Any country that cant find some way of deleting the offensive excoritating rubbish that this film represents doesnt deserve to belong to the world community whatever santimonious freespeech bullshit they go on about.
Oh, there are plenty of ways to "delete" such things. What makes the US special here is that it is illegal to do most of those things. If that means the US doesn't "deserve" to be part of the so-called "world community", then so what? It is odd that you think that civilization should have an upper threshold on enlightenment.
Oh and dont think that I dont believe that information should be free becuause it should, but that doesnt extend to blatant offensive trolling directly causing many peoples deaths.
First, note that this has yet to happen. Offensive trolling hasn't killed anyone directly. Second, in the case of the movie, keep in mind that the people who did the killing just wanted a pretext. They would have found some reason to kill even if the movie had been promptly suppressed (or never started in the first place) by the US government.
And what about the people that got something horrible done to them. Any thought for them?
As the previous poster said:
and the U.S. would arrest and prosecute the bible thumpers and skinheads
He's not saying that because he doesn't like bible thumpers and skinheads. The thought for the victims is that the people responsible for harming them are brought to justice.
If people want that industry badly enough, there will be one.
Well, what's the threshold? For example, the US doesn't have a TV industry. And it's nearly lost its traditional textile industry. It seems to me that the threshold for whether an industry is "wanted" badly enough, is whether the industry can get favorable regulations, selective enforcement of that regulation, and various subsidies and rent seeking opportunities from the government. For example, US finance seems quite adept at being "wanted" enough.
I drive to Buffalo everyday, I see the turbines turning on the brown fields.
This is an anecdote and frankly doesn't say much about the quantity and quality of wind power there. Have you been watching at other times than the few minutes when you're near the turbines? Of course not. Can you tell us how much power is being generated? Of course not. All you can say is that some power is probably being generated.
The big question is, whether Japan is even capable of doing anything like this at all. They have been unable to implement internationally widespread safety measures that the contructors of the very reactors recommended, that have been destroyed in the accident. And that would have been cheap, less than $10bn for all 50 reactors, yet the Japanese didn't. And this isn't a singular experience.
What safety measures are you referring to here? And $10 billion sounds like a huge amount to me rather than "cheap". I guess I just don't have your kind of money.
It's that niggling practicality of GETTING and USING that energy that confounds us.
It's not even that hard. Those approaches have to compete with established means of power generation. If current power generation was more expensive, the alternatives you mention would be used more than they are now.
IMHO, this guy's plan for immortality through high altitude bacteria has a good chance of success. There's a lot of space up there and if he's consistently sampling for bacteria and also has a good way to search for those bacteria in his sample, he'll probably pick up a bunch of new species.
It allows you to do some pretty remarkable things on the cheap. For example, I was part of a group that sent a remote controlled airship up to 95,000 feet (which incidentally would be a world record, if we had gone through the considerable trouble to certify it). Overall cost was probably no more than $100k and a few man-years of volunteer labor (including previous launches of more normal high altitude balloons to prove some technology pieces we had trouble with).
What is a bit unusual about high altitude balloons is that it's not hard for a group of amateurs to craft balloon vehicles that are comparable to the current state of the art in some measures of performance. You're not going to duplicate the full performance and capabilities of a DoD funded reconnaissance platform costing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.
But you can develop balloon platforms that can exceed the performance of that monster in a number of basic ways. No other aerospace field has this. For example, in our case above, it's like being able to make a home-made remote controlled plane with a substantially higher altitude ceiling than a U-2.
And those other fields also often have the same sort of collusion between the reporter and the subject. The noteworthy claim in the article is not that scientists are generating spin that journalists exaggerate, but instead that most exaggerations and errors by journalists originate in such spin.
How that claim became your above "blame the scientist", I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Given that there's no modern Christian crusader, we already see a problem. And that apparently, he is a so-called "Christian atheist" which by addition of the term, "atheist" means he isn't Christian. This is the point I was coming to. Namely, that the terms he uses to describe himself, aren't applied as most of us would recognize those terms. So it is pretty deceptive to claim, for example, that he is an example of Christian violence, when he readily admits that he isn't Christian by the definition of the word. He identifies himself as "Christian", but doesn't provide the single most important identifying characteristic of being Christian.
There's been some discussion of the No True Scotsman fallacy. But it's worth remembering here that like many other fallacies, it isn't a fallacy, if it's both true and relevant to the argument. After all, it's actually worth noting that Christians don't engage in routine violence like the cultures of the Middle East do. Even when their core beliefs are challenged or reviled. They could, as has been done in previous centuries, interpret their beliefs and writings in a way that allows for such haphazard violence, but they don't.
There's always the obvious one. I don't mind exploiting Chinese labor, and Chinese labor might mind being exploited by me, but not enough to stop cashing the checks.
One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...
What makes you think that hasn't happened yet? There's an awful lot of stuff out there that portrays Jesus, God (the Christian/Jewish one), and any number of human followers in a very negative light. We don't see bombings as a result.
While that's probably true, it is worth noting that self-regulation is cheaper than ineffective regulation that doesn't do anything other than cost the public money.
I keep hearing the same song. We need to regulate industry because it won't self-regulate itself to our satisfaction. This ignores both the quality of the regulation, and how or if that regulation is enforced.
My view is that self-regulation, as skimpy as it is, can be a lot better than full scale regulation. It depends on the actual costs and benefits of the regulation. You can always sue. You can boycott a company with a particularly bad reputation. These occur even in the absence of regulation. But bad regulation can be extremely hard to compensate for in the above ways (unless one refuses to fully enforce the regulation in the first place).
if an entire industry is not playing by the rules, then that industry absolutely should be allowed to die
Why? The industry might be abominable, like assassination or slavery, but what if it isn't. Why choose to destroy the industry rather than scale the regulations back?
effective government MUST be accountable to those they govern. you can't dodge the issue of ineffective government by knee-jerking and getting rid of it altogether. rather you and everyone else should demand better.
luckily, Americans still have a second amendment that allows them to do this... the question is how much bloodshed are we all willing to tolerate for a greater good?
So if we have ineffective government, we should kill people until it becomes effective?
Why should it sound alarm bells? Deep sea drilling is also off-shore drilling and there are considerable similarities between the two activities. As it turns out, we can look at the actual disaster recovery plan and see what actually happened. And whatever they did have, plan or not, worked pretty well.
I think it would be reasonable to say that for most people, the choice to drive rather than fly was due primarily to a fear of terrorism (for which security theater might arguably be a solution).
I disagree. There's nothing reasonable about having an opinion without any evidence to support that opinion. We need to keep in mind, for example, that people who are scared of flying due to terrorists, would probably have found some other reason to be scared of flying, if terrorists weren't available.
And we also need to keep in mind that there really is a significant penalty to security theater. Not just the discomfort and uncertainty of the actual search, but also the fact that one has to show up an hour earlier in order to take a flight. Adding an hour to travel time changes the economics of air flight significantly. A lot of flights are rather short.
Another issue is that unenforced regulation can still end up with society paying for a bunch of regulators. It's just regulators that aren't for whatever reason doing their jobs. Self-regulation doesn't have this diversion of resources.
Pretty sure buying off regulators is self-regulation.
Now all you need to do is get the rest of us to agree with you. My view is that heavy regulation doesn't become self-regulation merely because society fails to enforce it. It just becomes unenforced regulation.
While the two look similar functionally, it's worth remembering that solutions to the problems are different. If self-regulation doesn't work, then one can apply a fix merely by adding regulation that addresses the deficiencies. (Of course, you might create new problems by doing so. Just pointing how the process works.)
If regulation is unenforced, then it doesn't matter how much you add, it'll still be unenforced. So it is possible in such a case to end up with both heavy regulation and an industry that would disappear, if that regulation were ever enforced according to the letter of the law. (some industries, say the assassination industry, aren't worth having, but most such industries have benefit as well as cost, and would still exist in a reasonable regulation environment.)
Another problem is that regulation can be selectively unenforced. That allows certain companies to enjoy state-granted competitive advantages. Self-regulation doesn't create such opportunities. But it does have the disadvantage of the prisoners' dilemma. Namely, that businesses which voluntarily sacrifice in certain ways can be taken advantage of by businesses that do not.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the DoD is the parent organization of the USAF you could say the DoD launched/launches GPS but that's kind of silly.
And why is that considered silly? It's a correct observation and the USAF doesn't have any significant degree of autonomy.
Any country that cant find some way of deleting the offensive excoritating rubbish that this film represents doesnt deserve to belong to the world community whatever santimonious freespeech bullshit they go on about.
Oh, there are plenty of ways to "delete" such things. What makes the US special here is that it is illegal to do most of those things. If that means the US doesn't "deserve" to be part of the so-called "world community", then so what? It is odd that you think that civilization should have an upper threshold on enlightenment.
Oh and dont think that I dont believe that information should be free becuause it should, but that doesnt extend to blatant offensive trolling directly causing many peoples deaths.
First, note that this has yet to happen. Offensive trolling hasn't killed anyone directly. Second, in the case of the movie, keep in mind that the people who did the killing just wanted a pretext. They would have found some reason to kill even if the movie had been promptly suppressed (or never started in the first place) by the US government.
an industrial or commercial site that is idle or underused because of real or perceived environmental pollution.
And what about the people that got something horrible done to them. Any thought for them?
As the previous poster said:
and the U.S. would arrest and prosecute the bible thumpers and skinheads
He's not saying that because he doesn't like bible thumpers and skinheads. The thought for the victims is that the people responsible for harming them are brought to justice.
If people want that industry badly enough, there will be one.
Well, what's the threshold? For example, the US doesn't have a TV industry. And it's nearly lost its traditional textile industry. It seems to me that the threshold for whether an industry is "wanted" badly enough, is whether the industry can get favorable regulations, selective enforcement of that regulation, and various subsidies and rent seeking opportunities from the government. For example, US finance seems quite adept at being "wanted" enough.
I drive to Buffalo everyday, I see the turbines turning on the brown fields.
This is an anecdote and frankly doesn't say much about the quantity and quality of wind power there. Have you been watching at other times than the few minutes when you're near the turbines? Of course not. Can you tell us how much power is being generated? Of course not. All you can say is that some power is probably being generated.
The big question is, whether Japan is even capable of doing anything like this at all. They have been unable to implement internationally widespread safety measures that the contructors of the very reactors recommended, that have been destroyed in the accident. And that would have been cheap, less than $10bn for all 50 reactors, yet the Japanese didn't. And this isn't a singular experience.
What safety measures are you referring to here? And $10 billion sounds like a huge amount to me rather than "cheap". I guess I just don't have your kind of money.
It's that niggling practicality of GETTING and USING that energy that confounds us.
It's not even that hard. Those approaches have to compete with established means of power generation. If current power generation was more expensive, the alternatives you mention would be used more than they are now.
Except when there's "no wind" there either. Sometimes low wind is a local phenomenon and sometimes it's not.
This is the poking robot. Do not listen to the crushing robot. He is defective. Crushing is the answer!
IMHO, this guy's plan for immortality through high altitude bacteria has a good chance of success. There's a lot of space up there and if he's consistently sampling for bacteria and also has a good way to search for those bacteria in his sample, he'll probably pick up a bunch of new species.
It allows you to do some pretty remarkable things on the cheap. For example, I was part of a group that sent a remote controlled airship up to 95,000 feet (which incidentally would be a world record, if we had gone through the considerable trouble to certify it). Overall cost was probably no more than $100k and a few man-years of volunteer labor (including previous launches of more normal high altitude balloons to prove some technology pieces we had trouble with).
What is a bit unusual about high altitude balloons is that it's not hard for a group of amateurs to craft balloon vehicles that are comparable to the current state of the art in some measures of performance. You're not going to duplicate the full performance and capabilities of a DoD funded reconnaissance platform costing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.
But you can develop balloon platforms that can exceed the performance of that monster in a number of basic ways. No other aerospace field has this. For example, in our case above, it's like being able to make a home-made remote controlled plane with a substantially higher altitude ceiling than a U-2.
Ok... so we need to regulate the industry, AND make sure that regulation is of good quality, AND make sure that regulation is enforced.
Ok, I'm good with that. Who else is with me?
You can always sue. You can boycott a company with a particularly bad reputation. These occur even in the absence of regulation
Those things can also occur when public regulations are bad
The only problem is that there might not be an industry (at least in your country) to boycott or sue.
And those other fields also often have the same sort of collusion between the reporter and the subject. The noteworthy claim in the article is not that scientists are generating spin that journalists exaggerate, but instead that most exaggerations and errors by journalists originate in such spin.
How that claim became your above "blame the scientist", I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Given that there's no modern Christian crusader, we already see a problem. And that apparently, he is a so-called "Christian atheist" which by addition of the term, "atheist" means he isn't Christian. This is the point I was coming to. Namely, that the terms he uses to describe himself, aren't applied as most of us would recognize those terms. So it is pretty deceptive to claim, for example, that he is an example of Christian violence, when he readily admits that he isn't Christian by the definition of the word. He identifies himself as "Christian", but doesn't provide the single most important identifying characteristic of being Christian.
There's been some discussion of the No True Scotsman fallacy. But it's worth remembering here that like many other fallacies, it isn't a fallacy, if it's both true and relevant to the argument. After all, it's actually worth noting that Christians don't engage in routine violence like the cultures of the Middle East do. Even when their core beliefs are challenged or reviled. They could, as has been done in previous centuries, interpret their beliefs and writings in a way that allows for such haphazard violence, but they don't.
There's always the obvious one. I don't mind exploiting Chinese labor, and Chinese labor might mind being exploited by me, but not enough to stop cashing the checks.
So what definition of these terms was Breivik using?
One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...
What makes you think that hasn't happened yet? There's an awful lot of stuff out there that portrays Jesus, God (the Christian/Jewish one), and any number of human followers in a very negative light. We don't see bombings as a result.
Right, Poe was real, and really had sex with kids.
Conversely, Mohammed is not real, and thus didn't really have sex with kids.
So what makes you think Poe was real and Mohammed not real?
While that's probably true, it is worth noting that self-regulation is cheaper than ineffective regulation that doesn't do anything other than cost the public money.
I keep hearing the same song. We need to regulate industry because it won't self-regulate itself to our satisfaction. This ignores both the quality of the regulation, and how or if that regulation is enforced.
My view is that self-regulation, as skimpy as it is, can be a lot better than full scale regulation. It depends on the actual costs and benefits of the regulation. You can always sue. You can boycott a company with a particularly bad reputation. These occur even in the absence of regulation. But bad regulation can be extremely hard to compensate for in the above ways (unless one refuses to fully enforce the regulation in the first place).
if an entire industry is not playing by the rules, then that industry absolutely should be allowed to die
Why? The industry might be abominable, like assassination or slavery, but what if it isn't. Why choose to destroy the industry rather than scale the regulations back?
effective government MUST be accountable to those they govern. you can't dodge the issue of ineffective government by knee-jerking and getting rid of it altogether. rather you and everyone else should demand better.
luckily, Americans still have a second amendment that allows them to do this... the question is how much bloodshed are we all willing to tolerate for a greater good?
So if we have ineffective government, we should kill people until it becomes effective?
Why should it sound alarm bells? Deep sea drilling is also off-shore drilling and there are considerable similarities between the two activities. As it turns out, we can look at the actual disaster recovery plan and see what actually happened. And whatever they did have, plan or not, worked pretty well.
I think it would be reasonable to say that for most people, the choice to drive rather than fly was due primarily to a fear of terrorism (for which security theater might arguably be a solution).
I disagree. There's nothing reasonable about having an opinion without any evidence to support that opinion. We need to keep in mind, for example, that people who are scared of flying due to terrorists, would probably have found some other reason to be scared of flying, if terrorists weren't available.
And we also need to keep in mind that there really is a significant penalty to security theater. Not just the discomfort and uncertainty of the actual search, but also the fact that one has to show up an hour earlier in order to take a flight. Adding an hour to travel time changes the economics of air flight significantly. A lot of flights are rather short.
Another issue is that unenforced regulation can still end up with society paying for a bunch of regulators. It's just regulators that aren't for whatever reason doing their jobs. Self-regulation doesn't have this diversion of resources.
Pretty sure buying off regulators is self-regulation.
Now all you need to do is get the rest of us to agree with you. My view is that heavy regulation doesn't become self-regulation merely because society fails to enforce it. It just becomes unenforced regulation.
While the two look similar functionally, it's worth remembering that solutions to the problems are different. If self-regulation doesn't work, then one can apply a fix merely by adding regulation that addresses the deficiencies. (Of course, you might create new problems by doing so. Just pointing how the process works.)
If regulation is unenforced, then it doesn't matter how much you add, it'll still be unenforced. So it is possible in such a case to end up with both heavy regulation and an industry that would disappear, if that regulation were ever enforced according to the letter of the law. (some industries, say the assassination industry, aren't worth having, but most such industries have benefit as well as cost, and would still exist in a reasonable regulation environment.)
Another problem is that regulation can be selectively unenforced. That allows certain companies to enjoy state-granted competitive advantages. Self-regulation doesn't create such opportunities. But it does have the disadvantage of the prisoners' dilemma. Namely, that businesses which voluntarily sacrifice in certain ways can be taken advantage of by businesses that do not.