Several implies more than three, so yes a minimum of 3,000 would fit in there, but I was implying it would take an arbitrarily long time.
Which isn't that long as I noted. A few centuries to millennia and the end result could be a second Earth which sticks around being useful for a few tens of millions of years.
I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating.
Because your claim was exaggerated and you followed it with the hyperbole that people would forget how to breathe merely because they don't buy into a belief system that isn't founded on reality.
You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?
Something we can do even easier in a few decades than we can do now.
or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?
Already been done. Pollution was much worse in the 50s.
or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?
Yes, already done.
How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?
The place hasn't gone anywhere.
Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?
It's being cleaned up as we speak and would continue to be even if we stopped doing anything at all. Dump a bunch of food into the ocean and surprise, it gets eaten.
We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.
It's because I understand the stakes at hand. We wouldn't just be using less fossil fuels. We'd be abandoning global infrastructure that helps many billions of people feed themselves and better their lives.
Why would you think that? Electronics requires radiation hardening because it is small scale and delicate (especially to high energy charged particles), not because it is made of silicon.
but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life.
Several hundred human generations is only a few thousand years. It's not a particularly long time. Plus, you're exaggerating the first problem. Even worse case calculations indicate that the Venus atmosphere would freeze out in a few centuries.
Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.
I see you're doing your part to contribute by hyperventilating about "climate change". Let us not forget the third strategy for "climate change", adaptation.
The thing to note here is that humanity's industrial civilization is the most remarkable thing to have happened to Earth since life was first created. Among other things, it allows for three things that have never been possible before: 1) sophisticated mental processes far beyond anything seen on Earth before and the accumulation of external knowledge to the benefit of anything that can learn it, 2) the ability to spread terrestrial life beyond Earth, and 3) breaking the constraints of evolution itself.
Just because you either don't care or don't have a clue, doesn't mean these aren't tremendous benefits that humanity brings to the table which nothing else can.
Ok, why does that matter? Especially since so many claimed terrorism threats in the US are actually internal (such as the "militia" movement of the 90s or some ecoterrorist stuff)?
Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.
Where do "we" see that? I didn't say it's better to not try. I'm saying that the supposedly good guy turning bad is worse than a bad guy being bad.
Right there for example. There's the double standard. There should be no lowering of moral standards for someone because they're considered "bad guys" by someone.
Further, the Chinese government doesn't actually present itself as being a "bad guy". That's a moral judgment by someone else. They're just as much a "good guy" in their self-image as anyone else.
The Dust Bowl takes the prize with no legitimate contenders.
Eh, I'd put habitat destruction or perhaps the near extinction of most large North American mammals in modern times. The Dust Bowl would be a consequence at least of the former.
Their astroturfing/trolling is now a matter of *fact*.
Except that it isn't a matter of fact. Read the story. It is highly suggestive of an organized trolling effort since the method illustrated in the example was rather sophisticated. But that still leaves two gaps, that BP was somehow responsible directly or indirectly, and that it actually happened in the first place.
I don't understand how you can question if this really happened, when the article literally states "this factually happened".
Just because the article claims or implies something doesn't mean it is a fact. Note that two thirds of the article consists of accusations by a single person, an anonymous "Marie" who herself may not actually exist. Aside from the screen shot, there's no supporting evidence for the accusations of trolling and at no point is there any linkage with a BP ally aside from some of the trolling taking place allegedly on BP's Facebook page.
An American politician, and you think they will feel shame?
Shame here is not an internal emotion, but the act of outing a public figure's failings.
Also, social stability in China is a far more dangerous thing than all the terrorist attacks in the history of the US.
I see the rationalizations are still kicking in. One doesn't need the current Chinese government in order to have Chinese social stability any more than one needs the current espionage agencies in the US to prevent terrorism.
The Da Vinci Code is originally the second book in the series after Angels and Demons.
I heard Da Vinci Code was just a rewrite of the story of Angels and Demons, and is basically the same story with somewhat different elements. And the latter was published only because the former did so well.
All I can say is that it was rather challenging to suspend disbelief when I was reading Angels and Demons due to the contrived plot devices (I counted at least three deux ex machinas that were integral to the plot) and several telegraphed plot twists.
To emphasize this point further than cheekyjohnson's excellent reply, governments do not have rights in the US. Citizens have rights. It is painfully clear in the US Constitution that rights are intended only as a partial enumeration of restrictions and constraints on government activity against various categories of people, individually or in groups (particularly, "the people", "citizens", and "voters").
The only distinction I would make is that governments in the US have "powers" not "privileges". That's the usual term in the Constitution for the stuff they are allowed and mandated to do. In practice, I believe attempts to take away such things have often been found unconstitutional. For example, the US Congress occasionally delegates too much power to the executive branch via legislation and the US Supreme Court has found those to occasionally be unconstitutional.
There is only one place in the US Constitution where a government body is alleged to have rights. The Twelfth Amendment alleges that the US House of Representatives has the possibility of a "right of choice" in selected an elected president (basically after the usual electoral methods fail, and the House gets their chance at picking a US president). This terminology is echoed again in the Twentieth Amendment which modifies the same part of law (and hence, has to use the same terminology as the Twelfth Amendment).
I think that single instance can be explained as someone screwing up the language of the former amendment when they wrote it.
Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about when you speak of "rights" of a US-based government.
My view is that if you aren't required to keep certain information (or need it for other purposes such as the other replier's security clearances), then destroy it. It's just a prudent data retention policy.
At the alleged low prices, they would be. And trends over time would be very cheap to obtain compared to today.
I don't think do-it-yourself medicine is the way to save costs.
Well, doing your own surgery on yourself probably never will be. But I think cheap and comprehensive blood tests would fall on the other side of that line.
What we have in China is the government being upfront to want to protect itself - its own social stability and order - from its people. They're the king, they do what they want, for their own protection.
No. That social stability and order is allegedly for the sake of their people. I don't see it being any more transparent an excuse than the terrorism excuse is in the US.
To make things even worse for the US, the US was supposed to be better than that. At least that's what the (public) education system tells us, that the US was formed because it didn't like the tyrannies and empires of old.
Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.
Sure hypocrisy is deeply annoying because it means a lot of "Do as we say, not as we do" behavior. But it also provides a lever for improving such behavior. If you can reveal such behavior, then you can shame the relevant parties into correcting the behavior.
Clearly, no. For him the bet pays off if nobody murders the subject of the bet.
It pays off for the other side of the bet. Bets always have at least two sides to them.
At least not from the bet itself.
The problem here is that it creates incentive for a potential assassin or some party that contracts to assassins to bet in favor of a person's death and then act to make that happen in order to collect the winnings.
Except it wasn't stupidity, but rational risk taking. And there's risk just from being alive. Again, I think stopping all nuclear plants in Japan is foolish. It doesn't have anything to do with the risk of operating these plants, else a number of of them would be back online and running.
Also keep in mind that Fukushima was originally slated to start shutting down reactors in 2011. Fukushima's life was extended because a bunch of new plant construction was cancelled in the 1995-2005 period. By attempting to "reduce" risk in an irrational manner, Japan actually increased more important risks by forcing themselves to continue to run older plants for longer periods of time.
Yea, right. Everything is carefully cloaked in terms of social stability and order. It's just a slightly different flavored hypocrisy than what you're used to.
I'm not here to whitewash the US's sins, but to point out that once again, we see the double standard of ignoring comparable sins in China.
Slashdot Mirror
Several implies more than three, so yes a minimum of 3,000 would fit in there, but I was implying it would take an arbitrarily long time.
Which isn't that long as I noted. A few centuries to millennia and the end result could be a second Earth which sticks around being useful for a few tens of millions of years.
I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating.
Because your claim was exaggerated and you followed it with the hyperbole that people would forget how to breathe merely because they don't buy into a belief system that isn't founded on reality.
You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?
Something we can do even easier in a few decades than we can do now.
or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?
Already been done. Pollution was much worse in the 50s.
or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?
Yes, already done.
How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?
The place hasn't gone anywhere.
Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?
It's being cleaned up as we speak and would continue to be even if we stopped doing anything at all. Dump a bunch of food into the ocean and surprise, it gets eaten.
We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.
It's because I understand the stakes at hand. We wouldn't just be using less fossil fuels. We'd be abandoning global infrastructure that helps many billions of people feed themselves and better their lives.
I imagine that's part of the point of the experiment. A plant that is kept alive would imply that its soil was kept alive as well.
Silicon provides no radiation protection.
Why would you think that? Electronics requires radiation hardening because it is small scale and delicate (especially to high energy charged particles), not because it is made of silicon.
Intentionality is implied when someone uses the word "brought" without qualification.
Not at all. For example, diseases are "brought" along with human activity all the time unintentionally.
The Moon will be a planet once it moves far enough away from Earth that the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is outside of Earth.
but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life.
Several hundred human generations is only a few thousand years. It's not a particularly long time. Plus, you're exaggerating the first problem. Even worse case calculations indicate that the Venus atmosphere would freeze out in a few centuries.
Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.
I see you're doing your part to contribute by hyperventilating about "climate change". Let us not forget the third strategy for "climate change", adaptation.
For some reason, I see that as a feature not a bug.
Compassion is one of those things needed if you are going to live in a society of over 50 individuals.
Or if you live in a society of less than 50 too. It's just more cooperative behavior which can work even on scales of the minimum two people.
The thing to note here is that humanity's industrial civilization is the most remarkable thing to have happened to Earth since life was first created. Among other things, it allows for three things that have never been possible before: 1) sophisticated mental processes far beyond anything seen on Earth before and the accumulation of external knowledge to the benefit of anything that can learn it, 2) the ability to spread terrestrial life beyond Earth, and 3) breaking the constraints of evolution itself.
Just because you either don't care or don't have a clue, doesn't mean these aren't tremendous benefits that humanity brings to the table which nothing else can.
Again, external vs internal threat.
Ok, why does that matter? Especially since so many claimed terrorism threats in the US are actually internal (such as the "militia" movement of the 90s or some ecoterrorist stuff)?
Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.
Where do "we" see that? I didn't say it's better to not try. I'm saying that the supposedly good guy turning bad is worse than a bad guy being bad.
Right there for example. There's the double standard. There should be no lowering of moral standards for someone because they're considered "bad guys" by someone.
Further, the Chinese government doesn't actually present itself as being a "bad guy". That's a moral judgment by someone else. They're just as much a "good guy" in their self-image as anyone else.
The Dust Bowl takes the prize with no legitimate contenders.
Eh, I'd put habitat destruction or perhaps the near extinction of most large North American mammals in modern times. The Dust Bowl would be a consequence at least of the former.
Their astroturfing/trolling is now a matter of *fact*.
Except that it isn't a matter of fact. Read the story. It is highly suggestive of an organized trolling effort since the method illustrated in the example was rather sophisticated. But that still leaves two gaps, that BP was somehow responsible directly or indirectly, and that it actually happened in the first place.
I don't understand how you can question if this really happened, when the article literally states "this factually happened".
Just because the article claims or implies something doesn't mean it is a fact. Note that two thirds of the article consists of accusations by a single person, an anonymous "Marie" who herself may not actually exist. Aside from the screen shot, there's no supporting evidence for the accusations of trolling and at no point is there any linkage with a BP ally aside from some of the trolling taking place allegedly on BP's Facebook page.
You could look up the definition of forum and see whether Slashdot fits or not. Protip: it does.
Isn't that required by Facebook?
Pretty much. But I have to agree. Most people probably shouldn't be using their real names on Facebook, no matter what the policy is.
An American politician, and you think they will feel shame?
Shame here is not an internal emotion, but the act of outing a public figure's failings.
Also, social stability in China is a far more dangerous thing than all the terrorist attacks in the history of the US.
I see the rationalizations are still kicking in. One doesn't need the current Chinese government in order to have Chinese social stability any more than one needs the current espionage agencies in the US to prevent terrorism.
The Da Vinci Code is originally the second book in the series after Angels and Demons.
I heard Da Vinci Code was just a rewrite of the story of Angels and Demons, and is basically the same story with somewhat different elements. And the latter was published only because the former did so well.
All I can say is that it was rather challenging to suspend disbelief when I was reading Angels and Demons due to the contrived plot devices (I counted at least three deux ex machinas that were integral to the plot) and several telegraphed plot twists.
If the government exercises its right
To emphasize this point further than cheekyjohnson's excellent reply, governments do not have rights in the US. Citizens have rights. It is painfully clear in the US Constitution that rights are intended only as a partial enumeration of restrictions and constraints on government activity against various categories of people, individually or in groups (particularly, "the people", "citizens", and "voters").
The only distinction I would make is that governments in the US have "powers" not "privileges". That's the usual term in the Constitution for the stuff they are allowed and mandated to do. In practice, I believe attempts to take away such things have often been found unconstitutional. For example, the US Congress occasionally delegates too much power to the executive branch via legislation and the US Supreme Court has found those to occasionally be unconstitutional.
There is only one place in the US Constitution where a government body is alleged to have rights. The Twelfth Amendment alleges that the US House of Representatives has the possibility of a "right of choice" in selected an elected president (basically after the usual electoral methods fail, and the House gets their chance at picking a US president). This terminology is echoed again in the Twentieth Amendment which modifies the same part of law (and hence, has to use the same terminology as the Twelfth Amendment).
I think that single instance can be explained as someone screwing up the language of the former amendment when they wrote it.
Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about when you speak of "rights" of a US-based government.
My view is that if you aren't required to keep certain information (or need it for other purposes such as the other replier's security clearances), then destroy it. It's just a prudent data retention policy.
Whoa. You're telling me that some people are hypocrites? I'm the only one allowed to be that! Something must be done!
Medical tests aren't commodities.
At the alleged low prices, they would be. And trends over time would be very cheap to obtain compared to today.
I don't think do-it-yourself medicine is the way to save costs.
Well, doing your own surgery on yourself probably never will be. But I think cheap and comprehensive blood tests would fall on the other side of that line.
Did you have a point to that post? Things routinely happen that are outside our skill set.
What we have in China is the government being upfront to want to protect itself - its own social stability and order - from its people. They're the king, they do what they want, for their own protection.
No. That social stability and order is allegedly for the sake of their people. I don't see it being any more transparent an excuse than the terrorism excuse is in the US.
To make things even worse for the US, the US was supposed to be better than that. At least that's what the (public) education system tells us, that the US was formed because it didn't like the tyrannies and empires of old.
Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.
Sure hypocrisy is deeply annoying because it means a lot of "Do as we say, not as we do" behavior. But it also provides a lever for improving such behavior. If you can reveal such behavior, then you can shame the relevant parties into correcting the behavior.
Clearly, no. For him the bet pays off if nobody murders the subject of the bet.
It pays off for the other side of the bet. Bets always have at least two sides to them.
At least not from the bet itself.
The problem here is that it creates incentive for a potential assassin or some party that contracts to assassins to bet in favor of a person's death and then act to make that happen in order to collect the winnings.
Except it wasn't stupidity, but rational risk taking. And there's risk just from being alive. Again, I think stopping all nuclear plants in Japan is foolish. It doesn't have anything to do with the risk of operating these plants, else a number of of them would be back online and running.
Also keep in mind that Fukushima was originally slated to start shutting down reactors in 2011. Fukushima's life was extended because a bunch of new plant construction was cancelled in the 1995-2005 period. By attempting to "reduce" risk in an irrational manner, Japan actually increased more important risks by forcing themselves to continue to run older plants for longer periods of time.
They're completely up front about who they are.
Yea, right. Everything is carefully cloaked in terms of social stability and order. It's just a slightly different flavored hypocrisy than what you're used to.
I'm not here to whitewash the US's sins, but to point out that once again, we see the double standard of ignoring comparable sins in China.