Everything manmade comes about as a result of behaviour. The distinction is not a useful one.
If you fail to wear a seat belt in the back of a car, you might just kill the person sitting in front of you. I should imagine that a front seat occupant is more likely to kill someone in the front of the other vehicle in the case of a head-on collision.
Where does your fist end and the other guy's face begin? It's a sliding scale. Marijuana might bring out psychotic tendencies in enough people to be considered a risk (to others; risk to yourself is nobody's business but your own). As it stands it's a no-brainer because alcohol is legal and demonstrably worse, and while that situation remains there's no case for marijuana prohibition (or perhaps no case for alcohol to be legal? Drink driving kills, and while you might argue that it's the driving that should be illegal rather than the drinking, there's no doubt it impairs your ability to judge the implications of driving under the influence).
I don't disagree that you can come up with at least three examples of freedoms that do not lead tragedies of the commons.
But what if consensus is hard to reach about certain other things, e.g. air pollution? Do you just engage in it because nobody can "pin it down" to the satisfaction of everybody?
Given that information wants to be free, and that DRM doesn't really work, what do you think the long-term prospects are for monetizing content on the web?
Advertising will increasingly be an important part of keeping content being generated. Advertising based on user profiling will be more economical and less intrusive. Google understands this, but they don't require you to opt out of deep packet inspection to avoid it. That's where the controversy lies with Phorm -- are they breaking the law (they say not, but most others say they are) and is the law doing enough to protect privacy?
I see you're prepared to believe the physicists when they say that black holes will be created, but not when they say that those black holes will evaporate harmlessly.
Do not underestimate the power of capitalism to produce efficiency.
I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. Oil is basically solar energy collected over millions of years. The only thing that could come close to producing comparable energy in a similar timescale is nuclear fission, which brings with it a whole host of problems such as waste, potential for terrorist attack, etc.
I didn't say small things can't hurt me
Yes, you did. You said that the relative rise was meaningless because the absolute proportion is still tiny. I say again: the absolute proportion of ricin to blood in your body can be even smaller and still kill you.
* Danmarkshavn, Greenland - 2007 annual temperature was lower than it was in 1957 (measurements started in 1951) [and similar meaningless statistics]
Statistical anomalies are all very interesting, but you need to look at trends. Anyway, why did you start talking about climate change? We were talking about resources.
Humans have been breathing for thousands of years, but nobody has ever yet simultaneously breathed and thought about twelve thousand four hundred and ninety-six books about fruit all connected together by friendship bracelets.
I had to hold my breath while writing about that just now in order to be able to think about it without risking the entire universe imploding into a singularity.
Let me know if you manage to think about it and breathe at the same time. If we can get away with that, I think we can safely turn on the LHC (as you can surely agree that the whole universe imploding is a substantially worse risk than a single black hole or explosion).
Nobody's saying "it will work fine". We're just saying "it won't explode". If you're saying "it will explode", provide some evidence. Otherwise, yours are just the ravings of a lunatic.
There is still a lot of knowledge we can get without playing with this big buggy monster, at least until we are sure it's not buggy and that the calculations where right.
We are sure. It's only you (and a couple of other crazies) who think otherwise.
Yep, the universe is conducting huge physics experiments, but very VERY far away from where we are, not in the middle of Europe.
The earth is constantly being bombarded with high-energy radiation. Some of that bombardment happens above Europe. The ionosphere is about 50km-1000km away from the earth's surface. What exactly do you mean by very VERY far away?
The fact is that when the cost of oil starts to become more expensive than the cost of $ALTERNATIVE_ENERGY_SOURCE, people will change over, automatically, very quickly, and without any kind of regulations needed by the government.
Change over to what? Our entire infrastructure relies on cheap oil.
but when you realise that ppm means parts per million, you realise how tiny that is.
"Small things can't hurt me!" I suggest you take a dose of ricin and get back to me about that.
Measurements taken away from urban areas show no significant warming.
Every other form of fusion we know about requires tremendous heat and pressure throughout before fusion begins. Like a magnetically contained plasma heated to 100 million C, or a mass much greater than that of Jupiter, before fusion will even start.
Bingo. I would go a step further and point out that one's personal vehicular transport is just the tip of the iceberg. When the effects of peak oil start being felt, petrochemical fertilisers, import/export, and all sorts of other ways in which we rely on oil will make themselves starkly apparent.
When we can't buy stuff cheaply any more even though it's made by peasants in a third world country, because the haulage starts to form the largest part of the cost, we will cease to be as rich. Our purchasing power will be worth less. The pay cut will sort itself out.
Ok mister rich American dude, let's work together. Let's all start using bicycles to go to work from now on...
I'm a European, I do not have a car, and I work from home. Your assumptions are unwarranted.
Whether you like it or not, it's only human nature to want more out of life.
Whether you like it or not, it is simply impossible for everyone to live like Americans and Europeans currently do. Increasingly, it's not even possible for Americans and Europeans to live like that. Again: this is not a moral argument, it's an observation of supply and demand in a world of finite resources.
Although this post is a troll, the bottom line is this: You cannot demand sacrifices from other people (people who are already less fortunate than you) without doing some sacrifices yourself.
What in my post gave you the impression that I do not expect to make sacrifices myself? I'll say it again in case you missed it first time: we all have to work together now.
There's no point being defeatist about it. Until fusion is sorted out (hopefully soon?) the rest of the world simply cannot enjoy such a high standard of living as the west has indulged itself in these past few decades. I mean "cannot" in a physical rather than a moral sense. The time for crying hypocrite is over. We all have to work together now.
As for enabling more people to drive? Umm, why is it fair to prevent others from enjoying the same quality of life that you or I have?
Quite. The solution is for you to give up your car, not for them to get one.
I mean, if people are going to start worrying about the environment, perhaps the solution is to nuke ourselves off this rock for "Urth Mother"?
You are welcome to commit suicide if you want, but don't presume to make the decision for the rest of us.
Look folks. The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression.
I may not be able to, but the fact is that the rest of the world simply cannot have the same standard of living that we have. Indeed, in part, we enjoy it because they work for us to have it.
What you can do however, is develop more efficient ways of achieving that goal.
That's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's rather too little too late. We're going to have to prepare ourselves for a severe cut in our standards of living.
How about just inventing a system where we hand over one-time tokens to the value of the goods we want to purchase, rather than, every time we use our credit card, giving some random stranger enough information to make independent purchases of their own?
I mean, duh! It would turn headlines like these into "Breach exposes 19,000 spent tokens", which is to say, not headlines at all.
Also, how is this a "known problem" with Google? The fact that Google caches and indexes public information is a feature, not a bug. The problem lies with whoever took private information and made it public.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything manmade comes about as a result of behaviour. The distinction is not a useful one.
If you fail to wear a seat belt in the back of a car, you might just kill the person sitting in front of you. I should imagine that a front seat occupant is more likely to kill someone in the front of the other vehicle in the case of a head-on collision.
Where does your fist end and the other guy's face begin? It's a sliding scale. Marijuana might bring out psychotic tendencies in enough people to be considered a risk (to others; risk to yourself is nobody's business but your own). As it stands it's a no-brainer because alcohol is legal and demonstrably worse, and while that situation remains there's no case for marijuana prohibition (or perhaps no case for alcohol to be legal? Drink driving kills, and while you might argue that it's the driving that should be illegal rather than the drinking, there's no doubt it impairs your ability to judge the implications of driving under the influence).
And how does that help us for the coming resource crisis? Is the replicator arriving shortly after the flying car?
I don't disagree that you can come up with at least three examples of freedoms that do not lead tragedies of the commons.
But what if consensus is hard to reach about certain other things, e.g. air pollution? Do you just engage in it because nobody can "pin it down" to the satisfaction of everybody?
When will people realize that real freedom is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, provided that it isn't harming your neighbor?
Harm to your neighbour is sometimes difficult to pin down. You should read up about the "tragedy of the commons" sometime.
blah blah second amendment blah blah wouldn't happen here blah blah if we had a corrupt government we'd force them out of power blah blah.
Where were you guys when the Bush family cheated democracy? You're all talk.
Spot on. I'd also be fine with CCTV if all streams were public and all access logs available.
Given that information wants to be free, and that DRM doesn't really work, what do you think the long-term prospects are for monetizing content on the web?
Advertising will increasingly be an important part of keeping content being generated. Advertising based on user profiling will be more economical and less intrusive. Google understands this, but they don't require you to opt out of deep packet inspection to avoid it. That's where the controversy lies with Phorm -- are they breaking the law (they say not, but most others say they are) and is the law doing enough to protect privacy?
I see you're prepared to believe the physicists when they say that black holes will be created, but not when they say that those black holes will evaporate harmlessly.
Care to explain why?
Do not underestimate the power of capitalism to produce efficiency.
I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. Oil is basically solar energy collected over millions of years. The only thing that could come close to producing comparable energy in a similar timescale is nuclear fission, which brings with it a whole host of problems such as waste, potential for terrorist attack, etc.
I didn't say small things can't hurt me
Yes, you did. You said that the relative rise was meaningless because the absolute proportion is still tiny. I say again: the absolute proportion of ricin to blood in your body can be even smaller and still kill you.
* Danmarkshavn, Greenland - 2007 annual temperature was lower than it was in 1957 (measurements started in 1951)
[and similar meaningless statistics]
Statistical anomalies are all very interesting, but you need to look at trends. Anyway, why did you start talking about climate change? We were talking about resources.
Humans have been breathing for thousands of years, but nobody has ever yet simultaneously breathed and thought about twelve thousand four hundred and ninety-six books about fruit all connected together by friendship bracelets.
I had to hold my breath while writing about that just now in order to be able to think about it without risking the entire universe imploding into a singularity.
Let me know if you manage to think about it and breathe at the same time. If we can get away with that, I think we can safely turn on the LHC (as you can surely agree that the whole universe imploding is a substantially worse risk than a single black hole or explosion).
Nobody's saying "it will work fine". We're just saying "it won't explode". If you're saying "it will explode", provide some evidence. Otherwise, yours are just the ravings of a lunatic.
There is still a lot of knowledge we can get without playing with this big buggy monster, at least until we are sure it's not buggy and that the calculations where right.
We are sure. It's only you (and a couple of other crazies) who think otherwise.
Maybe it doesn't turn into a big black hole, but it can explode and/or cause any other tragedy.
More likely is that any power plant you name could explode and cause a tragedy.
I know, let's shut down every single power station in existence!
At least that would have the side effect of downing the internet and we wouldn't have to listen to any more of your nonsensical tripe.
Yep, the universe is conducting huge physics experiments, but very VERY far away from where we are, not in the middle of Europe.
The earth is constantly being bombarded with high-energy radiation. Some of that bombardment happens above Europe. The ionosphere is about 50km-1000km away from the earth's surface. What exactly do you mean by very VERY far away?
The fact is that when the cost of oil starts to become more expensive than the cost of $ALTERNATIVE_ENERGY_SOURCE, people will change over, automatically, very quickly, and without any kind of regulations needed by the government.
Change over to what? Our entire infrastructure relies on cheap oil.
but when you realise that ppm means parts per million, you realise how tiny that is.
"Small things can't hurt me!" I suggest you take a dose of ricin and get back to me about that.
Measurements taken away from urban areas show no significant warming.
The Arctic begs to differ.
I've seen this happen too much professionally to think of it as a trend.
I've seen this sort of anecdotal nonsense too much on Slashdot to think of it as statistically significant.
until you are SURE you have a better handle on the issues.
Maybe you should wait until you completely understand the basics of physics before you talk about man-made black holes wiping out our solar system?
Every other form of fusion we know about requires tremendous heat and pressure throughout before fusion begins. Like a magnetically contained plasma heated to 100 million C, or a mass much greater than that of Jupiter, before fusion will even start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
Bingo. I would go a step further and point out that one's personal vehicular transport is just the tip of the iceberg. When the effects of peak oil start being felt, petrochemical fertilisers, import/export, and all sorts of other ways in which we rely on oil will make themselves starkly apparent.
When we can't buy stuff cheaply any more even though it's made by peasants in a third world country, because the haulage starts to form the largest part of the cost, we will cease to be as rich. Our purchasing power will be worth less. The pay cut will sort itself out.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be driving cars. I'm saying that everyone in the world driving cars is not possible.
I'm not moralising. I'm pointing out that resources are finite.
What does money have to do with anything I said? You seem to have completely missed the fact that I'm talking about resources.
Ok mister rich American dude, let's work together. Let's all start using bicycles to go to work from now on ...
I'm a European, I do not have a car, and I work from home. Your assumptions are unwarranted.
Whether you like it or not, it's only human nature to want more out of life.
Whether you like it or not, it is simply impossible for everyone to live like Americans and Europeans currently do. Increasingly, it's not even possible for Americans and Europeans to live like that. Again: this is not a moral argument, it's an observation of supply and demand in a world of finite resources.
Although this post is a troll, the bottom line is this: You cannot demand sacrifices from other people (people who are already less fortunate than you) without doing some sacrifices yourself.
What in my post gave you the impression that I do not expect to make sacrifices myself? I'll say it again in case you missed it first time: we all have to work together now.
There's no point being defeatist about it. Until fusion is sorted out (hopefully soon?) the rest of the world simply cannot enjoy such a high standard of living as the west has indulged itself in these past few decades. I mean "cannot" in a physical rather than a moral sense. The time for crying hypocrite is over. We all have to work together now.
As for enabling more people to drive? Umm, why is it fair to prevent others from enjoying the same quality of life that you or I have?
Quite. The solution is for you to give up your car, not for them to get one.
I mean, if people are going to start worrying about the environment, perhaps the solution is to nuke ourselves off this rock for "Urth Mother"?
You are welcome to commit suicide if you want, but don't presume to make the decision for the rest of us.
Look folks. The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression.
I may not be able to, but the fact is that the rest of the world simply cannot have the same standard of living that we have. Indeed, in part, we enjoy it because they work for us to have it.
What you can do however, is develop more efficient ways of achieving that goal.
That's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's rather too little too late. We're going to have to prepare ourselves for a severe cut in our standards of living.
How about just inventing a system where we hand over one-time tokens to the value of the goods we want to purchase, rather than, every time we use our credit card, giving some random stranger enough information to make independent purchases of their own?
I mean, duh! It would turn headlines like these into "Breach exposes 19,000 spent tokens", which is to say, not headlines at all.
Also, how is this a "known problem" with Google? The fact that Google caches and indexes public information is a feature, not a bug. The problem lies with whoever took private information and made it public.