And if it hadn't been for fossil fuels NYC wouldn't be nearly as big as it is today...
And, of course, Ted Kennedy contributed enough that we should just forget about Chappaquiddick, right? And all those directors produced movies good enough that we should disregard their personal sexual activities? Unless we want every court case to balance assorted effects of unknown magnitude and construct alternative realities to compare possibilities, we should keep to the point in court cases. In this case, the point is that fraud by fossil fuel companies led to increased use of fossil fuels, causing more global warming, which is hurting New York City. That's enough for a judge an jury to worry about.
You're also saying that suing a particular company is wrong because of the general industry it's in. We buy cars; should we be able to sue if one is defective and kills people?
The reason we aim for a government of laws is that it's safer. If judges start throwing out laws because they don't like them, we get cases like lynch mob prosecution being dismissed. Since your complaint is that Yelp wasn't punished, I have to believe that you're concerned with lack of punishment as being unjust in some circumstances.
The proper thing to do is to lobby the appropriate legislative bodies to change the law, not to make it up on the spot.
“Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.
"Detectable" is used here in a more restricted sense than I usually use it. If certain weather events are more common because of AGW, but there's still reasonable statistical doubt, that's not "detectable".
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
In other words, the IPCC can't show definitely that current AGW is causing more hurricanes, but the data is consistent with it doing that. The IPCC also said that the effects will probably show up by 2100, and that it's more likely than not that extreme hurricanes will increase more than that. So, AGW will probably cause more extreme weather effects, we may be getting that already, but we can't ascribe anything in particular to AGW. That's what I said.
As I said, that will depend on what the policy says. I don't know enough to comment other than that. Are you sufficiently familiar with policies to make a blanket statement?
Not to mention that, even if we established that US blacks were 10 IQ points less than US whites, it wouldn't necessarily mean anything biological. It would mean the average US black was 10 IQ points smarter than the average US person in 1930.
FWIW, I was trying to get something out that had fallen into an EDM machine, and I couldn't use the soap dispensers in the rest rooms. They didn't recognize the things at the end of my arms, covered with black stuff, as hands.
Probably fairly close. Bear in mind that lots of people who didn't show up well on Kodak film were annoyed by it, and companies do not normally maximize profits by turning groups of customers away.
NBA players are the best basketball players the teams can find. Basically, they're freaks (but in a positive way), just like MLB players and chess grandmasters. You've got to expect some differences from statistical norms.
How about we know that lots of people are racist, and we can find racial discrimination easily? I try not to be racist, and I think I do a decent job, but I'm not going to go all the way and say I'm definitely not racist.
I'd say the main group keeping it in play is racist whites who want to feel superior to someone. Eliminate white racism and racial discrimination and the other racism should fade reasonably fast.
I would imagine it uses supervised learning*, and the training software may use captions to specify what the algorithm is supposed to find. I'd hope Google verified it for accuracy, though.
*Supervised learning, in this case, means feeding the algorithm a whole lot of photos, each marked with what it's supposed to classify each photo as. Unsupervised learning would be feeding a lot of photos and letting it pick out which fall into groups.
When we're importing cars from Bolivia and microwave ovens from ex-Soviet republics, it will be because those are no longer cutting edge (and that will take some time with cars). We'll be manufacturing newer and more profitable stuff by then, in large quantities.
FWIW, US manufacturing is in great shape. What it doesn't do is employ nearly as many people as it used to. We largely exported the low-margin stuff that benefits from cheap labor and kept the good stuff, which is now pretty heavily automated. The jobs that unskilled people used to get in large numbers now go to people in other countries or machines.
The US was unquestioned top dog in pretty much everything in the 50s and late 40s, having the advanced economy that wasn't devastated by the war. (The UK economy was mostly broke and worn out from the war.) Then the previously devastated countries started recovering, and Europe got more important again. Then countries that didn't have advanced economies started getting them. At first, they were fairly small (Singapore and South Korea, to name two), but they're increasing.
Leading is harder than following, so we have to expect less developed economies to catch up.
No, it's not their success that makes them not Communist. It's how they're getting it. There's a lot of private-sector business going on, including large conglomerates. The Soviet Union permitted private businesses, but they couldn't have employees. If you worked for someone or something, you were working for the State. That's how Communism works (not well, empirically). In China, you might well be working for a large private business that made some private Chinese very rich. In the Soviet Union, you would become very rich through politics, although ability helped.
Or politics. The Chinese had large exploration fleets roaming the Indian Ocean, and could have dominated the seas for a long time to come. Except that the shipbuilding industry was on the wrong side in a dynastic struggle. In Europe, it didn't really matter if crappy politics screwed something up in one country (and it did), because another country would seize the opportunity. I think the division of Europe into many countries might be its biggest advantage over China.
Slashdot Mirror
What's to stop people from using that technique now? As a human driver, I don't have a magical ability to pass through humans and leave them unharmed.
And, of course, Ted Kennedy contributed enough that we should just forget about Chappaquiddick, right? And all those directors produced movies good enough that we should disregard their personal sexual activities? Unless we want every court case to balance assorted effects of unknown magnitude and construct alternative realities to compare possibilities, we should keep to the point in court cases. In this case, the point is that fraud by fossil fuel companies led to increased use of fossil fuels, causing more global warming, which is hurting New York City. That's enough for a judge an jury to worry about.
You're also saying that suing a particular company is wrong because of the general industry it's in. We buy cars; should we be able to sue if one is defective and kills people?
The reason we aim for a government of laws is that it's safer. If judges start throwing out laws because they don't like them, we get cases like lynch mob prosecution being dismissed. Since your complaint is that Yelp wasn't punished, I have to believe that you're concerned with lack of punishment as being unjust in some circumstances.
The proper thing to do is to lobby the appropriate legislative bodies to change the law, not to make it up on the spot.
Let me take a few quotes from your IPCC cite:
"Detectable" is used here in a more restricted sense than I usually use it. If certain weather events are more common because of AGW, but there's still reasonable statistical doubt, that's not "detectable".
In other words, the IPCC can't show definitely that current AGW is causing more hurricanes, but the data is consistent with it doing that. The IPCC also said that the effects will probably show up by 2100, and that it's more likely than not that extreme hurricanes will increase more than that. So, AGW will probably cause more extreme weather effects, we may be getting that already, but we can't ascribe anything in particular to AGW. That's what I said.
As I said, that will depend on what the policy says. I don't know enough to comment other than that. Are you sufficiently familiar with policies to make a blanket statement?
Except if it's a large group without large deviations from the average, right?
My colonoscopy was the least comfortable I've ever been in a medical situation without something being seriously wrong with me.
Not to mention that, even if we established that US blacks were 10 IQ points less than US whites, it wouldn't necessarily mean anything biological. It would mean the average US black was 10 IQ points smarter than the average US person in 1930.
Another problem is people refusing to recognize racism that exists, perpetuating it for generation after generation.
Depends on the speed of the encounter, I guess. I've had to get mine fixed after encounters with obstacles before.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a gorilla.
However, it's pretty damn hard to buy suitable keyboards from Amazon.
FWIW, I was trying to get something out that had fallen into an EDM machine, and I couldn't use the soap dispensers in the rest rooms. They didn't recognize the things at the end of my arms, covered with black stuff, as hands.
Probably fairly close. Bear in mind that lots of people who didn't show up well on Kodak film were annoyed by it, and companies do not normally maximize profits by turning groups of customers away.
Because 'monkey" has connotations of doing something useful if low-level, maybe?
There's also the fact that the human nervous system is tuned by random hacks over hundreds of thousands of years to perceive humans.
NBA players are the best basketball players the teams can find. Basically, they're freaks (but in a positive way), just like MLB players and chess grandmasters. You've got to expect some differences from statistical norms.
How about we know that lots of people are racist, and we can find racial discrimination easily? I try not to be racist, and I think I do a decent job, but I'm not going to go all the way and say I'm definitely not racist.
I'd say the main group keeping it in play is racist whites who want to feel superior to someone. Eliminate white racism and racial discrimination and the other racism should fade reasonably fast.
I would imagine it uses supervised learning*, and the training software may use captions to specify what the algorithm is supposed to find. I'd hope Google verified it for accuracy, though.
*Supervised learning, in this case, means feeding the algorithm a whole lot of photos, each marked with what it's supposed to classify each photo as. Unsupervised learning would be feeding a lot of photos and letting it pick out which fall into groups.
Michelle Obama was sometimes referred to as a gorilla in a dress or some such. I think she postdates the slave trade.
When we're importing cars from Bolivia and microwave ovens from ex-Soviet republics, it will be because those are no longer cutting edge (and that will take some time with cars). We'll be manufacturing newer and more profitable stuff by then, in large quantities.
FWIW, US manufacturing is in great shape. What it doesn't do is employ nearly as many people as it used to. We largely exported the low-margin stuff that benefits from cheap labor and kept the good stuff, which is now pretty heavily automated. The jobs that unskilled people used to get in large numbers now go to people in other countries or machines.
The US was unquestioned top dog in pretty much everything in the 50s and late 40s, having the advanced economy that wasn't devastated by the war. (The UK economy was mostly broke and worn out from the war.) Then the previously devastated countries started recovering, and Europe got more important again. Then countries that didn't have advanced economies started getting them. At first, they were fairly small (Singapore and South Korea, to name two), but they're increasing.
Leading is harder than following, so we have to expect less developed economies to catch up.
No, it's not their success that makes them not Communist. It's how they're getting it. There's a lot of private-sector business going on, including large conglomerates. The Soviet Union permitted private businesses, but they couldn't have employees. If you worked for someone or something, you were working for the State. That's how Communism works (not well, empirically). In China, you might well be working for a large private business that made some private Chinese very rich. In the Soviet Union, you would become very rich through politics, although ability helped.
Or politics. The Chinese had large exploration fleets roaming the Indian Ocean, and could have dominated the seas for a long time to come. Except that the shipbuilding industry was on the wrong side in a dynastic struggle. In Europe, it didn't really matter if crappy politics screwed something up in one country (and it did), because another country would seize the opportunity. I think the division of Europe into many countries might be its biggest advantage over China.
Look on the bright side. Adjuncts get paid so little that resigning in disgust wouldn't cost your colleague much.