to sell to us squeamish westerners. They have to develop the technique of cloning them, so they can clone the stem cell lines we hypocritically approve of, then sell them back to us. What a wacky world we live in!
All this talk about species this and species that, it's so very nineteenth century. It's as if genetics had never been discovered. Like trying to use Newton to explain atoms.
After all, a species is an taxonomic construct, an artifact. It is a convenient way to order the vast phylogenetic diversity. But it is a macrobiological world-view made quaint when viewed against our knowledge of microbiology.
We collect trash, we recycle rubbish, but it has to go to someone. If they lie about proper processing of that trash, corruption not being unknown in the waste disposal industry also known as the Mafia Assistance Program, then they are at fault. If they dump it in an under regulated location, the PRC say, then they are clearly the cause of the problem.
Now, if and when the local authorities find the dump, they have a responsibility to a) clean it up and b) prosecute the dumper.
If and when the client, the US user, discovers the fraud, they have a responsibility to change waste managers or suffer culpability for future acts.
Er...I don't think anyone said the US paid someone to do something bad to someone else.
We collect trash, we recycle rubbish, but it has to go to someone. If they lie about proper processing of that trash, corruption not being unknown in the waste disposal industry also known as the Mafia Assistance Program, then they are commiting fraud. If they dump it in an under regulated location, the PRC say, then they are commiting en environmental crime.
Now, if and when the local authorities, the PRC again, find the dump, they have a responsibility to a) clean it up and b) prosecute the dumper.
If and when the client, the US user, discovers the fraud, they have a responsibility to change waste managers or suffer culpability for future acts.
Actually, without massive material support to the USSR and continuous bombing of German logistical and material targets, I doubt very seriously that the Soviets would have won.
The Germans could have easily launched another, better campaign in '43 if not for the resources lost to bombing and the viable threat of invasion in the west.
Also, who knows where the German research community would have done if given more materials, time, and safe facilities in which to work.
Oh please! Do you really believe that tripe!
Let me get this straight. We are now supposed to make vast sweeping changes to our economy, our society, and our lives, on the basis of the number of scientific papers?
Wait, I'm printing some more up right now...It seems the greatest number of papers argue, there is no evolution, there can be no change in climate...cause God said so....and there is no global warming.
Oh, I bet you want to add something about the efficacy of the papers we count, right? Well well, lucky us, We have Mr. Lombards book to use as a guideline.
Hey...I'll fight, scap, & maybe lie, to protect my piddling little slice of the pie, so why shouldn't I think a scientist would?
Errr....You know the difference between a crack-pot theory and orthodoxy is the difference between Velikovsky and L & W Alvarez. Or is that the other way around? No wait....they were all called crack pots by the 'Experts'.
These probabilities being thrown around are only as good as the science behind them, which is the whole point of Lombards book.
Indeed, without a clear understanding of the mechanisms involved, how can we justify any particular action?
There are other climate models that show the chances of us being thrown into another ice age are greater than some of the models predictions of global warming. At what percentage of probability will we be convinced that global cooling is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits? The risk is grave and less hypothetical than global warming assessments as we know the effects catastrophic effects of an ice age from fairly intimate experience!
To argue that we can't afford to wait until we actually understand what's going on is a position bereft of efficacy. To act without an understanding of the consequences of your action or even if that action is required or helpful, is at it's base, irrational.
It is sad how many 'Technically Inclined' people cannot make a distinction between rhetoric and scientific debate. SA has been promoting hack science for some time now. So sad.