So what? There are three things to observe. First, those laws still bound them, even though they helped write them. Second, businesses aren't the only ones helping write laws. Third, businesses are far from unified in what they want.
you can always leave an abusive employer
Unless they blacklist you. If Comcast can ask an employer to fire an employee, it can also ask them to not hire him.
You assume a condition that isn't true. There's no evidence that Comcast has asked anyone to fire an employee. What probably happened was that the employee made a variety of threats in the name of the company he worked for, then Comcast notified his management that this was going on. Then management decided to fire the loose cannon.
This sort of thing happens all the time in the real world. For example, if I complain about a rude phone repair technician and that complaint gets them fired, I didn't blacklist that employee. I merely reported bad behavior. I see no evidence that Comcast did anything different.
It's also worth noting here that in the past, even when blacklisting was a thing, it was still possible to get around the blacklisting. Rivals to the blacklister are far less likely to care and sometimes even make a point of doing so (in order to undermine the company's authority in this area).
1. Governments have to follow constitutions.
2. You can always vote out an abusive government.
Except that we have real world counterexamples of governments that don't have to do either (China or Syria, for example).
Again, if you bothered to read more than single fragments in a vacuum, you'll notice that the other poster further clarified what those groups of people mean.
No offense, but I just checked to see if I had misinterpreted the original poster. It didn't happen. My original post was indeed accurate.
As to the rest of your post, just because people can do better by moving to the US, doesn't mean that US residents will automatically do better from year to year.
Who said they will? I already said in my last post that some people won't keep up, whether it's in the US or China or India or anyway. It's equality of opportunity, not some leftist fantasy for equality of outcome.
Which wasn't what I was speaking of. You had a big ramble on why my observation that
Global median wages have been increasing for decades. What's happened is that due to globalization, the developed world [labor] isn't as competitive as it used to be and overall they're implementing policies that make them even less competitive.
was "nonsense". The argument boils down to "because people still immigrate to the US". And I merely observed that if people stopped immigrating to the US, then your sole bit of evidence goes away. A huge advantage in standard of living and infrastructure doesn't usually disappear overnight. But it is disappearing as such things have done in the past for other frontrunners who decided they had better things to do than improve themselves.
What I don't get is that the US was founded upon the principles of everyone being equal and entitled to some kind of due process... Except when it comes to private business, when suddenly that whole idea goes out the window according to certain political philosophies. Ironically the same political philosophies often espouse ideals about freedom from oppression and decry dictators petty, tinpot, or otherwise. I've never been able to figure out how they reconcile such a disconnect where oppression from governments is the single greatest evil, but the same kind of oppression from private business is not only perfectly acceptable, it's a desirable outcome.
Because private businesses can't impose the same sort of oppression that a government can. They have to follow laws and they can't shield their employees from criminal actions. And you can always leave an abusive employer. It's much harder to leave an abusive government, especially, if it has imprisoned you.
This stuff is not in the same league. It mystifies me how people can equate the huge power of governments with the far weaker power of businesses.
"groups of people" is the label used not some variation on "religious nuts in the developed world". Sounds to me like I got it right in the first place. As to the rest of your post, just because people can do better by moving to the US, doesn't mean that US residents will automatically do better from year to year. And if things decline to the point where the US is no longer an attractive destination for immigrants, then you'll ]see US citizens immigrate elsewhere just like everyone else who seeks a better life.
The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources
That would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 million people not 20 million. And in addition to merely creating a new 2% as already noted, you're destroying many of the most productive and capable of humanity.
They aren't making less money each year. Global median wages have been increasing for decades. What's happened is that due to globalization, the developed world isn't as competitive as it used to be and overall they're implementing policies that make them even less competitive.
hourly median salary in the USA has been stagnant the last 40 years
But not hourly median salary in India or China. Further, the US isn't the cause of any population problems since the native US population barely achieves replacement rate. Basically, population growth in the US (and most of the rest of the developed world) is achieved via immigration of relatively high fertility people from elsewhere in the world.
The basic chemistry and thermodynamics were worked out well over a century ago.
And that turns out to be insufficient. Weather, particularly clouds and storms, turns out to have a much larger effect than expected. That's why the most recent IPCC report has estimates and error ranges very similar to Arrhenius's original estimates despite that century of advances in climate research.
reading at least the summary sections would allow you to make much stronger arguments for your case.
The IPCC's "executive" summaries are notorious for pushing politics over science.
The observations weren't "wrong". Did you even bother reading anything? The ARGO observations are higher resolution and more accurate. Even allowing for that they noticed a considerable discrepancy between the ARGO observations and the previous observations. That's what they investigated.
I get that there's plenty of rationalizing on why the estimates were wrong. But as you say, that's not science. Data that shows your estimates were wrong is science.
Error analysis is a fundamental part of any research, and climate science is no exception. You'll see it in practically every paper. Science is confidence intervals, not absolutes. Saying otherwise demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge and experience about how science, any science, is actually done.
So what? Everyone does that. But plenty of people get it wrong anyway.
There are no doomsday scenarios in climate science. We can certainly make living on Earth a hell for ourselves if we don't smarten up, but not single legitimate scientific source I'm aware of is predicting the end of the world, or even human extinction. So stop with that nonsense. It simply isn't true.
Oh look, another doomsday prediction.
As far as the wait and see approach goes, I hear that always works out well especially when you're screwing around with climate system on the only planet we live on. By the time things are bad enough that even someone like you must face reality, it will be far too late to do anything about it. That's like getting a vaccination for polio after you're already paralyzed.
Well, that's what it will take. It is remarkable how people, even those in the climate research industry, can't show me actual evidence of dangerous climate change. It's all fluffy FUD about how we have to act now before it's too late.
It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does nowâ"which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living
I agree that this is unlikely. But I disagree on why. The "safe production" level is probably at least five orders of magnitude larger than present. That's when you start running into problems with dumping heat of power generation and consumption to the environment. It's remarkable how full of bullshit some of the climate change alarmists are.
This is just an excuse to keep people crippled and starving. What is missed is that energy just isn't that scarce. It's a classic case of creating artificial scarcity probably in large part because of perceived immoral aspects of society. How about instead we have a little less misanthropy and a little more care about the well being of ourselves and future generations?
You know, what's needed here is a serious cost/benefits analysis. Not cartoons that don't get the costs and payoffs of climate change mitigation. Personally, I think climate change mitigation is more like Pascal's wager with higher costs and worse potential payoffs.
Sure it will go wrong, but never in a way that results in the US ship being sunk, which is the point.
Unless of course, they kill some innocent people a few times and then dial back the aggressiveness just in time for the terrorist attack. It can be worse than the status quo.
One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data.
I don't actually. I was pointing out first, that boasting a model fit known data was a red herring since it was easy to fit data without having extrapolation to the future. Second, that the story indicated that the models weren't even getting that right.
Two, you think that we have direct measurements for everything. We don't. We'd like to, but we don't. And even the direct measurements we have need to be transformed into data that can be compared across measurements. All of that is subject to being wrong.
I don't do this either. I merely point out that we have direct measurement of global mean temperature in the past few decades.
Lastly, if you wait a few decades, it'll be too late to head off any meaningful changes.
Where's the evidence for this urgency? This is just a FUD tactic. Nobody, including Europe is anywhere near being able to reduce their activities in a way that can meet the requirements of these "meaningful changes". And the consequences just aren't that dire. Adaptation is the option that is never discussed.
I think what annoys me the most about climate alarmism is the false certainty such as conflating opinion with fact. The second most annoying thing is the lack of scientific grounds for the arguments made.
For example, the above two links in the parent post show considerable divergence between the models and reality (sea level and polar ice extent while substantially and suspiciously downplaying the temperature difference between model and reality). The "myth" is confirmed but the writer portrays it as affirmation of their desired conclusion.
Meanwhile the assertion that models fit past events is near irrelevant since that is data which is already known and it is expected that the models would have been adjusted in the first place to fit that data). For example, I can construct an interpolation of any temperature (or other numerical) data to perfect precision using an even degree polynomial of sufficiently high degree, yet it'll be completely irrelevant once I attempt any sort of extrapolation into the future (odds are good, about 50% I'd say, that it'll predict temperatures far below absolute zero by 2100).
We see this attitude in action in the current story. First, the story noted that these models don't actually predict past events when they're run backwards from a current state. Then someone rationalizes that it's because the observations are wrong, not the models. This not only runs counter to your empty assertion that the models predict the known past, but also is profoundly anti-scientific.
Here are two examples where the most FUD-inducing interpretations are used. The climate models are "too conservative" because they allegedly underplay sea level rise, but the corresponding inability of the models to predict temperature increase is not (though that means the models are exaggerating sensitivity of carbon dioxide temperature forcing, the most important of the unknowns in climate research.
Similarly, when models are shown to be out of whack with past observations (as they were with future observations), the interpretation is that the observations are wrong, not the models even though it is more likely to be the other way around.
This profound inability to admit error is why I don't trust current climate models or the doomsday predictions they spawn in the least. That's why I'm going to wait a few decades and see what happens. If it genuinely is as bad as claimed, then we'll see something by then.
Think about it. You're a peaceful merchant, or just a guy going sailing. A fast-attack boat sails up to you, points a 50 cal at you, and shouts on the bullhorn "cut off your engine immediately and put your hands in the air." What are you likely to do? You're going to stick your hands in the air, and thus you aren't likely to get shot. The guy controlling the drone isn't worried about never seeing his family again, so he isn't going to have a twitchy trigger finger. Then you sort the mess out and get an apology.
And this never goes wrong, right? You don't get a pilot who doesn't speak English or is deaf. Maybe the rudder broke and they can't cut the engine. Or maybe they're having a heart attack right now and are five minutes from death. Or maybe they're a terrorist faking one of the above and just trying to get their boat in close before they blow it up.
My view is that if the security situation is so bad that you need a screen of automated boats, then you probably shouldn't use that harbor except in dire emergencies and get out as soon as you can. This scenario heavily favors the guys trying to ram with explosive-laden boats.
They can change their tactics and come up with other ways to cause trouble. For example, they could have some dude climb on a roof of an apartment complex and start sniping those little boats. The boats could be hacked and then you have a bunch of remote controlled killing machines running through a busy harbor. Maybe they just float a few improvised mines in the harbor (for bonus points take out one or more US minesweeper ships first).
Point is if such attacks are common enough that you're looking at special automated defenses from just this sort of attack, then the ship is in a vulnerable position from a variety of other attacks for which those defenses may not work as well.
Probably should have thought a little harder before copying one of the most expensive and unreliable space systems used in recent times.
They aren't copying the Shuttle. Just because you only know of one other reusable space vehicle, doesn't mean all other reusable vehicles share the same characteristics. If you see a dog spray painted pink, do you automatically assume all dogs are spray painted pink?
Now SpaceX/Boeing have to bite the bullet and stop work?
It's government. Figure it out.
And I think Sierra Nevada has a case here. Boeing is the weak, over-priced link here. They only got in because they have political connections. And SpaceX only got in because it would have given the game away, if the best contender had been dropped this round. This is an attempt to remove competition to the Space Launch System (SLS) and perhaps Soyuz as well (I bet the Russians know how to bribe congresscritters).
Harbors in Asia and the Middle East are crawling with all kinds of boats and collateral damage is a certainty. By the sound of it that admiral is planning to field a swarm of small autonomous boats that can be deployed by a warship to patrol around it, surround any intruder and block him, allowing the warship to escape, prevent the intdruder from escaping or just destroy him depending on the ROE in that particular location. What precisely is ididotic about that?
The part where you have autonomous boats running around in a busy harbor blocking and possibly destroying other boats.
The problem with standardized testing isn't the test, but the tendency to "teach to the test".
The problem here is what would the schools and teachers that "teach to the test" do, if the test wasn't there? Answer: nothing. They have already demonstrated that they only do things, if there is some level of accountability attached to it. Now standardized tests may not be the best way to provide that accountability. But it's not the tests that are forcing teachers to do nothing else.
Say that you're "trying out something new on the server". End result is that it's a potential improvement to the service that you are "trying out" rather than human experimentation which sounds scary and stuff.
Facebook is crap for a number of reasons, but not because they do what most people with webpages do.
Remember, for the LGBT community the consequences can be as serious as grievous bodily injury or death at the hands of a complete stranger. Chanting "free enterprise" as a justification in this situation puts you firmly on the side of potential violent thugs.
And this is relevant to Facebook's interests how? Needless to say, they haven't given a shit yet about this huge problem. Make them give a shit or they won't change.
I think a good solution here is for a few hundred thousand people to create fake accounts, report each others' fake account mixing in a bunch of real name accounts as well, then petition when their accounts are banned. Lather. Rinse. Repeat until Facebook changes the policy or goes bankrupt, whichever comes first.
So your definition of "stealth" is "invisible to people who are blind". That is not stealth. That is blindness.
And there's the straw man again (five or six times since I pointed it out to you), along with a novel definition of the word, "blind". Everyone is blind to some degree in your sense of the word, hence, allowing for stealth. There's no point to pushing this argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws which they helped write.
So what? There are three things to observe. First, those laws still bound them, even though they helped write them. Second, businesses aren't the only ones helping write laws. Third, businesses are far from unified in what they want.
you can always leave an abusive employer
Unless they blacklist you. If Comcast can ask an employer to fire an employee, it can also ask them to not hire him.
You assume a condition that isn't true. There's no evidence that Comcast has asked anyone to fire an employee. What probably happened was that the employee made a variety of threats in the name of the company he worked for, then Comcast notified his management that this was going on. Then management decided to fire the loose cannon.
This sort of thing happens all the time in the real world. For example, if I complain about a rude phone repair technician and that complaint gets them fired, I didn't blacklist that employee. I merely reported bad behavior. I see no evidence that Comcast did anything different.
It's also worth noting here that in the past, even when blacklisting was a thing, it was still possible to get around the blacklisting. Rivals to the blacklister are far less likely to care and sometimes even make a point of doing so (in order to undermine the company's authority in this area).
1. Governments have to follow constitutions.
2. You can always vote out an abusive government.
Except that we have real world counterexamples of governments that don't have to do either (China or Syria, for example).
Again, if you bothered to read more than single fragments in a vacuum, you'll notice that the other poster further clarified what those groups of people mean.
No offense, but I just checked to see if I had misinterpreted the original poster. It didn't happen. My original post was indeed accurate.
As to the rest of your post, just because people can do better by moving to the US, doesn't mean that US residents will automatically do better from year to year.
Who said they will? I already said in my last post that some people won't keep up, whether it's in the US or China or India or anyway. It's equality of opportunity, not some leftist fantasy for equality of outcome.
Which wasn't what I was speaking of. You had a big ramble on why my observation that
Global median wages have been increasing for decades. What's happened is that due to globalization, the developed world [labor] isn't as competitive as it used to be and overall they're implementing policies that make them even less competitive.
was "nonsense". The argument boils down to "because people still immigrate to the US". And I merely observed that if people stopped immigrating to the US, then your sole bit of evidence goes away. A huge advantage in standard of living and infrastructure doesn't usually disappear overnight. But it is disappearing as such things have done in the past for other frontrunners who decided they had better things to do than improve themselves.
What I don't get is that the US was founded upon the principles of everyone being equal and entitled to some kind of due process... Except when it comes to private business, when suddenly that whole idea goes out the window according to certain political philosophies. Ironically the same political philosophies often espouse ideals about freedom from oppression and decry dictators petty, tinpot, or otherwise. I've never been able to figure out how they reconcile such a disconnect where oppression from governments is the single greatest evil, but the same kind of oppression from private business is not only perfectly acceptable, it's a desirable outcome.
Because private businesses can't impose the same sort of oppression that a government can. They have to follow laws and they can't shield their employees from criminal actions. And you can always leave an abusive employer. It's much harder to leave an abusive government, especially, if it has imprisoned you.
This stuff is not in the same league. It mystifies me how people can equate the huge power of governments with the far weaker power of businesses.
"groups of people" is the label used not some variation on "religious nuts in the developed world". Sounds to me like I got it right in the first place. As to the rest of your post, just because people can do better by moving to the US, doesn't mean that US residents will automatically do better from year to year. And if things decline to the point where the US is no longer an attractive destination for immigrants, then you'll ]see US citizens immigrate elsewhere just like everyone else who seeks a better life.
The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources
That would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 million people not 20 million. And in addition to merely creating a new 2% as already noted, you're destroying many of the most productive and capable of humanity.
then wonder why they make less money each year.
They aren't making less money each year. Global median wages have been increasing for decades. What's happened is that due to globalization, the developed world isn't as competitive as it used to be and overall they're implementing policies that make them even less competitive.
hourly median salary in the USA has been stagnant the last 40 years
But not hourly median salary in India or China. Further, the US isn't the cause of any population problems since the native US population barely achieves replacement rate. Basically, population growth in the US (and most of the rest of the developed world) is achieved via immigration of relatively high fertility people from elsewhere in the world.
And that turns out to be insufficient. Weather, particularly clouds and storms, turns out to have a much larger effect than expected. That's why the most recent IPCC report has estimates and error ranges very similar to Arrhenius's original estimates despite that century of advances in climate research.
reading at least the summary sections would allow you to make much stronger arguments for your case.
The IPCC's "executive" summaries are notorious for pushing politics over science.
The observations weren't "wrong". Did you even bother reading anything? The ARGO observations are higher resolution and more accurate. Even allowing for that they noticed a considerable discrepancy between the ARGO observations and the previous observations. That's what they investigated.
I get that there's plenty of rationalizing on why the estimates were wrong. But as you say, that's not science. Data that shows your estimates were wrong is science.
Error analysis is a fundamental part of any research, and climate science is no exception. You'll see it in practically every paper. Science is confidence intervals, not absolutes. Saying otherwise demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge and experience about how science, any science, is actually done.
So what? Everyone does that. But plenty of people get it wrong anyway.
There are no doomsday scenarios in climate science. We can certainly make living on Earth a hell for ourselves if we don't smarten up, but not single legitimate scientific source I'm aware of is predicting the end of the world, or even human extinction. So stop with that nonsense. It simply isn't true.
Oh look, another doomsday prediction.
As far as the wait and see approach goes, I hear that always works out well especially when you're screwing around with climate system on the only planet we live on. By the time things are bad enough that even someone like you must face reality, it will be far too late to do anything about it. That's like getting a vaccination for polio after you're already paralyzed.
Well, that's what it will take. It is remarkable how people, even those in the climate research industry, can't show me actual evidence of dangerous climate change. It's all fluffy FUD about how we have to act now before it's too late.
It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does nowâ"which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living
I agree that this is unlikely. But I disagree on why. The "safe production" level is probably at least five orders of magnitude larger than present. That's when you start running into problems with dumping heat of power generation and consumption to the environment. It's remarkable how full of bullshit some of the climate change alarmists are.
This is just an excuse to keep people crippled and starving. What is missed is that energy just isn't that scarce. It's a classic case of creating artificial scarcity probably in large part because of perceived immoral aspects of society. How about instead we have a little less misanthropy and a little more care about the well being of ourselves and future generations?
Unless, of course, the "extra heat" isn't on Earth in the first place.
You know, what's needed here is a serious cost/benefits analysis. Not cartoons that don't get the costs and payoffs of climate change mitigation. Personally, I think climate change mitigation is more like Pascal's wager with higher costs and worse potential payoffs.
Well, at least you can distinguish between opinion and fact. That's more than a lot of people can do.
Sure it will go wrong, but never in a way that results in the US ship being sunk, which is the point.
Unless of course, they kill some innocent people a few times and then dial back the aggressiveness just in time for the terrorist attack. It can be worse than the status quo.
One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data.
I don't actually. I was pointing out first, that boasting a model fit known data was a red herring since it was easy to fit data without having extrapolation to the future. Second, that the story indicated that the models weren't even getting that right.
Two, you think that we have direct measurements for everything. We don't. We'd like to, but we don't. And even the direct measurements we have need to be transformed into data that can be compared across measurements. All of that is subject to being wrong.
I don't do this either. I merely point out that we have direct measurement of global mean temperature in the past few decades.
Lastly, if you wait a few decades, it'll be too late to head off any meaningful changes.
Where's the evidence for this urgency? This is just a FUD tactic. Nobody, including Europe is anywhere near being able to reduce their activities in a way that can meet the requirements of these "meaningful changes". And the consequences just aren't that dire. Adaptation is the option that is never discussed.
Fact: The models are accurate.
I think what annoys me the most about climate alarmism is the false certainty such as conflating opinion with fact. The second most annoying thing is the lack of scientific grounds for the arguments made.
For example, the above two links in the parent post show considerable divergence between the models and reality (sea level and polar ice extent while substantially and suspiciously downplaying the temperature difference between model and reality). The "myth" is confirmed but the writer portrays it as affirmation of their desired conclusion.
Meanwhile the assertion that models fit past events is near irrelevant since that is data which is already known and it is expected that the models would have been adjusted in the first place to fit that data). For example, I can construct an interpolation of any temperature (or other numerical) data to perfect precision using an even degree polynomial of sufficiently high degree, yet it'll be completely irrelevant once I attempt any sort of extrapolation into the future (odds are good, about 50% I'd say, that it'll predict temperatures far below absolute zero by 2100).
We see this attitude in action in the current story. First, the story noted that these models don't actually predict past events when they're run backwards from a current state. Then someone rationalizes that it's because the observations are wrong, not the models. This not only runs counter to your empty assertion that the models predict the known past, but also is profoundly anti-scientific.
Here are two examples where the most FUD-inducing interpretations are used. The climate models are "too conservative" because they allegedly underplay sea level rise, but the corresponding inability of the models to predict temperature increase is not (though that means the models are exaggerating sensitivity of carbon dioxide temperature forcing, the most important of the unknowns in climate research.
Similarly, when models are shown to be out of whack with past observations (as they were with future observations), the interpretation is that the observations are wrong, not the models even though it is more likely to be the other way around.
This profound inability to admit error is why I don't trust current climate models or the doomsday predictions they spawn in the least. That's why I'm going to wait a few decades and see what happens. If it genuinely is as bad as claimed, then we'll see something by then.
Think about it. You're a peaceful merchant, or just a guy going sailing. A fast-attack boat sails up to you, points a 50 cal at you, and shouts on the bullhorn "cut off your engine immediately and put your hands in the air." What are you likely to do? You're going to stick your hands in the air, and thus you aren't likely to get shot. The guy controlling the drone isn't worried about never seeing his family again, so he isn't going to have a twitchy trigger finger. Then you sort the mess out and get an apology.
And this never goes wrong, right? You don't get a pilot who doesn't speak English or is deaf. Maybe the rudder broke and they can't cut the engine. Or maybe they're having a heart attack right now and are five minutes from death. Or maybe they're a terrorist faking one of the above and just trying to get their boat in close before they blow it up.
My view is that if the security situation is so bad that you need a screen of automated boats, then you probably shouldn't use that harbor except in dire emergencies and get out as soon as you can. This scenario heavily favors the guys trying to ram with explosive-laden boats.
They can change their tactics and come up with other ways to cause trouble. For example, they could have some dude climb on a roof of an apartment complex and start sniping those little boats. The boats could be hacked and then you have a bunch of remote controlled killing machines running through a busy harbor. Maybe they just float a few improvised mines in the harbor (for bonus points take out one or more US minesweeper ships first).
Point is if such attacks are common enough that you're looking at special automated defenses from just this sort of attack, then the ship is in a vulnerable position from a variety of other attacks for which those defenses may not work as well.
Probably should have thought a little harder before copying one of the most expensive and unreliable space systems used in recent times.
They aren't copying the Shuttle. Just because you only know of one other reusable space vehicle, doesn't mean all other reusable vehicles share the same characteristics. If you see a dog spray painted pink, do you automatically assume all dogs are spray painted pink?
Now SpaceX/Boeing have to bite the bullet and stop work?
It's government. Figure it out.
And I think Sierra Nevada has a case here. Boeing is the weak, over-priced link here. They only got in because they have political connections. And SpaceX only got in because it would have given the game away, if the best contender had been dropped this round. This is an attempt to remove competition to the Space Launch System (SLS) and perhaps Soyuz as well (I bet the Russians know how to bribe congresscritters).
Harbors in Asia and the Middle East are crawling with all kinds of boats and collateral damage is a certainty. By the sound of it that admiral is planning to field a swarm of small autonomous boats that can be deployed by a warship to patrol around it, surround any intruder and block him, allowing the warship to escape, prevent the intdruder from escaping or just destroy him depending on the ROE in that particular location. What precisely is ididotic about that?
The part where you have autonomous boats running around in a busy harbor blocking and possibly destroying other boats.
Look, I explained it more than once including how energy is conserved. I can't do more than I have. You have to figure out for yourself.
And I bet you eat bugs, carrion, tree bark, feces, and all the other weird junk that omnivores eat. Call back after you eat your words.
The problem with standardized testing isn't the test, but the tendency to "teach to the test".
The problem here is what would the schools and teachers that "teach to the test" do, if the test wasn't there? Answer: nothing. They have already demonstrated that they only do things, if there is some level of accountability attached to it. Now standardized tests may not be the best way to provide that accountability. But it's not the tests that are forcing teachers to do nothing else.
Say that you're "trying out something new on the server". End result is that it's a potential improvement to the service that you are "trying out" rather than human experimentation which sounds scary and stuff.
Facebook is crap for a number of reasons, but not because they do what most people with webpages do.
Remember, for the LGBT community the consequences can be as serious as grievous bodily injury or death at the hands of a complete stranger. Chanting "free enterprise" as a justification in this situation puts you firmly on the side of potential violent thugs.
And this is relevant to Facebook's interests how? Needless to say, they haven't given a shit yet about this huge problem. Make them give a shit or they won't change.
I think a good solution here is for a few hundred thousand people to create fake accounts, report each others' fake account mixing in a bunch of real name accounts as well, then petition when their accounts are banned. Lather. Rinse. Repeat until Facebook changes the policy or goes bankrupt, whichever comes first.
You don't sound like you are very close to the trading floor, perhaps a back office IT worker at best.
You don't let people very close to the trading floor anywhere near the back office. It keeps money from disappearing.
And the reason is?
So your definition of "stealth" is "invisible to people who are blind". That is not stealth. That is blindness.
And there's the straw man again (five or six times since I pointed it out to you), along with a novel definition of the word, "blind". Everyone is blind to some degree in your sense of the word, hence, allowing for stealth. There's no point to pushing this argument.